Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lion King/archive1

The Lion King
Although I have played a part in writing this article, it is primarily by other people, so it's hardly a self-nomination. Please criticise :-) &mdash; Timwi 10:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The plot section looks kinda stubbish and weak. Everyking 12:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object Cite your sources. slambo 12:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Apart from the article not having sources, for some reason I can't quite put my finger on, this article just isn't as good as I expect a featured article to be. I can't pretend it isn't comprehensive, but somehow I'd expect there is more to say about this rather well known film (the two largest sections are essentially lists). Phils 13:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Darn - I was going to support until the lack of references was noted. I like the short - I would prefer to say succinct - plot section:  do we really neeed a blow-by-blow description of each scene? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh dear - given the entirely justified criticisms below, clearly my standards are not high enough :( -- ALoan (Talk) 12:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. No sources, article does not name supervising animators for the characters or identify particular voice actors/singing ghosts with their characters. No discussion of the making of the film as well. This article would need to be expanded significantly. BTW, ALoan, I think the plot section is just fine the way it is; what needs to be discussed is the making of the film and the musical. --FuriousFreddy 19:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A few comments: I'm not sure the word "canon" is properly used in the first sentence, which is also grammatically borderline. The list of voice actors in the lead is tedious; these should be merged into the characters section (along with lead animators).  The implied claim that this was the first Disney animated feature to use well-known actors for voices is dubious; see the credits for Aladdin (Robin Williams), Beauty and the Beast (Angela Lansbury, Robbie Benson), Rescuers (George C. Scott, John Candy, Bob Newhart), for example -- hell, The Jungle Book in the '60s had Terry-Thomas and Sebastian Cabot, well-known actors in the day.  The first paragraph under "about the film" strikes me as desperately trying to put a very fine point on an essentially trivial distinction -- what are these if not anthropomorphic animals?   The musical, which was ground-breaking and notable in many ways not covered, is under-represented in the article (actually it probably deserves a seperate article).  The credits for the Soundtrack are muddled between performers and writers (a song isn't necessarily by the person who sings it); the wording of the entire soundtrack section is awkward.  The reference to Ataturk seems random and shaky and doesn't add to understanding of the topic.  Several places in the article use the nebulous assertions "it is said" and "could be".  Not a bad start, but I'm afraid I agree that this would need significant improvement to make it to FA quality.  Jgm 03:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The word "canon" is properly used in the first sentence, as there is an official canon of Disney animated films (see List of Disney animated features). The article doesn't say it was the first to use well-known voice actors; it was the first where most of the voice actors were well-known actors. Let me see if I can copyedit that. --FuriousFreddy 13:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. There are structural problems that may speak to Phils' "for some reason I can't quite put my finger on" unease registered above: the short introductory section "About the film" is misplaced IMO; is unhelpfully titled (the whole article is about the film, right?); and is extremely unfocused: each of its three paragraphs has value in itself, but they're quite disconnected, they don't add up to anything, and so the impression is of a catch-all where the left-over bits were put, in other words of a trivia section—right at the start of the article. :-(. Something's wanted in this position—a general introduction—but this ain't it. I'm also not happy about the "Controversies" section, which is stretched to contain both criticism (in the negative sense, as in criticism of gender stereotypes in the film) and trivia like voice actors being fired. How about a separate section on criticism (in the general sense, i. e. how was the film received, both positive and negative aspects)? A short one, I agree with ALoan that succinct is good. Note that the wikiquote collection doesn't perform the function of a criticism section, as it consists of dialogue quotes from the film itself. It's clear that many hands have done excellent work on this article, but I do think that some bold overall restructuring of the fine input is wanted, as well as a little more material on the critical reception.--Bishonen|talk 08:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The reference to Kemal Ataturk makes no sense.  And there should be some mention of the parallels between Lion King 1 1/2 and Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead.  RickK 08:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Right now a large portion of the article is unreadable if you don't want the spoiler. Can it be reorged a bit, or it is it too tricky? Fawcett5 16:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)