Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen (2013 film)/archive1

Frozen (2013 film)

 * Nominator(s):

2013 Disney film. After extensive copyediting and rewriting I have finally transformed it into a FAC. It almost a decade from its November 19, 2013 so I really want to rush this for TFA to celebrate its 10 year anniversary and also to celebrate Disney's 100 years of wonder!Wingwatchers (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47
Apologies in advance, but I oppose this nomination for promotion based on the quality of the prose. While I can tell you have put a lot of time and work into this article, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a potential FA.

Just by looking at the "Thematic analysis" section, I see fundamental issues with the prose. I do not think the analysis is discussed or written well here, and there are sections, specifically the ones regarding superhero films, that are jarring. There are also paragraphs devoted to a single source when this section so the balance is off and it would be better to have a clearer structure overall. There are also parts that read more like an essay than a Wikipedia article. The following part is an example of what I mean: (Performativity in superhero films challenges the traditional dichotomy of good versus evil.).

I have not looked closely at other areas of the article, but I believe this section alone would have to be rewritten, and that would be best handled outside of the FAC process. I would recommend taking it through the peer review process and reaching out to editors who are experienced in film articles. It may be helpful to reach out to reviewers from your FAC for Frozen II. Apologies again. I do not mean to come across harsh, but I just do not think this article is ready for a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Aoba47 I will try to address that in a couple days. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, there are fundamental issues with the prose just in this one section alone, and it would have to be completely rewritten, which I do not think should be done in a FAC setting. There are so many issues in this sentence alone: (Like how the superhero genre showcases protagonists with ambiguous or dual natures, Elsa's complexity is played by the actress Idina Menzel who gained fame as the Wicked Witch of the West in the musical Wicked.) It reads more like an essay than something in a Wikipedia article and does not have any links. There are also basic things like Wicked not being put in italics. I'd recommend withdrawing this nomination and working on the article outside of the FAC process. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aoba47 Yes I understand and I really want to address them rather than having it archived. It will only take a few days and some trimming and some addition there and there. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. It is your choice, and I respect that. I cannot guarantee that I will revisit my review, and to be clear, it would take far more than "some trimming and some addition there and there" to address my concerns with that section. I will end my review here. Best of luck with your work on the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for remarking on that. However I disagree, and I will make sure to really focus on this aspect to address your concerns. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aoba47 I have improved that section accordingly and added some new contents. Can you go re-review that section and potentially strike your opposition? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have struck my oppose as the section has been improved, but this will end my participation in this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * All the images are appropriately licensed, with a good fair use rationale, as well as others being self-made and Flickr-sourced, one OTRS-checked, and one PD.
 * I'm not sure the Accolades picture is really needed; it is repetitive of the previous pic with the same people, and it has the same composition.
 * Add alt texts to all the images. Note that it must be brief, and that "it does not necessarily describe the visual characteristics of the image itself but must convey the same meaning as the image."

I'll move on to the prose if this is settled.  Gerald WL  03:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gerald Waldo Luis Done. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

GWL
 Gerald WL  05:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the brief wait. I just took a last look at the article and it looks way better now. I do suggest adding archive to all possible links, but apart from that, support.  Gerald WL  03:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That have already been done while I am contemplating life. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for the detailed review. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

JJE
I've got a request for a source review but I'd like to see the content dispute mentioned above resolved before reviewing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems like this is a pass, source review wise, but keeping my caveats about source familiarity in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jo-Jo Eumerus I made some serious efforts to re-implement and re-adjust his proposed changes, but I am not sure if it has to be marked resolved by their approval, which wouldn't be likely, given the disputed situation and my initial skepticism. According to the talk page, it appears that the dispute boils down to "Lastly, "obsessing" or any related word included in the article is not "completely neutral", you really should read WP: NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts. I rewrote that part to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review. ภץאคгöร 07:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)" to which I have reverted it back to his liking https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frozen_(2013_film)&diff=cur&oldid=1183750173. I have backed down from my side and my belief and accepted his revision for the mere sake of this FAC, therefore I think I have resolved this dispute since we are back at square one by reimposing his edit. In addition, I have approached the editor above privately with sincere apologies, and I was wondering if we all can agree that it is resolved since I resolved it by reverting the article to his liking including "following guidelines and policies" and removing the so-called "problem with their writing and the unnecessary and unsourced additions to the lead". In conclusion, the dispute has been resolved with me backing down and reimposing "that part [he rewrote] to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review." so I was wondering if this is suffice for you to initiate the source review. Either way, please let me know before you proceed. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's see what Nyxaros has to say about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nyxaros What do you think? Do you consider the case closed? If so, can you reassure us that the issue has been resolved? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've edited the page, and I think the issue is resolved. However, the info about "overtaking Toy Story 3 (2010) to become the highest-grossing animated film of all time until The Lion King (2019)." should be added to "Box office" section with sources. ภץאคгöร 08:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Spot-check upon request. With the caveat that I don't know much about the sources or topic, reviewing this version: #3 seems to have a broken link. I don't think The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Telegraph and Slate need an ISSN, especially as it doesn't seem to be very consistently applied. I presume that #30 is a reliable source, in light of this sauce. #45 is using "Williams College" as the author, which seems wrong to me. It's also inconsistent with the formatting of #137. What make #57, #147 reliable sources? #148 seems to have the wrong agency. #162 lacks an author. #224 has one broken source. #236 has a nonpublic source icon, is it consistently applied? Same for #271 and #274 and #296. I don't think academic papers with DOIs need the "Retrieved" time. "info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis thesis" probably needs cleanup, and theses usually are not strong sources - have these been cited by anyone else? Have the sources here been evaluated for usage? I see that the "works cited" section seems to be unorganized.
 * The thesis was not cited anywhere, but it has been extensively peer-reviewed.Wingwatchers (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I marked Ref#3 dead to redirect it to the archive; removed ISSN which are generated by the built-in citation tool; removed William author in the last1 parameter; fixed consistency issues. #57 has been replaced; #147 removed; #148 is indeed published under the domain usa.today.com and consequently inherit the former's reliability; added author for #162; #224 I checked them but they all seems to work fine; #236 no its not consistently  applied and it will be a real pain to do it manually-I have removed their icons; all of the academic sources in works cited are pulled from Scholar including the thesis; removed retrieved time Wingwatchers (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant whether you also checked other sources in that Google Scholar query. I am not sure that a thesis being peer reviewed makes it automatically reliable for a FA; ? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Butting in, from memory PhDs are acceptable, and Masters if by a published author -- I'm struggling to recall if Bachelors are also acceptable if by a published author... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the "info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelor" thesis. In addition, I also want to acknowledge the reliability of another thesis, Laili 2021. Laili 2021 has been peer-reviewed by three people each having at least a master degree and the second person even boasted the title Dr. Reviewer #1 have S.PD and M.Pd, #2 have S.PD and M.Ed, and #3 have MA. Based on the fact that it has been extensively examined by multiple experts, I believe this justified its reliability. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nancy Tartaglione still throws a harv error for me. #148 in the current text should probably say it's by Disney. I don't see much consistency between which journals get ISSN and which don't. Otherwise it seems like most of my issues are resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed Tartaglione url error; specified that is Disney UK press; and removed ISSN inconsistencies. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wingwatchers (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will replace this source shortly. Fortunately, it is attributed to only one sentence with a flexible topic and can be easily replaced. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa
I will review this, probably during the course of the next few days. TompaDompa (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * General comments
 * The article has a rather laudatory tone. I've given a bunch of examples below, but it really permeates pretty much the entire article.
 * I haven't surveyed the literature to ascertain the relative weight given to different aspects by the sources, but the "Production" section feels like it takes up a disproportionate amount of space.
 * Verb tense is not consistent, occasionally even shifting within paragraphs.


 * Lead
 * "Frozen is a 2013 American animated musical fantasy film produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures." – I am skeptical that production and especially distribution company belong in the first sentence (see previous discussion on the general subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 82), and indeed in the WP:LEAD at all (we have infoboxes for information that need not be presented in prose). If Disney is to be mentioned, I would refer to it as simply "Disney" (and maybe use it attributively as an adjective).
 * "Thematically, it explores feminism and sisterly bonds over romance, challenging traditional gender norms and Disney fairytale conventions." – "challenging" makes it sound like an endorsement.
 * "During animation and cinematography, the team used a careful blend of visuals and lighting to create realistic and appealing snow and ice among other elements." – this also sounds like an endorsement.
 * "earning $1.285 billion" – avoid "earn" for revenue like this. Use "gross" instead. This recurs in the body.
 * "earning $1.285 billion in worldwide box office revenue [..] during its theatrical run" – rather redundant. "Revenue" is redundant to "earning" (which should be "grossing", see above). Likewise, pick one of "box office" and "during its theatrical run".
 * "Frozen became a popular culture phenomenon with its songs, characters, storytelling elements, and appeal to a general audience. The immense popularity [...]" – MOS:PUFFERY.


 * Plot
 * The ages of Anna and Elsa are not mentioned until the end of the first paragraph. Their (approximate) ages at the events described in the second sentence seems like relevant information.
 * "she remains distant from Anna, who develops a romantic bond with Hans during the festivities and is objected by Elsa." – "is objected by"?
 * "mortally injuring her" – odd choice of words for an injury that does not result in death within a short period of time.


 * Voice cast
 * "12-year-old teenage Elsa" – contradiction.
 * "Hans, a prince from the Southern Isles who is secretly a gold-digging traitor" – I don't know that I would describe the character as a traitor (scheming and backstabbing is different from betrayal), but I certainly wouldn't describe their actions as "gold-digging". Gold digging is generally understood to mean being in a romantic (or sexual) relationship with someone wealthy for personal monetary gain. Planning to seize the throne by murder and subterfuge is entirely different.


 * Production
 * "Between 2000 and 2002, Disney explored multiple adaptations of "The Snow Queen", now stored in their Animation Research Library." – this refers to abandoned plans by Disney, right? The current phrasing does not make that clear—it could equally be parsed as referring to examining how others had adapted the story previously.
 * "Academy Award-winning director John Lasseter at Pixar" – why mention the Academy Award here?
 * "Frozen's concept arts from Disney's earlier attempt" – I would avoid using referring to the film as "Frozen" in this context (it wasn't called that at the time). I have also never heard of "concept arts", plural—I have always heard it used as a mass noun.
 * "Frozen began under the title Anna and the Snow Queen" – I would avoid using referring to the film as "Frozen" in this context, preferring e.g. "The film".
 * "set a release date for November 27, 2013." – the indefinite article should be definite.
 * "Lasseter was credited as executive producer in the post-release." – most readers will probably not know what "the post-release" means, and this is out of chronological order (not to mention clunky phrasing).
 * "Prior to Lee's involvement, the work of the previous screen and songwriters faced significant challenges." – a few things here. Firstly, did the work face significant challenges, or did the people? Secondly, if the intended reading is "screenwriters and songwriters", you need to either write that or write "screen- and songwriters". Thirdly, it's not clear what the challenges were, either from this sentence or the rest of the paragraph. Fourthly, if you cite a 53-minute YouTube video, you should really provide a timestamp.
 * "The production team essentially had to restart the process" – why?
 * "a tight deadline of 17 months" – compared to a more typical deadline of what?
 * "This condensed timeline resulted in an extremely intense schedule, requiring swift decision-making to progress the project." – we have, in short succession, "tight deadline", "condensed timeline", "extremely intense schedule", and "swift decision-making". I am positive that this could be rewritten more concisely without such redundancy. I also don't quite see what this adds to the article—it basically boils down to "they were short on time, so they had to work fast". Well yes, that's how that usually works.
 * "During production, Lee was promoted to co-director for her extensive involvement in the project." – the cited source says nothing about the reason.
 * "The team understood that the ending would revolve around [...]" – "understood"?
 * "the importance of earning the film's ending" – this is "earn" in a rather informal sense of the word.
 * "Elsa's initial villainous character is driven by her heartbreak after being jilted at the altar. The plot revolves around [...]" – I have to question the use of the present tense here for a version of the story that was scrapped.
 * "It marked the pivotal moment when the team discerned the essence of the film and fully grasped the depths of the characters." – this is marketing-speak, not encyclopaedic phrasing.
 * "Another significant breakthrough" – as opposed to an insignificant breakthrough?
 * "the plot twist involving Hans, being revealed as the true villain near the end." – why the comma?
 * "it took her nearly a year to clearly articulate Anna." – I don't think the pronunciation is that difficult. Joking aside, use a different word than "articulate" here.
 * "John Ripa helped resolve writing the problem of how Anna would save Elsa at the climax." – this is rather difficult to parse. What did Ripa help with, exactly?
 * The quote box has weird quotation mark placement, which seems to stem from quoting the source incorrectly.
 * "kept a recording of her performance on her iPhone" – why specify the type of phone?
 * "Bell proposed the idea to Menzel when she visited her home" – what idea?
 * "wool fabric. and velvet" – stray period.
 * "Her growth of the ice is characterized by a melodic and rhythmic pattern, which gives it a unique and magical appearance." – this is a good example of writing as though you were promoting the film rather than reporting on it dispassionately. Stating in WP:WikiVoice that the appearance is unique and magical is not appropriate. Stating that this was the intention would on the other hand be fine (e.g. "[...] in order to give it a unique and magical appearance").
 * The second paragraph of the "Design" subsection switches back and forth between different tenses.
 * "Elsa's palace is intricately linked to her emotional journey." – that's not a fact, and should not be reported as one. It may be a fact that it was intended to be, and it may be a fact that it has been interpreted that way, but this is media analysis.
 * "The animation process involves careful management of lighting, shadow, and color hues to prevent the setting from overpowering the character. Adjustments including lighting, object decorations, textures, and patterns ensured elements blended harmoniously with the scene." – tense. Also reads like an endorsement.
 * "For the snow monster Marshmallow, they created realistic icicles, determined its edge hardness for correct lighting, and avoided a rubbery appearance." – again, not a fact. It may be a fact that they sought to create realistic icicles and avoid a rubbery appearance, but whether they succeeded is a matter of opinion.
 * "resulting in sophisticated and realistic clothing for every character" – I'm not going to list every time value judgments are inappropriately stated in WP:WikiVoice; I think I have by now made it clear that this is a pervasive problem with the writing style.
 * "A celebrity hairstylist helped create Elsa's hairstyle, which surpassed the complexity of previous Disney characters at 420,000 strands." – that's way more strands of hair than an actual human head has. If the sources make that point, it should be included.
 * "It also helped create culturally appropriate styles" – straight-up endorsement.
 * "mentioning the use of traditional techniques like rim and bounce lighting" – I'm guessing this tells the average reader absolutely nothing. Explain, link, or remove.
 * "The songs for Frozen were composed the Lopezs" – anacoluthon.
 * "The orchestral recordings that took place on the Warner Bros. lot, blend seamlessly with the songs." – c'mon now. This is pretty blatantly opinion, and it doesn't even appear in the cited source.


 * Thematic analysis
 * This section presents a lot of analysis in Wikipedia's voice.
 * "Laili notes that the film promotes feminism [...]" – "note" is only to be used for facts, whereas this is interpretation.
 * "Robert Geal pointed out biases in Frozen 's portrayal of female and male homosexuality." – MOS:SAID.


 * Marketing and release
 * "available in Disney Stores and other retailers" – so what?
 * "The film's premiere was at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, Los Angeles, on November 19, 2013, and had a five-day limited release there, starting from November 22, before going into wide release." – anacoluthon. The premiere did not have a limited release and did not go into wide release—the film did.
 * "between August 4 to 17", "between October 13 to 19" – "between" is always followed by "and", never by "to".
 * "Frozen's home media release became a massive success." – informal and laudatory phrasing.
 * "setting records as one of [...]" – something is either a record, i.e. number one, or "one of" the top performances. Not both.
 * "The digital release also became the fastest-selling digital release of all time." – by what metric? Fastest to X? Most within Y time?
 * "As of July 2018, Frozen remained the biggest-selling Blu-ray in the US" – more than five years have passed since.
 * "similar to Disney's animated release" – "Disney's animated release" is just elegant variation.


 * Reception
 * The weighting in the "Box office" section is rather dubious. For instance, a higher word count is devoted to the US and Canada than to the rest of the world combined, a pretty clear example of WP:Systemic bias. See also my subsequent comments about specific things that have been included that probably should not have been.
 * "the third highest-grossing Walt Disney Pictures release, and the eighth-highest-grossing film distributed by Disney" – seems like extraneous detail.
 * "becoming the eighteenth film in cinematic history, the seventh Disney-distributed film, the fifth non-sequel film, the second Disney-distributed film in 2013 (after Iron Man 3), and the first animated film since Toy Story 3 (2010) to do so" – excessive level of detail.
 * "analysts had projected the film's total cost [...] and had also projected that the film would generate $1.3 billion" – the cost is in the past, so "project" is a peculiar choice of word in that context (makes much more sense for the expected revenue). I would use "estimate" instead.
 * See MOS:DOMESTIC about using "North America" in a box office context.
 * "Upon its release, Frozen quickly became a major success." – that's a value judgment.
 * "It broke records as Fandango's top advance ticket seller among original animated films" – records, plural? Also seems a bit dubious for inclusion if both "original" and "animated" are needed as qualifiers.
 * "The sing-along version of the film also dominated ticket sales." – "dominated"?
 * "Thanksgiving grosses among films released during the holiday season" – as opposed to films released at some other time?
 * "Frozen also set records for three-day and five-day Thanksgiving grosses among films released during the holiday season." – not according to the cited source it didn't. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, released a few days earlier, outgrossed it.
 * "ahead of the 1999's Toy Story 2" – stray definite article.
 * "Frozen became the first film since Avatar to reach first place in its sixth weekend of wide release." – if it reached first place in its sixth weekend, that means it wasn't in the top spot prior to that. Which is of course wrong, and not what the source says. And this is rather dubious for inclusion regardless.
 * "achieved large weekend grosses from its fifth to its twelfth weekend (of wide release), compared to other films in their respective weekends" – that's straight-up WP:ANALYSIS of the raw data.
 * "On April 25, 2014, Frozen became the nineteenth film to gross $400 million in North America and the fifteenth to do so without a major re-release." – seems like extraneous detail.
 * "In North America, Frozen is the twenty-sixth-highest-grossing film, the third-highest-grossing 2013 film, the fifth-highest-grossing animated film, the highest-grossing 2013 animated film, the twelfth-highest-grossing 3-D film, and the second-highest-grossing Walt Disney Animation Studios film." – excessive level of detail.
 * "Excluding re-releases, it has the highest-grossing initial run among non-sequel animated films (a record previously held by Finding Nemo (2003)) and among Walt Disney Animation Studios films (a record previously held by The Lion King (1994))." – this just comes across as superlative-chasing.
 * "Frozen is the fifth-highest-grossing film, the highest-grossing animated film, and the highest-grossing 2013 film." – even if the geographical scope is clarified by the subheading, it needs to be included in the text as well. This is also straight-up incorrect. It's not number 5 outside the US and Canada or number 1 animated outside the US and Canada (though it is number 1 released in 2013 outside the US and Canada). At present, the correct figures are 18 and 2. If the intended meaning was that this was the best positions it ever reached, it needs to be rephrased.
 * "It is the highest-grossing animated film in South Korea, Denmark, and Venezuela." – this fails verification. The cited sources do not mention Denmark at all and the only source that mentions Venezuela is the 2013 yearly box office chart for the country, which obviously isn't sufficient sourcing for that claim.
 * Try to find a way to link box office territory somewhere.
 * "It is also the highest-grossing Walt Disney Animation Studios film in more than 45 territories" – the highest-grossing film for a particular company is rather niche. The highest-grossing film for a particular company in a particular box office territory is even more so.
 * "It is also the highest-grossing Walt Disney Animation Studios film in more than 45 territories, including the Latin America region (specifically in Mexico and Brazil), the UK, Ireland, and Malta, Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Ukraine, Norway, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and China" – Latin America fails verification. The combined box office territory of the UK, Ireland, and Malta fails verification. Australia fails verification.
 * "the film's top market after North America is Japan ($247.6 million)" – this figure does not match either the one given by boxoffice.com ($236.8 million) or the one given by Box Office Mojo ($249,036,646).
 * "Since its release, several publications have named Frozen as one of the best animated films ever made" – the sourcing is nowhere near strong enough for a statement like this. The first source is a top 50 list that puts it at number 46. The second source is a top 100 that puts it at number 48. The third source is a top 51 that puts it and Frozen II collectively at number 40. This just comes across as cherry-picking.
 * "Despite emphasis on its story, publications including The Seattle Times and Variety argued that Frozen falls short in delivering a deep and engaging experience." – that's straight-up picking a side in the disagreement, in clear violation of WP:NPOV.
 * "with the primary comedy source comes from the interactions between male characters" – anacoluthon.
 * "However, a Lee and a Disney spokesperson clarified that DiSalvo's comment was misunderstood, explaining it was about technical aspects of CGI animation, not comparing animating male and female characters." – this is also engaging in the dispute by picking a side.
 * "DiSalvo later confirmed such, expressing frustration over the misinformation online" – ditto.
 * "Elsa's song "Let it Go" has been compared to the phenomenon of coming out of the closet." – "the phenomenon"? That... has unfortunate overtones.
 * "When questioned about the indirect homosexual themes in the film" – this phrasing presumes that there are indeed such themes, which is a point of contention.
 * "This made the first Disney film to win Best Animated Feature." – anacoluthon.


 * Legacy
 * "former UK prime minister David Cameron" – not "former" at the time.
 * "When Lopez and Anderson-Lopez were asked about this in an NPR interview" – it is very unclear what "this" refers to. This is the first sentence in an entirely new paragraph.
 * "She used the film's strong female characters to inspire her daughter" – another example of the inappropriate use of WP:WikiVoice for opinion.
 * "In a 2014 mid-year report of the 100 most-used baby names by BabyCenter, 'Elsa' ranked 88th, making its first appearance on the site's chart." – the geographical scope of this report really needs to be included for context here.
 * "Parents revealed that their naming choices were influenced by the film's characters, particularly siblings." – what does "particularly siblings" mean here?
 * "It was the top entertainment Google Search of 2013." – is "it" the film or something related thereto?

The above list of issues is non-exhaustive. I am going to have to oppose this mainly on WP:NPOV grounds (but also prose quality and other issues); if I came across this article as a WP:Good article nomination, I would close it as a WP:QUICKFAIL. I suggest this nomination be archived so the article can be brought to WP:Good article reassessment. TompaDompa (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the comments anyway. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure I will have it archived so I can work on it quietly. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Tks Tompa. Given Wingwatchers' last comment I think we'll treat this as a withdrawal rather than a simple archive.  Pls note that the usual two-week hiatus before nominating an article still applies; I'd strongly suggest using that time for Peer Review before another nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)