GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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!
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)
|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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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'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)
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 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)
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)
Hi there @ Mz7:, 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)
|deal-url=
parameters to no
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. @
JohnWickTwo and
Adamstom.97: Thanks so much for taking the time to add your thoughts!GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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!
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)
|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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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'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)
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 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)
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)
Hi there @ Mz7:, 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)
|deal-url=
parameters to no
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. @
JohnWickTwo and
Adamstom.97: Thanks so much for taking the time to add your thoughts!