Open main menu

GA ReviewEdit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 03:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Article is well-written for the most part, but issues with consistency and information present in lead but not the article is nontrivial.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    Article contains original research and loose claims from sources that don't actually match what is in the source.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Article has POV issues and sometimes uses claims that are not justified in the sources.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:


Fiona's children are mentioned in the lead by name, but only implicitly mentioned by name in the body.
Added sources for the triplets' names in "Appearances" and revised the sentence.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Her nickname is only mentioned in infobox and has no source.
This nickname is never (or extremely insignificantly) mentioned in the series and was likely added by a fan; removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Ogre and Human should not be capitalized, as neither are proper nouns.
Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thriller Night is mentioned in the lead as her last appearance, but this is not sourced nor mentioned in the body.
I usually omit "last appearances" from character infoboxes altogether because characters, particularly animated characters, are constantly appearing in new movies, video games, shows and franchises, making it virtually impossible to determine what we should consider their "official last appearance". Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Holly Fields is mentioned in the lead, but this is not sourced nor mentioned in the body.
Added source and supporting text in "Voice" section.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Renee Sandstrom is mentioned in the lead, but this is not sourced nor mentioned in the body.
Removed. Despite popular belief, Sandstrom's contribution to the character appears to be largely unsupported and a borderline rumour; will re-add if a verified source becomes available.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Sally Dworsky is mentioned in the lead, but this is not sourced nor mentioned in the body.
Removed; similarly unsupported.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


Rationale for human Fiona is weak. Needs to explain it further the value of depicting human Fiona
Photo removed from body of the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The caption for Diaz' photo is too long. Can reduce it to (2010) instead of pictured in, drop the detail about Garofalo, and the sources aren't necessary as any information found in the caption should be in the article elsewhere.
Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Creation and writing

The article uses the word unattractive, but the source does not. Do the designers or the source identify her as not attractive, or is that extrapolated from the premise of the source material?
The source uses the word "ugly". Replaced.
Looking at the same source (citation 6), I see that the claim that Farquuad's attraction to Fiona was more compelling doesn't seem to be something specifically mentioned. Caan you point to the part of the text that backs that up? Furthermore, if the text does remain, be sure to rephrase to indicate who is saying it is compelling. The source? The designers?
The word used in the source is "practical". The film historian, Furniss, wrote "There are practical reasons why Princess Fiona must be beautiful most of the time: why else would Prince Farquuad want to marry her? He is vain and the bottom line is that he wants to marry a princess, so he can rule the land. Nonetheless, he 'naturally' is taken by her beauty and she becomes his choice." I've rephrased the sentence and replaced "compelling" with "practical".--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Inconsistent use of ogre and ogress. I recommend that you stick with ogre.
Fixed, throughout the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
No need to quote the source for using the word enchanted, as it's just the way they described the character.
Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The article says "permanently beautiful," but the source just says beautiful.
The article says that it was more complex originally, but the source doesn't seem to be the origin of that claim. Cut that out, and add a detail about why it wasn't used (due to test audiences).
Done. Thanks for the suggestion.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The detail on her being more empowered seems to be loosely based on an interviewer identifying her as more empowered in Forever After. Unless I'm missing the context, cut that detail entirely.
Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to these issues. I'm going to go through the article piecemeal, and it'll take a bit of time. Thanks for being so patient. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for taking the time to review in the first place. It's a very long article, so I get it haha. Take your time :-) Bryn --Changedforbetter (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Princess Fiona/GA1" page.