Talk:Violet Parr/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 23:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's, ahem, incredible that you found this much information about a supporting character in a film franchise, to the extent that not even the main characters of the films have articles yet. Nevertheless, a skim through the article clearly reveals that this is a really interesting topic, and having just enjoyed the sequel film in theaters myself, I look forward to giving this article a read through this weekend!
 * Haha you're too kind! You honestly give me too much credit. It's quite the opposite, in fact; I tend to navigate towards supporting characters because sometimes I find the process of editing main characters daunting/overwhelming, but thank you so much to taking on this review. I look forward to your comments.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I asked the GA nominator whether it was okay to do this review not more than a week after the sequel film was released, and they said that they did not expect the article to change significantly during the course of the review (i.e. most of the work to update the article has already been done). Mz7 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

 * A few entries in the infobox are a little strange. Is "Super" really appropriate for the "species" field? Also, the character's birthday seems like trivial information – is there a source that verifies it? Mz7 (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think "Super" is the species that the film's main characters fall under, similar to how an X-men character would be classified as a "Mutant" in their infobox. And Violet's birthday was added by an anonymous editor; I've already removed it.--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, still not sure. I'm not very familiar with the X-Men, but my impression was that the species field refers literally to what animal species the fictional character is. This is generally only relevant when the character is not human. In this case, Violet is still a human being who happened to be born with superhuman abilities. Calling her species "Super" felt strange to me because it feels like we're saying she isn't human. Maybe this is just a perspective thing – I think of it as the opposite of how some humans are born with disabilities; Violet was simply born with increased ability, doesn't mean she's a different species of human. But I can also see where you're coming from, since the films do seem to draw a bright line between Super and non-Super. Mz7 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and discussion! Although it's probably a lot easier to simply remove the term "super" altogether, my point actually extends to most Marvel superheroes on Wikipedia, beyond simply the X-men. For example, Spider-Man is identified as a "Human mutate" in his infobox, while X-men's Jean Grey is referred to as a Human mutant, both humans whose genetic makeup has been altered in some way that in turn provides them with extraordinary abilities, the primary difference (from my understanding at least) is that mutates acquire their abilities at some point in their life, usually artificially or via encounters with scientific experiments, while mutants are born with these powers (if Violet was in the X-men universe, she would probably be classified as a mutant). Perhaps the more accurate term for Violet would be a "Human super"? But for some reason that just doesn't sound right. Violet is still human for sure, as are most superheroes (unless they happen to be alien), but there is definitely a distinction made between her and "normal" humans that probably wouldn't occur if, say, she was simply born with a disability.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks for the update and the links to the other articles for examples. Interesting. Since you clearly have more experience in this topic area than me, I'm happy to defer to your judgment on this. Mz7 (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

 * Throughout the course of the film, Violet gradually matures... - now that a sequel film exists, it may be helpful to change "film" to "films" Mz7 (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're totally right, I've changed this to "films".--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Development section

 * I feel that the paragraphs here are unwieldily long, and the information they contain are a bit too loosely organized. To make the article more readable and more organized, I would suggest introducing just a bit more structure: perhaps a few paragraphs could be split up and additional section headers could be introduced.
 * I have put up an initial idea of what I have in mind at Talk:Violet Parr/GA1/sandbox.
 * The first two paragraphs of "Creation and voice" are more about Vowell being cast for the role, whereas the second two paragraphs are more about Vowell's vocal work itself. Accordingly, the first two paragraphs could form a standalone subsection called "Creation and casting", and the last two paragraphs could form a standalone subsection called "Vocal work".
 * I think the third paragraph of "Creation and voice" could be split up to make the article more organized. The middle part of the paragraph discusses Vowell comparing the difference between vocal work for radio and vocal work for film, whereas the first and last parts of the paragraph discuss Vowell's reflection of doing the voice as a whole. Accordingly, I thought the first and last parts could be split off and merged into their own separate paragraph – look at Talk:Violet Parr/GA1/sandbox for an example what I mean.
 * Similarly, in the "Personality and design" section, two of the four paragraphs are dedicated to discussing Violet's hair animation. Those two paragraphs could be split off into a separate section titled "Hair" or "Hair animation". Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I loveeeeeee the example you created in the Sandbox; I had actually briefly considered doing something similar a little while back, but I know that some editors are kind of against using "too many" headings in articles so I was a little hesitant; I've made some changes based on your suggestions, although I think using "Voice" and "Hair" in lieu of "Vocal work" and "Hair animation" works a little bit better since, for example, the paragraph about her hair isn't only about the animation process, but also the role it plays in the film by determining her personality.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Looks good. Perhaps some editors are against "too many" headings, but in this case, I think it's a net positive as a means of better organizing the content. I think what the editors are trying to say is having too much granularity in the section headings can lead to trivial things getting undue attention. We could have added even more section headings like "Differences between radio work and film work" or "Clothing", but those aren't necessary because it's not important to give those separate attention. Mz7 (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Creation and voice

 * For the interview by The Independent, the author appears to be a man named Nick Hornby. You may wish to add author information to the citation. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, I spent so long searching for the rightful author of that article; never even took in the fact that it's mentioned right in the title itself. Thanks!--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Violet is voiced by American author and actress Sarah Vowell, who claims to have been cast "out of the blue". – Technically, it was not Vowell who said the words "out of the blue", but the interviewer, who asks whether she was cast "out of the blue", to which she responds, "Light blue. Fairly blue." It might be better to just avoid the idiom entirely and change the sentence to: "Violet is voiced by American author and actress Sarah Vowell, who claims to have been offered the role unexpectedly." Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Vowell was officially cast in 2000." – I couldn't find this statement in the source. Vowell speculates that around 2000 Bird heard her on This American Life. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Characterization and themes section

 * Cite note 50 - minor issue, but Disney Visa Credit Card is a strange name for a website citation – my first thought was that there might be some character information on the back of a literal credit card. Looking at the source, I would probably change this to Disney Rewards Insider, which is the name of the blog in which this article is published. Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * According to Daphne Carr, author of Nine Inch Nails' Pretty Hate Machine, ... - per MOS:MAJORWORK, book titles should be italicized. Mz7 (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I missed that; fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * For cite note 44, the IGN article, you currently link to an archived version of the article because the article is dead at that URL. Here is a link to a live version of the same article at a new URL. Mz7 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed; replaced old url with new live url, and removed archive.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * She quickly becomes skilled to the point of which she becomes able to perform significantly more feats with her force fields, to the point of which she is able to manipulate them to create various effects. - This sentence is awkward because it repeats the phrasing "the point of which" twice. (Also, "the point at which" sounds better in my head.) You might be able to just remove the second point-of-which: "She quickly becomes skilled to the point at which she becomes able to perform significantly more feats with her force fields, manipulating them to create various effects." Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I must have been sleepy here lol; fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a big deal, but it may be helpful to move the picture of The Invisible Woman next to the last paragraph of the "Powers and abilities" subsection, which mentions The Invisible Woman. However, I don't think this is a big deal, since that's a bit of an awkward spot for an image (right in between sections). Mz7 (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Lengthiness
I'm not finished reading through the article yet, but as I'm doing so, I am getting the feeling that this article is too long. The article currently sits at 90,676 bytes, and almost all of that is prose. For comparison, the article about the movies themselves—The Incredibles and Incredibles 2—are only 63,359 bytes and 50,224 bytes, respectively. That seems a bit counterintuitive and unbalanced, don't you think? A supporting character is getting more coverage in the encyclopedia than either of the films she appears in.

I think an effort should be made to make the article more concise. Try to find places where the article might be redundant to itself: for example, consider whether some sources are pretty much repeating essentially the same information, i.e. that Violet is a shy and occasionally awkward teenager. Try to find details that, though interesting to a fan, might not be essential to a summary of the most important details of the subject. Those details could be candidates for removal.

I think a good rule-of-thumb we should aim for is to get the article under roughly 65,000 bytes: the size of the GA-Class article The Incredibles. You can see the size of each revision by looking at the revision history: the size in bytes is listed to the right of the username and to the left of the edit summary. Mz7 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While I do agree that the article is on the longer side of things and I'm open to trimming the fat, I think the term "too long" is rather subjective, especially if you compare this article to its parent articles about the two films which, in my opinion, are actually quite underdeveloped given the amount of information that is currently available about them (despite The Incredibles being a GA, it entirely lacks a "Casting" section, while "2" barely touches upon anything to do with the animation process). For perspective, the first and second Toy Story films, both GA-class articles, are 110,147 and 95,883 bytes in length, respectively, while The Lion King clocks in at a hefty 103,975, meaning that they would be roughly the same length as Violet. FA character articles such as Homer Simpson and Lightning (Final Fantasy) are 80,584 bytes and 96,046 bytes, which happen to be roughly the same lengths as their corresponding film/video game articles. I'll definitely work on reducing the length of Violet as much as I can (the Characterization and Appearances sections might be a good place to start), but I think it's actually the Incredibles film's articles that need to be brought up to "Parr", if I may. Surely, if both articles received the coverage currently available to them, they would both be significantly longer.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response,, and sorry for the delay in getting this review finished. I should have it completed by the end of tomorrow. I've mulled it over the past few days, and I'm afraid I'm still not sure. I think we have to keep the fact that this is a supporting character in perspective; it seems disproportionate that it has close to the same amount of coverage as some of our articles about feature-length films, like The Lion King. That doesn't seem like an accurate reflection of the sources. The relevant point of the good article criteria is 3b: . Still thinking; I think I might ask around some of the WikiProjects to see what they think about the length – if they're okay with it, then so am I. Mz7 (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Though I would say that I think you do make a good point that it is the Incredibles film articles that need to be brought "up to parr". Mz7 (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Result: 2nd opinion

 * Result (pass/fail): Symbol neutral vote.svg 2nd opinion requested Symbol support vote.svg Pass

I would like a second GA reviewer to look over this. I've read through the whole article, and as I said from the start, this is clearly an interesting topic that has received a good deal of attention. My worry, however, is that at 91,079 bytes, the article may be excessively detailed and/or too long. The nominator has clearly spent a lot of time and effort on this article, and it certainly doesn't feel very good to be raising this claim, as I would essentially be telling them to undo a good portion of their work. However, I would feel much more comfortable passing this article with a 2nd opinion to back it up.

To weaken my claim, I would say that it's difficult for me to find an explicit paragraph or detail that should be cut from the article. However, if I had to provide examples to illustrate the problem, perhaps the following sentence in the "Appearances" section: A junior high school student with the superhuman abilities to turn invisible and create force fields, Violet is shy and insecure, and would much rather be a "normal" teenager, finding it difficult to fit in among her peers. We have an entire section called "Insecurity and introversion", as well as "Power and abilities"; it seems redundant to repeat in the "Appearances" section. Furthermore, we even have a subsection of the "Development" section called "Personality and design" that also discusses the character's insecurity. So this is three large sections of the article dedicated to the notion that the character is shy. Admittedly, however, they do offer different takes on it – the "Personality and design" section is more from the perspective of the character's creation in the studio, whereas the "Characterization and themes" section is more in the perspective of film critics.

My main question for a second reviewer is: do you think the length of this article is a barrier to GA status? If not, then I would be happy to pass this. And if there are any miscellaneous things I've missed, I would warmly welcome feedback there too. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a short 2nd opinion as requested. Normally, 100Kb is sort of a threshold for longer/shorter article distinctions. If you have large concerns on this count then you can request that the article be submitted for WP:GOCE review prior to passing or failing with a request that they edit with an eye for shortening the article. For example, some of the sentences in the current article are quite long and can be either shortened or divided into 2 sentences: "Although the films are set roughly during the 1950s and 1960s, shading art director Bryn Imagire opted to incorporate a more modern style into Violet's wardrobe, feeling that the hourglass silhouette, poofy skirts and tight shirts young women typically wore during this time period were not as suitable for the character due to her shy, withdrawn personality and hairstyle". Its up to both of you to agree on what is best. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try to make some quick revisions to the article to shorten some its longer sentences.--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is only 40 kB of readable prose by my check, which falls under "Length alone does not justify division" according to WP:SIZESPLIT. So though it may feel quite long, it actually is an ideal length. Personally, if I was conducting this review I would not let the length get in the way of promoting it. One concern I would have though, is that a majority of the references used in the article do not appear to be archived. I never pass a GA review until all web references are archived as I think it is quite important to ensure the verification of information is not lost in the event of a web page being taken down. So for my second opinion here, I would recommend you get the archives sorted and not worry too much about the page size. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much; our opinion about this matter is actually quite similar. Regarding the references, I actually archived the sources that Wikipedia found to be most unstable and likely to be removed using this tool.--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting, I've never seen it before. I would still recommend you archive all of them where possible, pain that it may be, but I will leave that decision up to you and reviewer Mz7 to make. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope you're well. Not trying to rush you, but do you happen to have a final verdict on this yet? The other reviewers seem to agree that the length of the article is not a detraction. I appreciate your thoroughness, but I feel as though this article has taken longer to review than it took for me to write haha (I'm only kidding). Looking forward to your response at your earliest convenience.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And I am very sorry about that. It was a longer article than any I've reviewed in the past. I've looked over the article one last time, and I've set a few of the deal-url parameters to  because the original URLs are still live. I've considered the 2nd opinions and find them to be reasonable. If you're interested in taking this further, asking for a WP:GOCE review would be an excellent idea.  Thanks so much for taking the time to add your thoughts!
 * And with that, I'm happy to pass the review. Changedforbetter, as I said from the beginning, I think the work you've done here is incredible, and I truly believe you've assembled one of the best resources available for anyone interested in learning more about this character. Congratulations! Mz7 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)