Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Care Bears Movie/archive3

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | The Care Bears Movie

The Care Bears Movie edit

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is getting better and better (to write and look at) as I go along. At this writing, it measures 135 kB, and contains 223 cites plus 19 notes. Thanks to The Nelvana Story by Daniel Stoffman, it looks like I've almost completed this thing ... after a six-year stretch. I'm sending this up as a GA nominee in due time, and then I'll do FAC before this year's up.

And ... did I forget to mention last time that it was directed by a woman?

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your ongoing work on this article and glad that you found a new source. Here are some suggestions for improvement - I think this would pass at WP:GAN without too much trouble, so they will mostly focus on what was is needed for it to stand a chance at WP:FAC.

  • Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are two FAs on animated films (most WikiProject Animation FAs are on tv shows) and these may be good models - they are Fritz the Cat (film) and The Lord of the Rings (1978 film). Both are somewhat older FAs (promoted in 2007) but Fritz was on the Main Page in October 2010 and is in better shape.
  • I assume that all of the issues raised in Talk:The Care Bears Movie/GA1 have been addressed. I note that none of the sources deemed unreliable there are still used in the article. Assuming the issues have all been addressed, and that this follows WP:MOSFILM, and looking at WP:WIAGA, I think this would pass at GAN without too much trouble, although I am sure a reviewer would find some things to change (that's why things are reviewed, right?)
  • I think this would have a much harder time at FAC, mostly because of the language (which is the most difficult FA Criterion for most articles to meet). There are also some other issues - FAC is a place where every i has to be dotted and every t crossed. I will go through the article and try to point out as many examples as I can where improvement is needed, but these are just examples, not an exhaustive list.
  • The lead feels too detailed to me. In general the lead is supposed to be an inviting and concise overview of the whole article, but I am not sure that the current lead is concise or inviting enough.
  • I would focus the llead pretty exclusively on this movie, and would cut out material from the lead which is not directly related to this film. For example, I am not sure why The Black Cauldron has to be in the lead, or why the film's American distributor has to be mentioned three times in the lead. For that matter why does Samuel Goldwyn Jr have to be mentioned in the lead at all? He seems to only be mentioned one other time in the rest of the article. How does knowing in the lead that the film's distributor, The Samuel Goldwyn Company, was founded by Samuel Goldwyn Jr. help the reader's comprehension?
  • Similarly I am not sure that After a 1988 Christmas special, the Toronto studio ceased further work on Care Bears material until 2004's Journey to Joke-a-lot. needs to be in the lead.
  • I was surprised that there was no mention of the film's budget in the lead.
  • The writing style is on the prolix side - FAC wants more concise prose. I will try to tighten one paragraph of the lead ( the fourth and final one). The original is:
    • The profitable success of The Care Bears Movie saved Nelvana from closing down, and was responsible for reviving theatrically released children's entertainment in the U.S. market. The project was cited as an example of licensed merchandise preceding a major motion picture's debut; as such, a spate of animated and live-action features based on toy lines succeeded it in the years ahead. It was followed by two more feature films, also from Nelvana—1986's A New Generation and 1987's Adventure in Wonderland—neither of which surpassed the original financially or critically. In the wake of the film's success, DIC Entertainment and Nelvana produced two television series with the characters, airing on ABC in the U.S., Global in Canada, and in syndication. After a 1988 Christmas special, the Toronto studio ceased further work on Care Bears material until 2004's Journey to Joke-a-lot.
    • The movie's success saved Nelvana from closing, helped revive films aimed at children in the U.S. market, and has been cited as inspiring a spate of toy-based animated and live-action features. Nelvana produced two sequels in the next two years—1986's A New Generation and 1987's Adventure in Wonderland—neither surpassed the original financially or critically. The Care Bears franchise continues, and has included television series and specials, videos and films.
  • When I read in the lead that Another Nelvana effort, Strawberry Shortcake Meets the Berrykins, played alongside the feature during its theatrical run. I expected there to be more about this in the body of the article.
  • Plot - room to tighten the prose here As the story starts, two of the Care Bears (Friend Bear and Secret Bear) travel around the Earth, looking for people to cheer up. They soon meet Kim and Jason, two lonely children whose parents have died. could just be something like In the story, Care Bears Friend Bear and Secret Bear travel looking for people to cheer up and meet Kim and Jason, lonely orphaned children.
  • Cast - this was criticized as overly detailed in the GAR and I think it could be trimmed. There are five actors credited as Additional voices - why do these have to be included? Also since two people provide the voice (speaking and sing) for the Lion, could these somehow be combined?
  • When an abbreviation is introduced like TCFC, why not use it later in the article?
  • Watch out for statements that do not agree with each other and avoid needless repetition - for example in the Development section That same year [1981] ... American Greetings began to develop a feature-length film with those characters. is followed a few sentence later by Nelvana was the first company to propose a feature film based on the Care Bears, and wanted to do it after hearing it was in development;[40] DIC Entertainment also vied to produce it. By the way, wasn't AGC the first company to propose a feature film based on the Care Bears (not Nelvana)?
  • FAC reviewers like references at the end of sentences or at least after punctuation - something like hanks to the Strawberry Shortcake specials[35] and their experience on Rock & Rule,[10] Nelvana acquired the rights to the characters[33] and gained a contract from American Greetings[14] to helm the script.[10] might raise objections at FAC.
  • Would Crew and companies be better as Crew and financing? Or Producers and crew?
  • There are many places where the prose could be tightened, but here the word choice is odd - an opening date is set or fixed (not "underway"): By then, the production was falling behind schedule, and an opening date was already underway; ...
  • The budget is in a note - I would include the range in the body of the article.
  • Similarly I would include the fact that the 24 million spent to promote the film included was $4 million for advertising and the rest for promoting the Care Bears line.
  • Is there any information on how sales of the Care Bears and Cousins did after the movie? Did their sales go up?
  • The MOS says to introduce someone the first time with their full name (can do this in the lead and first mention in the body), then just use the last name afdter that (unless there are multiple people withthe same last name, or the person is better known by a single or first name). So Patrick Loubert should be just Loubert after first mention (and lots of other examples)
  • I would not give the ISBNs in the body of the article - put them in a note or perhaps a reference
  • In 1985 Germany used DM, not Euros, so the gross should be given in DM with Euro and USD conversions.
  • I am not sure what the crtieria are for including things in the Sources section. Usually people list books in such a section and other references in full in the References section below. However here the first ref is a book that is not listed in Sources, and Sources includes what looks like a newspaper article (Rabkin) but there are other newpaper articles in References.
  • Make sure all sources meet WP:RS
  • I am concerend that the article has four fair use images. The lead image of the movie poster is fine, and the alum cover is probably good too. Iam less convinced of the need for the other two images - how do they meet WP:NFCC? The two model animated film FAs have only one image from the film between them (in Fritz the Cat). There is a discussion of the film's visual style and the caption makes it clear how the image used illustrates this. I would say that the Spirit image is close to doing this (although the image is close to that at the bottom of the film poster).
  • Bottom line is this needs a copyedit to tighten the prose. WP:GOCE and WP:PR/V list copyeditors willing to help - I would look for someone who has FA experience.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Care_Bears_Movie/archive3&oldid=1078793247"