Template:Did you know nominations/Sven (Frozen)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sven (Frozen)

 * ... that the animation team of the film Frozen studied a real-life reindeer as a model for the character Sven? Source:
 * ALT1:... that the animation team of the film Frozen was originally going to give the name "Thor" to the character Sven? Source:
 * ALT2:... that the animation team of the film Frozen developed the character Sven based on the mold of a dog? Source:

Created by Flowerpiep (talk). Self-nominated at 11:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC).


 * On sourcing, the section Sven_(Frozen) has only one source and has excessive detail. This needs to be trimmed and sourced. Jytdog (talk)
 * on NPOV - UNDUE/excessive detail throughout; the Sven_(Frozen) section especially has national critics (which is great) and goes all the way down to refs like Culver City Observer - this section could be down by half and not lose anything. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On the hook, they are all kind of boring. Would you consider something like ALT4:... that the animation team of the film Frozen tried to model the movements of character Sven using a reindeer, but it just stood there, so they used a dog instead? Source:  Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Flowerpiep see comments above. Very close to being good to go in my view.  This is my first DYK review btw; sorry to everybody if i have screwed anything up. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for providing the review! First of all, I apologise for the late reply. Second, I trimmed the "Frozen" subsection. Still, regarding the sources, I am afraid I cannot find the exact sources for everything that is written there since this is a film's summary. If this had been, for example, the summary of a series, I would have added the exact episode for every sentence that needed to be sourced, but since this is a film, I cannot do much when it comes to the sources. The source at the end of this subsection provides a brief summary of the plot up to a certain point, and thus I decided to add it at the end of the last paragraph as a general source for what is written throughout this subsection. If you would like, I can try to find more sources like this one, but they would also need to be added at the end of this subsection since they would most likely be general as well. Furthermore, I tried to trim the "Critical reviews" subsection and organised it in three shorter paragraphs instead of two longer ones (in order to make sure that it can be easily read), each paragraph covering a separate subtopic regarding the character. Is it all right like this? And of course I would consider a hook similar to the one you suggested. How about this one — ALT5:... that the animation team of the film Frozen tried to model the movements of character Sven based on a real-life reindeer, but due to its lack of motion, they used the behavior of a dog instead? Source: Regarding the QPQ, I know that if somebody has less than 5 DYK credits, they do not have to follow the QPQ rule. Right now, I only have 2 DYK credits. Flowerpiep (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep


 * User:Flowerpiep I did some trimming of the plot section, in this diff. Between your changes and mine this is good enough for sourcing and appropriate detail. I've checked those off.Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that hook.
 * With regard to the QPQ rule, I didn't know that. So I think this done.   Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)