Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen II/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen II/archive 2)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 September 2021 [1].

Frozen II edit

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Improved to Good Article by Pamzeis, Chompy Ace and Wingwatchers
Significant copyeditor: Tenryuu
From previous archive: @Nikkimaria:, and @Aoba47:

The highest-grossing animated film of all time, the sequel to Frozen (2013), the proposal is well written, clear, and engaging, having been recently copyedited and corrected by a GOCE member; its coverage is broad and are notable; it is backed by archived reliable sources; it has a neutral point of view; it's not subject to an edit war; all images used on the article are from Wikimedia Commons or placed under a claim of fair-use with appropriate rationale. Wingwatchers (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, some supports or opposes? responses? anyone? Wingwatchers (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sometimes takes a while for reviewers to look at an article. Continuing reviewing other FACs; this demonstrates to other reviewers that you understand the FA criteria, giving them confidence that your article is ready. It can take up to two months for a FAC to get the 5+ reviews that it needs for promotion, so get ready for a long but fun ride! Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right. :) Wingwatchers (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "The Germanic water spirits Nøkk, as painted by Theodor Kittelsen, was notably heavier" - source, and notably heavier than what?
  • File:Frozen2_Elsa_Hairstyle_Animation_Development.jpg: why is the use of this particular image justified?
  • File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Magic_Kingdom_castle.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg: the publication date was 1904 in Norway [2].
Publication or creation? In what form was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would I know, but I can tell you that the author died in 1914, so it's in public domain. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has a tag stating it's in the public domain because it was published before 1926. If we don't know that, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then to clarify the matter, I switched the image File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg to a more descriptive equivalent from Flickr, File:Nøkken (12924042635).jpg. Wingwatchers (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Magic Kingdom castle.jpg, transcluded in a portal template, the image's licenses are GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2, and CC BY-SA 3.0.
I know that. I'm asking about the licensing of the work being pictured, not the image itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Wingwatchers (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The castle. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't get it, the castle is a three-dimensional building, why would it be copyrighted? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it. The Magic Castle was in public domain because it was constructed in 1971, therefore it was not protected by copyright. See Copyright in architecture in the United States. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed File:Frozen2_Elsa_Hairstyle_Animation_Development.jpg and File:Kittelsen_-_Nøkken_(Nasjonalmuseet)2.jpg's descriptions. @Nikkimaria Wingwatchers (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Portions of the former are not supported by the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a citaion if that was what you are referring to. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720 edit

Prose review. I have seen the film, and know some information about it, but other areas (such as animation jargon and how the film industry works) will be a little outside my scope of knowledge.

  • "Frozen II was green-lit" Green-lit is MOS:JARGON for the film industry, suggest "Production for Frozen II was approved..."
  • "after an internal debate over" An internal debate where? Among which people?
  • "if it would be a let-down to the original." Maybe -> "if it would be a disappointment to audiences compared to the original."
  • "from several other animation departments due to its complication." Delete several as redundant.
  • " She also learns Runeard was the one who started the conflict" -> "She also learns that Runeard started the conflict"
  • "Wood was cast since her voice sounds similar to Menzel and Bell's voices." This should be placed in the part of the article that talks about how the producers chose the voice actresses/actors.
  • "Voice recording began in September 2017,[11][12] though Menzel started a couple weeks later due to her concert tour.[13]" This should be placed in the development section
  • "The Voice's 4-note call is derived from the Latin sequence Dies irae, but is delivered in a manner inspired by the Scandinavian music form kulning.[10]" This pertains to the development, so should be placed in that section.
  • "He was previously voiced by Maurice LaMarche in the first film." Again, this switch should be described in a casting or development section, not here.
  • "Paul Briggs also briefly reprised his role in the film's post-credits scene as Marshmallow," -> "Paul Briggs reprised his role..."
  • Looking ahead in the article, it looks like there isn't a "Casting" section. I suggest adding this as a level-three heading in "Development" to describe the actresses/actors that returned to do voice work, as well as the casting process for the voices not featured in the first film. Some of the information outlined above would go in this section.
  • "said that a sequel was not potentially considered because" delete potentially
  • "Lee confirmed that Walt Disney Studios then-chief creative officer John Lasseter" delete then. The reader know that we are speaking of the chief creative officer of 2014 and that this role will change.
  • "The pair decided to collaborate on a film entirely unrelated to Frozen." What film was this?
  • "While working on the short film Frozen Fever, they realized how much they missed the characters." It's weird how the previous sentence says they worked on a project unrelated to Frozen, then describes a short-film they were making that was in the Frozen universe. Why did they create this short film?
  • "Meanwhile, Del Vecho had been accepting speech engagements around the world, where fans asked him unanswered questions regarding Frozen's future." Delete unanswered.
  • Delete the LA Times editor's blockquote. It is not adding to the article, and there's already a blockquote talking about this from Lasseter
  • The Development section is long; I think the text about Disney pre-announcement of Frozen II's development should be in its own section
  • "From the Scandinavia research trip, the production team concluded that Elsa is a "mythic hero" who possesses magical ice powers, while Anna is a "fairytale hero" who lives in a world with magic but does not have magical powers herself,[26] and that the first film succeeded by how it combined these two sets of elements." This is a long sentence, put the information after the [26] footnote into its own sentence.
  • "New York City to Burbank with camera crews in tow and ended up shooting 1,300 hours of footage on 115 shooting days from December 2018 through the November 2019 world premiere." -> "New York City to Burbank with and shot 1,300 hours of footage over 115 days from December 2018 to the November 2019 world premiere." To reduce redundancy
  • " and the moment and reason ended up in her documentary." Did the film crew have to leave the room so the production crew could resolve who the voice was?
  • "The film was produced by a team of approximately 800 people, 80 of whom were animators." What about the rest of the 720 people?
  • "while Wayne Unten again served as animation supervisor for Elsa." -> "while Wayne Unten reprised his role from the first film as animation supervisor for Elsa."
  • "and also drew inspiration from modern dance," delete also, redundant.
  • "from several other animation departments, artists, and technicians due to its difficulty," delete several
  • "The visual mythical adoption required additional collaborations from several other animation departments, artists, and technicians due to its difficulty, as estimated by visual supervisor Steve Golberg, the process took at least 8 months to complete." Recommend changing the comma after difficulty to a semi-colon
  • "than the ocean as depicted in Moana." Delete as
  • "while an undisclosed number of shots were cut and left out of the finished film." -> "while an undisclosed number of shots were cut from the finished film."
  • "For example, approximately a dozen animators and artists had labored for two months on a far more elaborate resurrection scene for Olaf before it was cut." The blockquote after this sentence talks about Show Yourself, but doesn't mention Olaf's resurrection scene. I'm confused about why this blockquote is here and what it is trying to tell me.
  • " production team locked the picture" locked the picture is unnecessary jargon, and most people will have to click on the wikilink to understand what this means. Why not simplify to "complete the film"?
  • "The musical team used a self-encouragement strategy, by pumping themselves that things would eventually be clearer in the near future." I don't think this sentence is necessary
  • "and they ended up doing most of the work off-camera." -> "and they completed most of the work off-camera."

This brings me to Marketing; I will continue my review once the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, Done. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments.

  • "In the U.S. market, Disney heavily marketed the film through a variety of internal and external partners." This statement feels very generalised and I am not sure how it is contributing to the article. Either give some examples of partnerships, or delete.
  • "To support the film's marketing campaign, the lead cast members made numerous public and televised appearances." Again, this is a very generalised statement; where did they make these appearances?
  • Per WP:OVERSECTION, single sentences and paragraphs don't usually get their own section. Consider merging the theatrical and international release sections.
  • "The Blu-ray bonus features include a sing-along audio recording of the film..." This sentence is very long. Consider splitting.
  • "In the United States and Canada, the film was released alongside A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and 21 Bridges." This might belong in the release section
  • I think the themes section should be a level 2 heading and placed after the critical reception.
  • I'm concerned that the themes section is mostly quoted from the sources. Is there a way to minimize the quotes? Any additional commentary about the themes of the film?
  • "Kristen Page-Kirby of The Washington Post rated the film 2 out of 4 stars, she panned the film's" replace this comma with a semi-colon
  • "Scott Mendelson from Forbes considered the story unnaturally generic, he also deemed the film's songs as "mediocre."" -> "Scott Mendelson from Forbes considered the story unnaturally generic and deemed the film's songs as "mediocre."
  • Why are the sources listed in "Further reading" not used in the article?
  • There are lots of things in External links. Per WP:ELNO should they all be there? Die Hard is a recently promoted FA and might provide guidance on what links to include.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully done. @Z1720 Wingwatchers (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of questions above that you need to answer. Also, some follow-up comments:
  • Why is the trailer listed in External links? Couldn't a person access the trailer from the movie's official website?
  • In the Voice cast section, should each entry end in a period? This needs to be consistent.

When the above are addressed, I will conduct another readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Wingwatchers (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Chompy Ace has added content and gave suggestions on the article's talk page. Once these are sorted, please ping me and I'll take another look, as I want to assess the new prose before giving my support. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. @Z1720 Wingwatchers (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "Elsa stops it and forms ice sculptures." Does Elsa form the ice sculptures or does the tornado?
  • "In a post-credits scene, Olaf visits Elsa's ice palace and recounts the events he experienced to Marshmallow and the Snowgies, miniature snowmen that were inadvertently created by Elsa on Anna's nineteenth birthday." Wasn't Marshmallow created in Frozen I? This sentence makes it seem like he was created in Frozen Fever.
  • "inspired by the Scandinavian music form kulning" kuling should be wikilinked, perhaps to Kulning
  • "and an advisory group, Verdett, was formed." -> "and an advisory group, named Verdett, was formed."
  • " her crew was asked to leave the room only once, and the moment and reason ended up in her documentary.[38] The documentary revealed that by December 2018, it had been firmly established that Elsa was following a mysterious voice, but the production team had not yet resolved the critical question of the voice's identity.[41]" -> "Her crew was asked to leave the room only once,[38] when the production team wanted to decide the mysterious voice's identity.[41]" I think this tightens up teh language and removes extra information.
  • "and the cultural modern dance," -> "and movement in modern dance" As a dance specialist, this is how I would describe it.
  • "of grown-up expository dialogue" I'm not sure if grown-up is necessary here, and I'm not sure what grown-up expository dialogue would entail.
  • " "Show Yourself" began to come together," How does a song "come together"? Can a different descriptor be used here?
  • " as well as Christophe Beck to compose the film's score." -> "and Christophe Beck returned to compose the film's score."
  • "The Korean version of the same song was also released later that month, performed by K-pop singer and Girls' Generation member Taeyeon." There have been many international versions of this song. Why is the Korean one the only one mentioned here?
  • The article says, "Disney partnered with 140 brands worldwide to promote Frozen 2" but the rest of the Marketing section only focuses on the American campaign. Is there any information on the marketing in other jurisdictions?
  • "Theatrical and international" This section is called theatrical and international release, but no information is given on its release in non-American jurisdictions. This should be added.
  • "Documentary series" A lot of the information in this section is repeated from earlier sections, such as filming in LA and in the Lopez home. Can the repetitive information be removed, and instead this section focus on new information?
  • "accounting for production budgets, P&A," What is P&A?
  • "According to Disney (who did not consіder the 2019 The Lion King remake to be an anіmated fіlm), Frozen II is the hіghest-grossing anіmated fіlm, surpassing the first Frozen." Why is Disney declaring Frozen II the highest-grossing animated film? An independent source should determine this, not an animation studio.
  • "Released alongside A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and 21 Bridges on November 22, 2019,[88] in 4,440 theaters, with 2,500 of those in 3D, 400 in IMAX, 800 in premium large format, and 235 in D-Box/4D,[89] Frozen II made $41.8 million on its first day,[90] including $8.5 million from Thursday night previews." This should be three sentences: one talking about being released alongside the other films, one about the screens, and one about its first-day box office success.
  • The themes section is extremely short. I can see each of the sentences in this section having their own paragraph. Is there any additional information about the themes of this film? Perhaps the production crew has additional information about the themes they were trying to explore. Reviews might also comment on the themes of the film.
  • The critical reception falls into the "X said Y" pattern, especially in the second and third paragraphs. Instead of commenting on what each reviewer said, I would try to find themes that many reviewers talk about and instead give comments on what critics as a group say, rather than individual people. This is especially achievable with this film because there are so many reviews. WP:RECEPTION is an essay with some great tips on how to copyedit reception sections.

Those are my secondary comments. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Hopefully all fixed except for the cultural modern dance. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And Maybe "Disney worldwide partnership" details in the section marketing because there are no reliable sources for this subject. [3] Wingwatchers (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given to this, this are problems I can not solve:the worldwide partnership details, is because that it wasn't notable enough to be recorded by reliable media sources. The only international marketing details was briefly summarized in quantity as a whole. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis, and any user interested . Sorry for the disturbance, but I hopes you will support, or else will be archived. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: Sorry that I have not responded to this; real life has had to take precedence. I see that HumanxAnthro has highlighted some more sources that you want to include in the article. Since their inclusion might change the article structure, I am going to hold off re-reviewing this article until those sources are included. I suggest that you withdraw this FAC for now so that you can work on analysing those sources. You can also open a PR and ping this FAC's reviewers to get additional comments. Many FAs have had to go through multiple FACs to become promoted, especially popular or large topics like this one. I hope to see this article back at FAC soon. Z1720 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis edit

Comment: Why is pre-production before development? Doesn't development come first...? Pamzeis (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it? The sequel was not officially approved until March 2015. So that means it was not in development until that date. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't pre-production either. It can't have been as pre-production is generally planning (of production (animation/voice recording in this case)) and starts after the film has been greenlit. On the other hand, development is mostly the conception, creation and writing. Pamzeis (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, I don't think a film has to be greenlit to be in development, though it has to be for pre-production. Pamzeis (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about pre-development? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No idea a word to describe the context, any ideas? @Pamzeis Wingwatchers (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One option is to title the subheading "Development and pre-production" and make level 4 subheadings to split up the long section (IDK what to title them though). However, it also includes details from the production stage from "Voice recording began in [...]" which may need to be moved into a separate section. Pamzeis (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not that significant in mass, have it this way. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give reviewing a try. Keep in mind that I've never done an FAR before so please point out my mistakes. I'll hopefully be able review the whole article by the end of Friday (UTC+07:00). Please ping me if I don't reply before then! Pamzeis (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So here are my first comments:

  • 2019 American computer-animated musical fantasy film — WP:SEAOFBLUE?
  • follows sisters Anna and Elsa — wikilink "Anna" to Anna (Frozen) and Elsa to Elsa (Frozen)
  • It deals with a wide variety of themes — "It" meaning what?
  • made greater uses of complex visual computer effects → "uses more complex visual computer effects" (more concise)
  • and also accompanied — remove also
  • "iceman", "reindeer" and "snowman" are linked in the lead but not the plot or cast sections. Is there reason for this?
  • Per MOS:FILMCAST, list items should not have full stops. Pamzeis (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed except the first one because there is no alternative wikilink for that. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from 👨x🐱 edit

Coordinator note edit

Three weeks in and this nomination has yet to garner a general support. Unless there are clear indications of a consensus to promote starting to form within the next two to three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, don't archived it: please anyone, support, comment? Rescue this article. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wingwatchers, no shame in a FAC being archived, and no limit to how many times it can be re-nominated. Z1720 offers good advice in a recent post above: take some time away from the FAC process to work in more sources, and then get some more eyes on the article (e.g. through Peer Review, and let it run its course this time) before another try here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Frozen_II/archive2&oldid=1058990681"