Talk:Toy Story (franchise)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi all,

This looks like an interesting, important article: a wide overview Toy Story franchise. Given its complexity and the level of work which has clearly gone into it my review will take a few days to complete. Other editors are welcome to make comments, from snags to structural points.

Over-rall the article is well-conceived according to WP:Summary style, there should be overview articles like this to organise so much content. However, it many places it feels hacked together from bits of other articles without sufficient depth of information.

The Cast and characters section contains a well made table, but this should be moved to the list article (a mess at the moment I know) and its contents summarised in prose. Focus on the main protagonists and antagonists, notable actors who've played them, and some comment on their characterisation, in a family film do they represent god and evil contrastingly, etc.

Reception in both sub-sections the same information is presented in prose and a table. Choose one or the other (Any temporary cuts can be placed in a sandbox for the moment). The earnings section should report on just the box office takings of opening weekends, but to summarise the extent of revenue across the entire franchise. Business and financial press might be a better source than movie buff websites here.

The critical opinion section needs some qualitative reporting of critics' opinion to complement the indices.

Awards contains the same duplication of information, since there is a separate list of awards I feel that prose would work best here. Take a high level view, and shorten award names after the first mention:

"Toy Story 3 has earned five pending nominations at the 83rd Academy Awards which are: the Animated Feature, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Song, Best Sound Editing, and Best Picture,..."

Theme park attractions Some secondary source is needed to discuss the phenomenon, a list of rides referenced to their websites is not enough. What kind of license agreements do they have? For how much. On what from the canon are the rides based?

A style point: the use of bold one the first use of a film's title in its own sub-section is hard on the eye, italics suffice.

Bigger structural point: I feel that the trilogy of feature films is the heart of the franchise. The products in other media should be grouped together in a second section: Spin-offs (a more formal term possibly?), shorts, theme park, video games and merchandise should all be in a second, level-one section.

This template might also be useful: Template:Film_series

Missing a fuller discussion of the franchise's cultural and technical legacy. The "To infinity and beyond" section is interesting, but completely copied from the film article and inadequate here. The films' innovations are frequently alluded too, but never enumerated.

Possible source: [http://www.economist.com/node/5244073 From “Toy Story” to “Chicken Little”, "The Economist" Dec 8th 2005 | from PRINT EDITION

Commercial analysis sources

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12022113

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100214005225/en/Disney-Pixar%E2%80%99s-Toy-Story-3-Takes-Toy-Fair

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm closing the review as a fail, unfortunately there hasn't been much for a response by editors, possibly due to the length of time between nomination and review. I also have a feeling that this article has cobbled together to make a good topic. In summary, it is too bitty in structure, canonical films and various other media need to be more logically grouped together. It must rely less on the lead sections of other articles. Secondary sources should describe the scope of the franchise, its genesis and management. If anyone's interested in working on the article, or wants further clarification, please ask me on my talk page. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)