Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Frozen (2013 film)/1

Frozen (2013 film)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Frozen_(2013_film)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Promoted back in 2014. Recently nominated for WP:Featured article status. This brought to light severe deficiencies relating to—among other things—prose quality and neutrality. I reckon that it currently fails at least WP:Good article criteria 1a, 3b, and 4. For details, I refer to my fairly extensive (albeit non-exhaustive) comments at Featured article candidates/Frozen (2013 film)/archive1. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand you concerns. I am re-reading it and referencing your comments to rework it. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that I do not acknowledge your concerns regarding neutrality and prose quality, but I wish to establish a peaceful and collaborative resolution to improve this article such as giving the nominator whoever that might be adequate time to readjust the article's quality, similar to the higher FAR process. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Status update I believe that I have addressed all the relevant issues raised at Featured article candidates/Frozen (2013 film)/archive1, especially those related to prose quality and neutrality.Wingwatchers (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will just firmly state that I have fixed all the issues in Featured article candidates/Frozen (2013 film)/archive1 and @TompaDompa should probably reassess it. The failure of the FAC and the rushed GAR to capitalize on some unsophisticated aspects (which can probably resolved in a more peaceful and timely manner, such as consulting and checking with the nominator for improvement before resorting to this approach; and putting it on GAR will not help with the process and instead is a systematic approach to exert anxiety and emotional pressure under uses who by chance is already under substantial struggles). I have no interest in renominating anything for FAC because apparently, it is a place where editors heartlessly and harshly criticize and attack others' hard work not necessarily referring to you. I want to refrain from editing Wikipedia altogether because I am already under unbearable mental pressures IRL and the only thing I found joy in is Frozen. Yet I felt the purpose and existence of this GAR, in combination with someone's "amend" edit summary as if it is concerned with a legal document or legislative bill in its talk page made it seem that I was participating in a lawsuit with serious charges directed toward me. I found it difficult to fulfill my final wish to leave this horrible place and pursue my dreams and career because of the existence of this GAF and the so-called "severe deficiencies", which are already-fixed minor adjustments to part of the articles' tone and the inaccuracies of box office data reported by others that cannot be more rushed to be capitalized upon for criticism, suggest to me that I was responsible for this article's ill fate to be demoted from GA. I, who still retain some sanity, bear this guilt and strive to fix the issues with everything that I have left because I don't want to make the impression to the thousands of editors of this article that I vandalized their fairly good article. I deeply wish this GAR to end with it retaining GA status as soon as quickly so I could exit from these feelings of immense burden and guilt and move on to the more important aspects of life. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Your edits are appreciated. Like everyone else, you may make mistakes, but it is important to learn from them and move on. As Wikipedians, we should remain calm in an editing dispute and not use excuses. Remember, Wikipedia is not about winning, you are here to enjoy yourself. Department of Fun is a great place to take a break and have some fun. ภץאคгöร  11:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * After much consideration in the morning and afternoon I found myself unable to refrain from editing because I have already gone to deep into the rabbit hole to pull myself back from its gravitational field, so I will withdraw the part where I potentially stop editing as I managed to see some light in this chaotic world. Put everything aside I think I will be resolving any further critical objections and comments by the civil if they are willing to present it in a specific and realistic way. I will renominate it for FAC in spite of every obstacles rain in my way.Wingwatchers (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not wish to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP. In the past I have on occasion spent a lot of time working with nominators to improve articles (that were perhaps not ready to be nominated when they were) to GA or FA standards to such an extent that I basically became a co-author, and while that is possible for subjects where I am already very familiar with the main sources on the topic, it would not be a good use of my time here. Instead, I will provide a few general observations relating to some of the most serious and pervasive issues with this article: If I were you, I would start by tracking down the best sources on the topic (perhaps books or academic articles written about the film, preferably ones with as broad a scope and perspective on the film as possible), read those to get a sense of what the general consensus on the film is both in terms of the relative weight of different WP:ASPECTS and subjective opinions about the film, and only then rewrite the article basically from the ground up using those sources to build the foundation (while using other sources to supplement them where needed). If this sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is. For that reason, and because this will need changes so substantial as to effectively turn it into a different article altogether, I think it would be better to remove its current WP:Good article status and take it through that process all over again than to try to remedy the issues during this process—it would be a much better use of everyone's time. I would strongly advise against renominating this at WP:FAC without first taking it through WP:Peer review and soliciting the help of the WP:Guild of copyeditors. TompaDompa (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article reads as if it were written by a fan of the film. It is of course expected that film articles will to a large extent be written by fans (because fans are more likely to be interested in working on the article than non-fans), but it's not supposed to shine through. This comes down to a fairly large number of (often individually comparatively subtle) editorial choices (some but not all listed in my FAC review) that in aggregate result in an article that is to my eye pretty far from neutral. I don't believe this to be intentional—I expect that all of these choices were made in good faith and likely by several different editors independently—but it permeates the article nonetheless.
 * The article needs to distinguish between fact and opinion much more carefully.
 * The article relies heavily on non-ideal sources. Ideal sources are, among other things, independent and secondary (or tertiary, in some cases). For instance: A fair amount comes from interviews with people involved in the making in the film. The Art of Frozen is cited heavily, but not even name-checked in-text. There are a lot of news sources and similar. The "Box office" section should ideally use Box Office Mojo basically only to verify figures, with the interpretation and significance of those figures coming from other types of sources (e.g. Deadline Hollywood, which is cited for some of the content).


 * I do not agree with what the above user said:
 * "The article reads as if it were written by a fan of the film. It is of course expected that film articles will to a large extent be written by fans (because fans are more likely to be interested in working on the article than non-fans), but it's not supposed to shine through. This comes down to a fairly large number of (often individually comparatively subtle) editorial choices (some but not all listed in my FAC review) that in aggregate result in an article that is to my eye pretty far from neutral. I don't believe this to be intentional—I expect that all of these choices were made in good faith and likely by several different editors independently—but it permeates the article nonetheless."I have addressed all of your neutrality issues in your fairly extensive FAC review; I have re-read it several times and corrected any poor editorial choices. TompaDompa clearly have not re-review the latest revision and is restating his inital comments which have already been addressed. Both the "Instead, I will provide a few general observations relating to some of the most serious and pervasive issues with this article" and "as if it were written by a fan of the film." statement is very vague and does not add any real, specific and realistic contextual basis on the problematic aspects of the problems in question.
 * "The article needs to distinguish between fact and opinion much more carefully." Same with this statement. This article no longer boast a laudatory tone. I have addressed every single example this user proposed in his fairly extensive review, and they did not cite any specific examples in the body.
 * "The article relies heavily on non-ideal sources. Ideal sources are, among other things, independent and secondary (or tertiary, in some cases). For instance: A fair amount comes from interviews with people involved in the making in the film. The Art of Frozen is cited heavily, but not even name-checked in-text. There are a lot of news sources and similar. The "Box office" section should ideally use Box Office Mojo basically only to verify figures, with the interpretation and significance of those figures coming from other types of sources (e.g. Deadline Hollywood, which is cited for some of the content)." What else is the information going to come from??? This is Disney's animated film so it makes sense that most of the content is going to come from the book they published. Same with interview. How is anyone supposed to acquire production information without consulting from the production team themselves. Deadline Hollywood is a very reliable source, but for some reason you interpreted it as unideal. You clearly don't have any background context and is now exaggerating vague, unrealistic and imaginary problems based on cognitive bias. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "If I were you, I would start by tracking down the best sources on the topic (perhaps books or academic articles written about the film, preferably ones with as broad a scope and perspective on the film as possible), read those to get a sense of what the general consensus on the film is both in terms of the relative weight of different WP:ASPECTS and subjective opinions about the film, and only then rewrite the article basically from the ground up using those sources to build the foundation (while using other sources to supplement them where needed). If this sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is. For that reason, and because this will need changes so substantial as to effectively turn it into a different article altogether, I think it would be better to remove its current WP:Good article status and take it through that process all over again than to try to remedy the issues during this process—it would be a much better use of everyone's time. I would strongly advise against renominating this at WP:FAC without first taking it through WP:Peer review and soliciting the help of the WP:Guild of copyeditors." I have readjusted the article to make it as neutral as possible. You falsely claims that it need "changes so substantial as to effectively turn it into a different article altogether" but I strong believe I have addressed all the neutrality issues and you are now trying to suggesting me to rework it from the ground up. You exaggerated that it have significant issues so dire that I have to rework the fundamental structure without really citing any real examples. Your vague, unrealistic statements about that it have so-called fundamental problems does not justify the removal of GA status because you are trying to exaggerate problems that no longer exists, which is indicated by your refusal to provide specific examples. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You better not think "it would be better to remove its current WP:Good article status and take it through that process all over again than to try to remedy the issues during this process—it would be a much better use of everyone's time." because you started this whole mess and is now finding excuses to demote the article of its status, exaggerating minor issues which you apparently no longer time have time to examine critically. If you do not wish to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP, well you have already gone to deep into the rabbit hole. All facts are reported as facts in their purest forms, not as opinions with editorial endorsements. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @TompaDompa While I acknowledge your extensive review, some of your interpretations might be flawed and its best for us to go over here if you have any further concerns that are specific and realistic. Preferably, you specified the paragraphs or sections where these issues are prevalent.  Wingwatchers (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "I do not wish to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP. In the past I have on occasion spent a lot of time working with nominators to improve articles (that were perhaps not ready to be nominated when they were) to GA or FA standards to such an extent that I basically became a co-author, and while that is possible for subjects where I am already very familiar with the main sources on the topic, it would not be a good use of my time here" Wikipedia is not going anywhere so don't find excuse in getting stuck in a fix loop whatever that is coined some insignificant individual. WP:Fix Loop excuse is not a sanctuary to resort whenever you feel narrow-minded. You initiated this GAR and you will be solely responsible for explaining specific issues so it can be fixed to your likings. By initing this process, you automatically assume the responsibility of participating in this ongoing collaborative and constructive process. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That's very lengthy. I'll try to be somewhat briefer.

The very first paragraph of the WP:LEAD ends with Thematically, it explores feminism and sisterly bonds over romance, breaking traditional gender norms and Disney fairytale conventions. That's the version after you, in your view, corrected any poor editorial choices and readjusted the article to make it as neutral as possible. Does that mean that you think that this sentence is now free from problems or do you think that there are still problems that you have overlooked? I'll give you three more examples now: the third paragraph of the "Writing" section contains the sentence This change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart., the second sentence of the "Casting" section contains the sentence During their preparation for the table read, Bell proposed the idea of a table read to Menzel when she visited her home., and the first sentence of the "Box office" section is Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion.. Do you think there are any problems with those sentences, and if so, what problems are those?

Where else is the information supposed to come from? Ideally: secondary, independent sources. If the information is important to the overall topic, it will presumably have been repeated by high-quality sources on the subject. If those WP:BESTSOURCES do not mention the information in question, that's an indication that it is not a WP:MAJORASPECT.

You must have misunderstood what I said about Deadline Hollywood—I suggested using it (rather than Box Office Mojo) to establish significance and provide interpretation of the box office data. TompaDompa (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Thematically, it explores feminism and sisterly bonds over romance, breaking traditional gender norms and Disney fairytale conventions" -> "The film explores the themes of feminism and sisterly bonds over romance."
 * "This change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart" -> "The production team said this change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart."
 * "During their preparation for the table read, Bell proposed the idea of a table read to Menzel when she visited her home." removed
 * " Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion.
 * -> grossed Wingwatchers (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Do you think those sentences are now free from problems (related to neutrality or not)? TompaDompa (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a whole book about its production process, an inside-look on the animation process which is not covered by an major press. This is expected because if I was the press I would not read an entire book on a subject just for the sake of reporting it, especially if I am getting paid minimum wages for doing so. But yet these information are crucial to provide the readers a glimpse into its animation process beyond what the press covered. It is a thick book with high content densities and I managed to translate only the most important aspects into the article. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the last statement is a result of edit conflict. Regarding "Alright. Do you think those sentences are now free from problems (related to neutrality or not)?":
 * The film explores the themes of feminism and sisterly bonds over romance. Hmm it suggesting that it explores both feminism and sisterly bonds over romance. I have removed romance for clarification
 * "The production team said this change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart." Upon further inspection I think the world selfless is subjective here Wingwatchers (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion." I have changed the word "earned" to "grossed". It is also mathematically correct with it being rounded up to 1.285 billion from 1284.5 but I will change it to the latter. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, do you think the four sentences I mentioned are now free from problems (related to neutrality or not)? TompaDompa (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "sisterly bonds" was also changed to its singular form. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * hmm think it flows in its plural form. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Okay, do you think the four sentences I mentioned are now free from problems (related to neutrality or not)? "
 * The film explores the themes of feminism and sisterly bonds. This plainly addresses the overall themes without suggesting any underlying tones.
 * The production team said this change led to a more relatable and emotional storyline, with Anna's selfless act of saving Elsa thawing her frozen heart. I have attributed this as the production team's opinions and their approach to make the storyline more relatable and emotional. I have also replaced the word said with believed.
 * During their preparation for the table read, Bell proposed the idea of a table read to Menzel when she visited her home." I have removed this self-conflicting statement that is also somewhat unnecessary
 * Frozen earned $401 million in the US and $883.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.285 billion. I am verifying every single sources in User:Wingwatchers/Frozenref but I have not yet reached the later part of the article and implement my revision. If that's what you are hinting, I think I will probably be done with it in the next 2 days. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In User:Wingwatchers/Frozenref, I am reading every single source to ensure verifiability and made revisions accordingly. I am referencing every single in-line statement with quotes from their sources. Wingwatchers (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I am starting to grasp the point you are trying to make and understand your wisdom. I now understand that examples like words like "selfless" are subjective and paints Anna in a specific way and that I should be more careful on stating the production team's opinions as facts. I apologize for the troubles. I will rework the article from the ground up and remove any further poor editorial choices and ensure verifiability over the course of three days, so be sure to check back then. Thank you and have a great rest of your weekend! Wingwatchers (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I managed to make the article neutral and ensured text verifiability. As for WP primary source, I would argue that the ART book is not necessarily a primary source because it is written by the Charles Solomon who have authored a dozen Art Of books on various films outside Disney's. The book itself is written by an independent author and is published by Chronicle Books instead of "Disney Press". Solomon is also a journalist who writes for Animation Magazine. The Art book, in this case, can be compared to a news magazine article where a journalist investigates/documents the behind-the-scenes production of a film. For these reasons I hope we can classify The Art of Book as an ideal source since a lot of other sources offer scant information on the subject and instead point me back to the book. Nevertheless, I am not denying the fact that this article might have an over-reliance on the book, so I will strive to increase the diversity of these sources. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

A cursory look at just the "Box office" section reveals that this article still has massive unresolved issues. The first sentence alone—Frozen grossed $401 million in the US and $933.3 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $1.334 billion.—has no fewer than two major factual errors. TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt2294629/ indeeds says the data is correct. I rounded them so it might have been a mathematical error. I will use the full number. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also occupied with converting other section to secondary sources, but I will do another thorough check on the Box office section and other sections over the course of tomorrow or a few days. I did not account for that first sentence might contain mathematical errors, but I am certain that the majority of this article is now free from factual errors. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @TompaDompa I have thoroughly reviewed the article to ensure that it is now neutral and verifiable, but I am not necessarily suggesting that my examination is flawless as I am subjected to human errors. As such, I would like to invite you to do an exhaustive review yourself before we can all agree to close this GAR as keep and I can proceed renominating it for FA. Wingwatchers (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite appreciate the full extent of the deficiencies here. Even just sticking to the "Box office" section, we have things like Frozen grossed $400,953,009 domestically and $933,338,562 internationally, for a worldwide total of $1,334,291,571., It broke record as Fandango's top advance ticket seller among animated films, After its limited release at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, it grossed $243,390., and Frozen topped box office in its sixth weekend of wide release. WP:GACR 1a stipulates that the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct, and the article plainly does not meet that requirement. That's not even going into the issues with factual errors that still abound in that section (in spite of your efforts to rectify them), or the issues with tone, due weight, and so on. This article is, I'm sorry to say, in a rather poor state at the moment. I know you're working on it, but I don't see it being on a trajectory towards meeting the WP:Good article criteria—let alone the WP:Featured article criteria—anytime soon. TompaDompa (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think all these problems are due to my lack of deep understanding of the box office section. I have reverted that section back to its primal 2021state, and that should fix all the problems. @TompaDompa Let me know if there any more problems. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm I am not sure this solves the problem. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not, no. TompaDompa (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose it is now more sophisticated in terms of the prose. I will go back and reexamine the sources and add complementary quotes on each citation to show that is verifiable. Then I would considered the issues addressed and we can move on. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most of the factual inaccuracies stem from the fact that a lot of sources are outdated so I will redirect them to their respective archived page in the correct time periods. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @TompaDompa I have double-checked all the sources in the Box office section to ensure they no longer contain prose and source deficiencies. I have also removed some unintentional due emphasis on various parts of the article. Assessing the box office section based on my limited experience with film's box office subject, I believe that it no longer contains such deficiencies. However, I would appreciate it if you could further enlighten me on occasional instances that I might overlook. Thank you in advance... Wingwatchers (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you identified any specific instances of these issues, please list them in bullet points below. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I finally realized that most of the factual errors are due to the outdated Box office source which only reflect the most recent data instead of the data in 2013. I have marked them dead and redirected them to their archived page, Wingwatchers (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I spent all day and night analyzing and archiving sources in the Box office section in User:Wingwatchers/Frozen box office. This should consolidate that it contains no factual errors.Wingwatchers (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there are still factual errors there (as well as a whole host of other issues, some but not all of which were already noted in my original FAC review). Part of the problem is replicating errors made by the source(s) – garbage in, garbage out. Another part is not properly understanding what exactly it is the sources say. TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @TompaDompa I beg your pardon. I am not supposed to replicate the sources and instead fabricate my own content? Pardon me for my inexperience in the box office industry but can you give more insights on the concept of garbage in and garbage out? I made sure all the data was correct and tried my best to interpret the material from my perspective. What are these a "whole host of other issues"? If there are indeed such occasional instances in the Box office, do you mind help fixing them or listing specific sentences in bullet points below and justifying why they are incorrect? Even if you are correct that there are still a "whole host of other issues", the best way to resolve them is by spitting them out for them to be corrected rather than having them lingering around. I myself dislike using the phrase "a whole host of other issues" without giving my audience extensive background context because it will not help resolve the "whole host of other issues" that are still lingering here. I believe that is in our best interest that both you and I, if find any prose/source issues and disclose them to correct them rather than having them lingering around and decaying, hence the purpose of this encyclopedia it's to establish collaborative efforts. To my best understanding I believe we have technology so advanced that copying and pasting every single problematic sentence of a section and listing them here in bullet points takes only mere seconds, as well as an act of kindness to which I will extend my deepest gratitude. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. All I was trying to say is that I want to inquire about which sentences are incorrect/misinterpreted. Perhaps it is the highest 2013 grossing film? the amount it grossed in its opening weekend? or are there any others? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to re-read the FAC review and resolve the problems there. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Pardon me for not seeing these silly errors. @TompaDompa Do you mind giving it another look? Wingwatchers (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you engage in WP:Original research, but there are other options such as omitting the incorrect information altogether and locating other sources that do not make these errors. Box Office Mojo has a blatant double-counting error for this film;, our expert on box office matters, could probably explain this in greater detail than I can. Other issues include the improper geographic terminology, the obvious apples-to-oranges comparisons between various markets' opening weekends, and the conspicuous omission of Deadline Hollywood's cost estimates that differ significantly from the ones reported by Bloomberg Business.

I understand that you would prefer an itemized list of everything that needs fixing to bring the article up to snuff, but that would amount to me rewriting the article for you. The issues are quite extensive, and since spot-checking sources has revealed a massive number of serious issues, it would be necessary to double-check the entire article. I'll reiterate what I said two weeks ago: the best solution here would almost certainly be to delist the article so it can go through the WP:Good article nomination process afresh. If you want me to, I could at that point provide an in-depth review, or if you prefer I could leave it to someone else. TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how delisting it and having it go through GA would help with the process. I have already double-checked every single section and rewrote most of the Production section, They are of no concern, but the only issues we have here are editorial misconception and misinterpretation of the Box office section. From my point of view, it is not the Box Office Mojo's fault but rather editorial misconception and misinterpretation, such as reporting outdated Box Office data. A lot of FA, including The Empire Strikes Back are all cited heavily in Box Office Mojo. It is not my nor the film's fault that box office data are conflicted. Deadline and Bloomberg are both notable and reliable sources for Box office analysis, but they have different analysts that estimate different results.
 * "I understand that you would prefer an itemized list of everything that needs fixing to bring the article up to snuff, but that would amount to me rewriting the article for you." That won't be unnecessary, you just have to list sentences that you felt are flawed, but you cannot say that the entire article has massive serious issues without re-reviewing the entire article first because all of these issues (in my perspective) have already been addressed, from primary sources to due weight to neutrality to failed verification to whatnots. But the sad thing is that you repeatedly keep emphasizing that this article still has massive unresolved issues, undermining my efforts to fix them. You just failed to see the light on the other side of the tunnel, persisting in your beliefs that this article is hopeless and beyond revitalization, to the extent that it needs to be cast down just because some analyst had fucked up the Box office data a decade ago. How can you still say that it has massive unresolved issues when I spent all Thanksgiving, day and night, fixing them, especially extending it to the article as a whole instead of issues in the Box office section? All this time I spent fixing this stupid Box office section and you can just drive by and say it still has massive unresolved issues. How hard is it to compile a list of issues in bullet points? If you would only re-evaluate the Box office section you will discover that everything makes sense now once I fix the improper geographic terminology. I cannot just locate
 * other sources that do not make these errors" because they are lost to time, and if there are indeed still extensive issues beyond the Box office, why are you still reserving them? Wingwatchers (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See talk. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I shall, it seems, have to be blunt. You do not appear to fully understand the issues that plague this article, and as a result your ability to address them is limited. As a concrete example: I pointed out in my FAC review that the sentence During production, Lee was promoted to co-director for her extensive involvement in the project. failed verification. You have since changed it to During production, Lee was promoted to co-director for her sense of the story structure which Del Vecho said complemented well with Buck's experience., but this does not resolve the issue. Neither promoted to co-director for her sense of the story structure nor her sense of the story structure which Del Vecho said complemented well with Buck's experience. accurately reflects what the source actually says. Another example is that you don't seem to understand that the problem with Deadline and Bloomberg coming up with different figures is that you only report one of them. Yet another example is bringing up that the The Empire Strikes Back article cites Box Office Mojo—which doesn't address the issue that Box Office Mojo is simply and demonstrably wrong about this film. You are also apparently unaware of the existence of other box office sources such as The Numbers and Boxoffice Pro that can be used as alternatives when needed. A fourth example is that you just changed the geographic terminology from "North America"/"other countries" to "domestic"/"international", and previously had "in the US"/"outside the US"—none of those terminologies are correct.I'm not sticking to focusing on the "Box office" section because that's the only place there are significant problems, I'm doing it to limit the scope of this back-and-forth while I try to get you to understand just how poor a state this article is in. What you are doing is, if you'll excuse the crudity of the idiom, polishing a turd. The article needs to be rewritten, not tweaked. It's not a case where there is a limited number of discrete issues, it's a case where the article is poor throughout. Attempting to fix the article issue-by-issue would not be a good use of your time or mine; no amount of copyediting will solve sourcing issues (such as relying too heavily on non-ideal sources), for instance. You're basically asking me to conduct a full WP:GAN-style review on an article that plainly does not meet the WP:Good article criteria. That doesn't help anyone. Writing high-quality articles takes some skill, a fair amount of experience, and a lot of time. There is no getting around that, and trying to find shortcuts will be an exercise in futility that can only result in frustration. It may be the case that you simply need more practice when it comes to writing film articles. TompaDompa (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , as you have now realised mistakes on three separate occasions after insisting that the article was up to snuff, I do sympathise with 's reluctance to spend many hours in a WP:FIXLOOP, especially as your attitude borders on the combative. For myself, a quick look at the article shows clearly that it is far below FAC standards (examples range from the large—a weirdly organised, non-chronological but also non-thematic writing section—to the small—an odd spelling of "Lopezs"). Whether it is even GA standard is a different matter, but as I can see basic errors of grammar (see tenses in the international box office section), meaning of prose ("subjected to" does not mean what you think it does), or punctuation ("They said that the themes of Elsa's being different from others") without trying very hard means I do believe TompaDompa more than you in their assessment of NPOV/sourcing issues. For these reasons, I am inclined to close this as a delist and with a recommendation to ask for a WP:GOCE run through. Put it this way: if I was reviewing this article for GA status, I would not pass it, based on the prose alone. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "promoted to co-director for her sense of the story structure nor her sense of the story structure which Del Vecho said complemented well with Buck's experience" it indeed reflects what the source says. Quote Deadline: "“Frozen” producer Peter Del Vecho says the match-up is perfect. “Jenn has a real connection to the film and creates dynamic and relatable characters. Her sense of comedy, adventure and story structure paired with Chris Buck’s vast experience and incredible instincts create an ideal situation for this film.” Ok whatever you win. I am going to close this as delist and work on in peace. @TompaDompa @AirshipJungleman29 Get lost! Wingwatchers (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)