Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen (2013 film)/archive1

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) 10 November 2023 [1].

---

Frozen (2013 film)

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk · contribs) Chompy Ace (talk · contribs)

2013 Disney film. After extensive copyediting and rewriting I have finally transformed it into a FAC. It almost a decade from its November 19, 2013 so I really want to rush this for TFA to celebrate its 10 year anniversary and also to celebrate Disney's 100 years of wonder!Wingwatchers (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advance, but I oppose this nomination for promotion based on the quality of the prose. While I can tell you have put a lot of time and work into this article, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a potential FA.

Just by looking at the "Thematic analysis" section, I see fundamental issues with the prose. I do not think the analysis is discussed or written well here, and there are sections, specifically the ones regarding superhero films, that are jarring. There are also paragraphs devoted to a single source when this section so the balance is off and it would be better to have a clearer structure overall. There are also parts that read more like an essay than a Wikipedia article. The following part is an example of what I mean: (Performativity in superhero films challenges the traditional dichotomy of good versus evil.).

I have not looked closely at other areas of the article, but I believe this section alone would have to be rewritten, and that would be best handled outside of the FAC process. I would recommend taking it through the peer review process and reaching out to editors who are experienced in film articles. It may be helpful to reach out to reviewers from your FAC for Frozen II. Apologies again. I do not mean to come across harsh, but I just do not think this article is ready for a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47 I will try to address that in a couple days. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As I stated above, there are fundamental issues with the prose just in this one section alone, and it would have to be completely rewritten, which I do not think should be done in a FAC setting. There are so many issues in this sentence alone: (Like how the superhero genre showcases protagonists with ambiguous or dual natures, Elsa's complexity is played by the actress Idina Menzel who gained fame as the Wicked Witch of the West in the musical Wicked.) It reads more like an essay than something in a Wikipedia article and does not have any links. There are also basic things like Wicked not being put in italics. I'd recommend withdrawing this nomination and working on the article outside of the FAC process. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47 Yes I understand and I really want to address them rather than having it archived. It will only take a few days and some trimming and some addition there and there. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Understood. It is your choice, and I respect that. I cannot guarantee that I will revisit my review, and to be clear, it would take far more than "some trimming and some addition there and there" to address my concerns with that section. I will end my review here. Best of luck with your work on the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for remarking on that. However I disagree, and I will make sure to really focus on this aspect to address your concerns. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47 I have improved that section accordingly and added some new contents. Can you go re-review that section and potentially strike your opposition? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have struck my oppose as the section has been improved, but this will end my participation in this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• All the images are appropriately licensed, with a good fair use rationale, as well as others being self-made and Flickr-sourced, one OTRS-checked, and one PD.
• I'm not sure the Accolades picture is really needed; it is repetitive of the previous pic with the same people, and it has the same composition.
• Add alt texts to all the images. Note that it must be brief, and that "it does not necessarily describe the visual characteristics of the image itself but must convey the same meaning as the image."

I'll move on to the prose if this is settled. GeraldWL 03:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis Done. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

GWL

I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 05:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 06:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

* The first paragraph is quite static and unengaging ("Buck ... Lee ... Lee ... Lee ... Buck"). I have this change in mind: "It was directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, who also wrote the story with Shane Morris, drawing inspiration from Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen". Produced by John Lasseter and Peter Del Vecho, the film follows Princess Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell) as she teams up with Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), Sven, and Olaf (Josh Gad) to find her estranged sister Elsa (Idina Menzel), whose icy powers have inadvertently trapped their kingdom in eternal winter. The main cast also includes Santino Fontana as Prince Hans." Done At the end of para 1 I sugggest adding at least one sentence regarding the themes. Done Link film score Done "Frozen received largely positive reviews from critics" --> "It received generally positive reviews from critics" Done "It was the first Walt Disney Animation Studios film to win Best Animated Feature" "it received two awards at the 86th Academy Awards among numerous other accolades. It was the first Walt Disney Animation Studios film to win Best Animated Feature" --> "received two awards at the 86th Academy Awards among numerous other accolades, making it the first Disney film to win Best Animated Feature" Done "overtaking Toy Story 3" --> "overtaking Toy Story 3 (2010)" Done "in November 2019" --> "in 2019" Done I think the mention that their parents are "the King and Queen" is pretty self-explanatory; "the King and Queen are lost at sea" can also be changed to "their parents" Done "the handsome Prince Hans of the Southern Isles"-- remove handsome. Also you can link the entire Prince Hans of the Southern Isles. Done "but she remains distant from Anna. Anna and Hans develop a romantic connection during the festivities, and he impulsively proposes to her, but Elsa objects when they seek her blessing" --> "but she remains distant from Anna, who develops a romantic bond with Hans during the festivities but is objected by Elsa." Done Link iceman Done "An attack by wolves damages Kristoff's sleigh beyond repair. Forced to continue the journey on foot, Anna and Kristoff meet Olaf" --> "After an attack by wolves damages Kristoff's sleigh, they continue the journey on foot, discovering Olaf" Done "whom the Duke secretly gave orders to kill Elsa"-- remove "gave" Done "Anna eventually reaches the ice palace and reveals what has become of Arendelle to Elsa, who does not know how to undo her magic." "so Hans can give her true love's kiss" --> "so Hans can kiss her" Done "she has escaped her detention cell"-- what detention cell? Clarified "Anna is freed by Olaf, and they venture into the blizzard outside to meet Kristoff, whom Olaf has revealed is in love with her." --> "Anna is freed by Olaf and they meet Kristoff, whom Olaf has revealed is in love with her." Done Rm comma in "8-year-old, young Elsa" and the one below Done Rm link to iceman as duplicate, if iceman is to be linked in Plot Removed Link: traditional animation, first act, ripple effect, plot twist, inner conflict, Brooklyn accent, test screening, Phoenix Arizona, Broadway theater, iPhone, table-read, rrosemaling Done The first sub can simply be renamed Background Done Add "Illustration of" at the start of the caption Done "to impress Erica (Gerda)"-- what does the brackets mean? Removed "chief executive officer of The Walt Disney Company"-- decaps "the" Part of the name "with Oscar-winning director" --> "with Academy Award-winning director" Dobe Hyphenate "prince kissing the princess" Done "and Megan Mullally was set to play Elsa"-- voice, not play Done "the project entered a period of development challenges"-- r u referring to development hell? Linked; dont want to mention it directly Any mentions of "Prince Hans" can be trimmed to just "Hans", since you also don't refer to Elsa all the time as Princess Elsa Done "The Lopezs'"-- since they have not been introduced before this point, introduce them here; later in the Music section you can just refer to them as the Lopezs. Done "transformed Elsa into a more intricate, vulnerable, and sympathetic character. The songwriters portrayed Elsa as a frightened girl grappling to control and accept her gift rather than a villain." --> "transformed Elsa into a more intricate, vulnerable, and sympathetic character, grappling to control and accept her gift rather than a villain." Done The "I take pride in bringing out those qualities in the character" part can be removed since it doesnt provide any substance Removed At Casting's last paragraph, some actors are not linked Linked The next section is called "Animation and cinematography", but I don't see mentions of the cinematographer; I found this source by Emanuel Levy which you can use to expand on this section; for example, it stated that one frame in the "Let it go" scene took 30 hours to render. Expanded Elaborate who Dr. Kenneth is (physicist) and link him (also add the "G."). Overall I don't have other complaints about the section since I'm also familiar with the animation process, but bear in mind other layman editors might have other questions Linked Shouldn't the design section be before Animation? Since the design is what led to the animation, not vice versa? Relocated "The composers worked remotely from New York City" Fixed Link Demi Lovato, film score, Christophe Beck, Sámi, Disney Parks, Experiences and Products, Warner Bros. Studios, Burbank Linked The localization is unique since I've never seen such sections in any article, but it's a good cherry on top for the comprehensiveness. I do question however, the lack of an editing section-- not animation, but editing. The editing section is not possible because it has never appear in any past Disney FA films like Atlantis: The Lost Empire due to Disney's lack of emphasis on their film's editing aspects and the lack of reliable sources in circulation. @Gerald Waldo Luis: I believe I have addressed all of the above comments. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Link meritocracy, patriarchal, double standards, heteronormativity, trope, character arc, capitalized Linked except for capitalized because there is no corresponding article You pointed out that Stevens noted Elsa transforms by applying a more alluring fashion, but then pointed the limited self-actualization, then compared it to films which do what Elsa does. I feel like the "limited part" can be in the very last sentence of the paragraph as like "Despite this, it's limited in self-actualization." If this doesn't work too I'd love a clarification. Relocated to second par I enjoy reading this section, although I found parallels of it with the controversies section which elaborated more on the sexist and LGBTQ undertones; it might be able to weave into the Themes section albeit with a few trims so as to not make it too wordy. I weaved The Atlantic and Geal's statment back into the Themes section "Su Holmes and Robert Geal said Frozen misrepresents social identities. Holmes said it portrays a socially constructed nature of female identity and promotes thinness as beauty, raising concerns related to issues such as eating disorders." Quite a lot of names here, I think you can trim it to "Several scholars said that Frozen misrepresents social identities, featuring a socially constructed nature of female identity and promoting thinness as beauty, raising concerns related to issues such as eating disorders." This is factually inaccurate because Holmes said that. However, I have changed it to "Several scholars said Frozen defies traditional social identities" to reflect all passages I'd say be careful with sources like Laili which are theses; FAs generally refrain from them (except for PhD, this is just S1) since they're in a way self-published. I won't be doing spotchecks, but just know that it might be something source reviewers can bring up. Hmm. I am not sure why academic reliability is relevant here because we are citing themes anyone can analyze even without a PHD as opposed to the more technical medical articles "Fariha Laili said Frozen promotes feminism" --> "...said that the film promotes..." Done "and determining her future as well as that of Arendelle" --> "and determining the future" Done "She denies Anna's immature marriage request"-- remove immature since it's subjective, the explanation that follows it has a more objective vibe. Removed "According to Geal, Stephani Linando, and Ryan Bunch, Frozen departs from" --> "Some found Frozen to depart from" Well I have to attribute them here because the following passages come from their work "Bunch said, unlike the traditional"-- "Bunch said" can be trimmed since it's quite a neutral observation of the plot. Removed "It conveys the separation and confinement and between Anna and Elsa"-- duplicate and? Fixed "While Elsa and Anna follow" --> "While they follow" Fixed "showcasing their growth from childhood to adolescence and depicting the death of their parents" --> "blending their coming-of-age story with grief for their parents." Already done "establishes a poignant emotional connection"-- poignant is subjective I am not sure. I am inclined that is supposed to be there to empathize on this aspect. If you go to Do You Want to Build a Snowman?#Critical reception right image you will understand exactly what I meant. "Anna expresses excitement about open doors and windows, and being around people" --> Anna expresses extroverted excitement" Done "takes a backseat" is an idiom, should use another phrase Rephrased Link D23, Disneyland (which one?), Disney California Adventure, Epcot, Disneyland Paris, Disney Consumer Products, Amazon Done "with characters Anna and Elsa"-- should elaborate that it's people dressing up as them Done With a film as eventful as Frozen I'm pretty sure marketing goes well beyond that. Trailers and reviews of the trailers by critics are a major thing too. Also I'd love to see an elaboration on what kind of merchandise were made. I dont think critics would spend their time reviewing trailers unless is Tyson complaining about the inconsistent snowflakes in Frozen II, and as expected the only things I found is them talking about the directors, the story, and the general background of the film. However I have added the types of merchandise A quick Google search reveals this review by Variety. It probably wasnt a common thing back then, but a lot of film trailers nowadays do get standalone reviews. Added "Various single-along versions"-- sing-along Done "Get a Horse!"-- add full stop Done "featurettes, deleted scenes, the film's teaser trailer, a "Let It Go" music video, and a short film Get A Horse!" -- > "featurettes, deleted scenes, the film's teaser trailer, a "Let It Go" music video, and Get A Horse!." Done "Upon its home media release, Frozen became a massive success." This suggests Frozen became popular because it's sold on home media, which is not the case. You can instead say "Frozen's home media release became a massive success." Fixed This article often interchanges stuff like "UK" with "U.K." with the dots. It must be consistent. Similar with US. Appears to be already fixed @Gerald Waldo Luis: I have addressed all the comments. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC) "and the first animated film since Toy Story 3" (2010) Done "reported in March 2014 that outside analysts"-- what's outside analysts? No box office analysts have ever come from the distributors themselves, so there's no "inside analysts". Removed Link thanksgiving Linked "Thanksgiving gross"es Done "Toy Story 2 ($27.8 million)" --> "1999'sToy Story 2 ($27.8 million)" Done "Frozen became the first film since Avatar" (2009). Add the years for all the other films too, if it's not 2013. Added Apply consistent numbers. At one point it's "did not debut at No. 1", then there's "Frozen became the nineteenth film". Done "Russia and the CIS" --> "Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)" Done For the sentence that starts with "Overall, its largest opening weekends", separate each country with semicolon Done While I admire the lack of quoting the critics (which is a good thing), I think most of the attribution here can be dropped if it's not just relating to one person. The repetition of "X and X said Y. Z and Z said A" can get pretty boring, the kind of wording you'd expect to be on lists and not prose. The need for attribution also creates some injustice. Removing most of the publications would affect the overall credibility of the section. However, I have removed the attribution for the last sentence in the first par.; Removed most attribution and rephrased them accordingly "movie" --> "film" Done In paragraphs 1 and 2, you mentioned critics who praised the film's storyline, but in para 3 wrote "The story and message were criticized." There needs to be more nuance in that sentence, or you can blend in the receptions by topic (i.e. para 1 talks about visuals, para 2 talks about songs, and para 3 abt storyline). Reworded story to depth; Reworded the entire phrase this time Seeing that the controversies only cover one para each, I think the sub-subsections can be dropped. Then you can begin the section with a topic sentence like "Frozen has been subject to several controversies." Done "CG" --> "CGI" Done "However, a Disney spokesperson clarified" --> "However, Lee and a Disney spokesperson clarified". You can blend both their sentences together since it's basically the same thing. Done "DiSalvo later expressed frustration, explaining that his words were taken out of context and that people didn't seek the truth before spreading misinformation online" --> "DiSalvo later confirmed such, expressing frustration over the misinformation online, and emphasized..." Done Unlink homosexuality, it's a pretty commonly known topic Unlinked The accolades section, while having its own article, must still encompass all the awards and not just the superior ones. You can use an excerpt of the main article's lead's third para: {{Excerpt|List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film)|paragraphs=3}} Very useful template Isn't FII also part of the franchise? If it's that short of a section it might be worth merging into the franchise part. Merged @Gerald Waldo Luis: All done. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC) New changes. Pinging @Gerald Waldo Luis: I'm now more firm on the quality of the reception section, with a few comments left. Firstly in controversies, "homosexuality, and "Let it Go" lawsuit" --> "LGBT portrayals, and the Let it Go" song" sounds just right; it's not too broad but also not too simplified. Fixed Chompy Ace seems to have reverted the listicle excerpt. If it's not really viable for an FA, I'd like to find better ways to make the subsection a bit more comprehensive than what we have now. Something like "Frozen has garnered many accolades for its XXX." I re-added it back with citations "and a unique plot twist where the traditional villain role was subverted" --> "and a unique subversion of the traditional villain role" Done "didn't" --> "did not" Done "Additionally, on the Google Play Store"-- when? 2014 Link bob iger, ebay, Frozen (musical), Maelstrom (ride), Frozen Ever After, Random House All linked but I cant seem to find Frozen Ever After "a one-hour "making of" television special"-- no need for the quotations, since making-of is the legit name of the BTS genre Removed "limited time theatrical release" --> "limited theatrical release" Linked "special" --> "television special" Linked Pinging @Gerald Waldo Luis: Wingwatchers (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry for the brief wait. I just took a last look at the article and it looks way better now. I do suggest adding archive to all possible links, but apart from that, support. GeraldWL 03:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! That have already been done while I am contemplating life. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also thanks for the detailed review. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolved dispute per below

*:::I am baffled by this user's actions and their insistence on not following guidelines and policies. I do not support the FA nomination in this current state of the article. There is a discussion on the talk page and the problem with their writing and the unnecessary and unsourced additions to the lead can be seen here. ภץאคгöร 09:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC) Note: In the end I wish to just let it go. I have reverted my edit to his changes with the lead and cultural impact sections but I will make minor adjustments to help it flow better. @Nyxaros I understand you also want to improve this article and is wrong of me to accuse you based on my perspective. Of Course I understand interpretation can vary between editors. I apologize for my behavior throughout the entire process. I apologize for failing to see clarity. Do you think you can also "let it go"? Wingwatchers (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frozen_(2013_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1183794209 Wingwatchers (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC) @Nyxaros I have made some minor adjustments. Reassessing it I think is fairly decent and acceptable. My bad for giving you a hard time. I faced emotional issues IRL. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC) In addition I have also changeds words like "captivating" to "resonated deeply" in the lead to reflect a more encyclopedic tone. I initially opted for the former because I consider it less wordy and more compelling. I hope this helps. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

JJE

I've got a request for a source review but I'd like to see the content dispute mentioned above resolved before reviewing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems like this is a pass, source review wise, but keeping my caveats about source familiarity in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolution of the content issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I made some serious efforts to re-implement and re-adjust his proposed changes, but I am not sure if it has to be marked resolved by their approval, which wouldn't be likely, given the disputed situation and my initial skepticism. According to the talk page, it appears that the dispute boils down to "Lastly, "obsessing" or any related word included in the article is not "completely neutral", you really should read WP: NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts. I rewrote that part to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review. ภץאคгöร 07:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)" to which I have reverted it back to his liking https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frozen_(2013_film)&diff=cur&oldid=1183750173. I have backed down from my side and my belief and accepted his revision for the mere sake of this FAC, therefore I think I have resolved this dispute since we are back at square one by reimposing his edit. In addition, I have approached the editor above privately with sincere apologies, and I was wondering if we all can agree that it is resolved since I resolved it by reverting the article to his liking including "following guidelines and policies" and removing the so-called "problem with their writing and the unnecessary and unsourced additions to the lead". In conclusion, the dispute has been resolved with me backing down and reimposing "that part [he rewrote] to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review." so I was wondering if this is suffice for you to initiate the source review. Either way, please let me know before you proceed. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Let's see what Nyxaros has to say about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC) @Nyxaros What do you think? Do you consider the case closed? If so, can you reassure us that the issue has been resolved? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC) I've edited the page, and I think the issue is resolved. However, the info about "overtaking Toy Story 3 (2010) to become the highest-grossing animated film of all time until The Lion King (2019)." should be added to "Box office" section with sources. ภץאคгöร 08:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Spot-check upon request. With the caveat that I don't know much about the sources or topic, reviewing this version: #3 seems to have a broken link. I don't think The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Telegraph and Slate need an ISSN, especially as it doesn't seem to be very consistently applied. I presume that #30 is a reliable source, in light of this sauce. #45 is using "Williams College" as the author, which seems wrong to me. It's also inconsistent with the formatting of #137. What make #57, #147 reliable sources? #148 seems to have the wrong agency. #162 lacks an author. #224 has one broken source. #236 has a nonpublic source icon, is it consistently applied? Same for #271 and #274 and #296. I don't think academic papers with DOIs need the "Retrieved" time. "info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis thesis" probably needs cleanup, and theses usually are not strong sources - have these been cited by anyone else? Have the sources here been evaluated for usage? I see that the "works cited" section seems to be unorganized.

The thesis was not cited anywhere, but it has been extensively peer-reviewed.Wingwatchers (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I marked Ref#3 dead to redirect it to the archive; removed ISSN which are generated by the built-in citation tool; removed William author in the last1 parameter; fixed consistency issues. #57 has been replaced; #147 removed; #148 is indeed published under the domain usa.today.com and consequently inherit the former's reliability; added author for #162; #224 I checked them but they all seems to work fine; #236 no its not consistently applied and it will be a real pain to do it manually-I have removed their icons; all of the academic sources in works cited are pulled from Scholar including the thesis; removed retrieved time Wingwatchers (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant whether you also checked other sources in that Google Scholar query. I am not sure that a thesis being peer reviewed makes it automatically reliable for a FA; Ealdgyth? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Butting in, from memory PhDs are acceptable, and Masters if by a published author -- I'm struggling to recall if Bachelors are also acceptable if by a published author... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced the "info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelor" thesis. In addition, I also want to acknowledge the reliability of another thesis, Laili 2021. Laili 2021 has been peer-reviewed by three people each having at least a master degree and the second person even boasted the title Dr. Reviewer #1 have S.PD and M.Pd, #2 have S.PD and M.Ed, and #3 have MA. Based on the fact that it has been extensively examined by multiple experts, I believe this justified its reliability. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Nancy Tartaglione still throws a harv error for me. #148 in the current text should probably say it's by Disney. I don't see much consistency between which journals get ISSN and which don't. Otherwise it seems like most of my issues are resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed Tartaglione url error; specified that is Disney UK press; and removed ISSN inconsistencies. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

:"The thesis was not cited anywhere, but it has been extensively peer-reviewed" that is the wrong one. Wingwatchers (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I will replace this source shortly. Fortunately, it is attributed to only one sentence with a flexible topic and can be easily replaced. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

I will review this, probably during the course of the next few days. TompaDompa (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• The article has a rather laudatory tone. I've given a bunch of examples below, but it really permeates pretty much the entire article.
• I haven't surveyed the literature to ascertain the relative weight given to different aspects by the sources, but the "Production" section feels like it takes up a disproportionate amount of space.
• Verb tense is not consistent, occasionally even shifting within paragraphs.

Lead

• "Frozen is a 2013 American animated musical fantasy film produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures." – I am skeptical that production and especially distribution company belong in the first sentence (see previous discussion on the general subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 82#Undue weight in opening sentences), and indeed in the WP:LEAD at all (we have infoboxes for information that need not be presented in prose). If Disney is to be mentioned, I would refer to it as simply "Disney" (and maybe use it attributively as an adjective).
• "Thematically, it explores feminism and sisterly bonds over romance, challenging traditional gender norms and Disney fairytale conventions." – "challenging" makes it sound like an endorsement.
• "During animation and cinematography, the team used a careful blend of visuals and lighting to create realistic and appealing snow and ice among other elements." – this also sounds like an endorsement.
• "earning $1.285 billion" – avoid "earn" for revenue like this. Use "gross" instead. This recurs in the body.
• "earning $1.285 billion in worldwide box office revenue [..] during its theatrical run" – rather redundant. "Revenue" is redundant to "earning" (which should be "grossing", see above). Likewise, pick one of "box office" and "during its theatrical run".
• "Frozen became a popular culture phenomenon with its songs, characters, storytelling elements, and appeal to a general audience. The immense popularity [...]" – MOS:PUFFERY.

Plot

• The ages of Anna and Elsa are not mentioned until the end of the first paragraph. Their (approximate) ages at the events described in the second sentence seems like relevant information.
• "she remains distant from Anna, who develops a romantic bond with Hans during the festivities and is objected by Elsa." – "is objected by"?
• "mortally injuring her" – odd choice of words for an injury that does not result in death within a short period of time.

Voice cast

• "12-year-old teenage Elsa" – contradiction.
• "Hans, a prince from the Southern Isles who is secretly a gold-digging traitor" – I don't know that I would describe the character as a traitor (scheming and backstabbing is different from betrayal), but I certainly wouldn't describe their actions as "gold-digging". Gold digging is generally understood to mean being in a romantic (or sexual) relationship with someone wealthy for personal monetary gain. Planning to seize the throne by murder and subterfuge is entirely different.

Production

• "Between 2000 and 2002, Disney explored multiple adaptations of "The Snow Queen", now stored in their Animation Research Library." – this refers to abandoned plans by Disney, right? The current phrasing does not make that clear—it could equally be parsed as referring to examining how others had adapted the story previously.
• "Academy Award-winning director John Lasseter at Pixar" – why mention the Academy Award here?
• "Frozen's concept arts from Disney's earlier attempt" – I would avoid using referring to the film as "Frozen" in this context (it wasn't called that at the time). I have also never heard of "concept arts", plural—I have always heard it used as a mass noun.
• "Frozen began under the title Anna and the Snow Queen" – I would avoid using referring to the film as "Frozen" in this context, preferring e.g. "The film".
• "set a release date for November 27, 2013." – the indefinite article should be definite.
• "Lasseter was credited as executive producer in the post-release." – most readers will probably not know what "the post-release" means, and this is out of chronological order (not to mention clunky phrasing).
• "Prior to Lee's involvement, the work of the previous screen and songwriters faced significant challenges." – a few things here. Firstly, did the work face significant challenges, or did the people? Secondly, if the intended reading is "screenwriters and songwriters", you need to either write that or write "screen- and songwriters". Thirdly, it's not clear what the challenges were, either from this sentence or the rest of the paragraph. Fourthly, if you cite a 53-minute YouTube video, you should really provide a timestamp.
• "The production team essentially had to restart the process" – why?
• "a tight deadline of 17 months" – compared to a more typical deadline of what?
• "This condensed timeline resulted in an extremely intense schedule, requiring swift decision-making to progress the project." – we have, in short succession, "tight deadline", "condensed timeline", "extremely intense schedule", and "swift decision-making". I am positive that this could be rewritten more concisely without such redundancy. I also don't quite see what this adds to the article—it basically boils down to "they were short on time, so they had to work fast". Well yes, that's how that usually works.
• "During production, Lee was promoted to co-director for her extensive involvement in the project." – the cited source says nothing about the reason.
• "The team understood that the ending would revolve around [...]" – "understood"?
• "the importance of earning the film's ending" – this is "earn" in a rather informal sense of the word.
• "Elsa's initial villainous character is driven by her heartbreak after being jilted at the altar. The plot revolves around [...]" – I have to question the use of the present tense here for a version of the story that was scrapped.
• "It marked the pivotal moment when the team discerned the essence of the film and fully grasped the depths of the characters." – this is marketing-speak, not encyclopaedic phrasing.
• "Another significant breakthrough" – as opposed to an insignificant breakthrough?
• "the plot twist involving Hans, being revealed as the true villain near the end." – why the comma?
• "it took her nearly a year to clearly articulate Anna." – I don't think the pronunciation is that difficult. Joking aside, use a different word than "articulate" here.
• "John Ripa helped resolve writing the problem of how Anna would save Elsa at the climax." – this is rather difficult to parse. What did Ripa help with, exactly?
• The quote box has weird quotation mark placement, which seems to stem from quoting the source incorrectly.
• "kept a recording of her performance on her iPhone" – why specify the type of phone?
• "Bell proposed the idea to Menzel when she visited her home" – what idea?
• "wool fabric. and velvet" – stray period.
• "Her growth of the ice is characterized by a melodic and rhythmic pattern, which gives it a unique and magical appearance." – this is a good example of writing as though you were promoting the film rather than reporting on it dispassionately. Stating in WP:WikiVoice that the appearance is unique and magical is not appropriate. Stating that this was the intention would on the other hand be fine (e.g. "[...] in order to give it a unique and magical appearance").
• The second paragraph of the "Design" subsection switches back and forth between different tenses.
• "Elsa's palace is intricately linked to her emotional journey." – that's not a fact, and should not be reported as one. It may be a fact that it was intended to be, and it may be a fact that it has been interpreted that way, but this is media analysis.
• "The animation process involves careful management of lighting, shadow, and color hues to prevent the setting from overpowering the character. Adjustments including lighting, object decorations, textures, and patterns ensured elements blended harmoniously with the scene." – tense. Also reads like an endorsement.
• "For the snow monster Marshmallow, they created realistic icicles, determined its edge hardness for correct lighting, and avoided a rubbery appearance." – again, not a fact. It may be a fact that they sought to create realistic icicles and avoid a rubbery appearance, but whether they succeeded is a matter of opinion.
• "resulting in sophisticated and realistic clothing for every character" – I'm not going to list every time value judgments are inappropriately stated in WP:WikiVoice; I think I have by now made it clear that this is a pervasive problem with the writing style.
• "A celebrity hairstylist helped create Elsa's hairstyle, which surpassed the complexity of previous Disney characters at 420,000 strands." – that's way more strands of hair than an actual human head has. If the sources make that point, it should be included.
• "It also helped create culturally appropriate styles" – straight-up endorsement.
• "mentioning the use of traditional techniques like rim and bounce lighting" – I'm guessing this tells the average reader absolutely nothing. Explain, link, or remove.
• "The songs for Frozen were composed the Lopezs" – anacoluthon.
• "The orchestral recordings that took place on the Warner Bros. lot, blend seamlessly with the songs." – c'mon now. This is pretty blatantly opinion, and it doesn't even appear in the cited source.

Thematic analysis

• This section presents a lot of analysis in Wikipedia's voice.
• "Laili notes that the film promotes feminism [...]" – "note" is only to be used for facts, whereas this is interpretation.
• "Robert Geal pointed out biases in Frozen's portrayal of female and male homosexuality." – MOS:SAID.

Marketing and release

• "available in Disney Stores and other retailers" – so what?
• "The film's premiere was at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, Los Angeles, on November 19, 2013, and had a five-day limited release there, starting from November 22, before going into wide release." – anacoluthon. The premiere did not have a limited release and did not go into wide release—the film did.
• "between August 4 to 17", "between October 13 to 19" – "between" is always followed by "and", never by "to".
• "Frozen's home media release became a massive success." – informal and laudatory phrasing.
• "setting records as one of [...]" – something is either a record, i.e. number one, or "one of" the top performances. Not both.
• "The digital release also became the fastest-selling digital release of all time." – by what metric? Fastest to X? Most within Y time?
• "As of July 2018, Frozen remained the biggest-selling Blu-ray in the US" – more than five years have passed since.
• "similar to Disney's animated release" – "Disney's animated release" is just elegant variation.

Reception

• The weighting in the "Box office" section is rather dubious. For instance, a higher word count is devoted to the US and Canada than to the rest of the world combined, a pretty clear example of WP:Systemic bias. See also my subsequent comments about specific things that have been included that probably should not have been.
• "the third highest-grossing Walt Disney Pictures release, and the eighth-highest-grossing film distributed by Disney" – seems like extraneous detail.
• "becoming the eighteenth film in cinematic history, the seventh Disney-distributed film, the fifth non-sequel film, the second Disney-distributed film in 2013 (after Iron Man 3), and the first animated film since Toy Story 3 (2010) to do so" – excessive level of detail.
• "analysts had projected the film's total cost [...] and had also projected that the film would generate $1.3 billion" – the cost is in the past, so "project" is a peculiar choice of word in that context (makes much more sense for the expected revenue). I would use "estimate" instead.
• See MOS:DOMESTIC about using "North America" in a box office context.
• "Upon its release, Frozen quickly became a major success." – that's a value judgment.
• "It broke records as Fandango's top advance ticket seller among original animated films" – records, plural? Also seems a bit dubious for inclusion if both "original" and "animated" are needed as qualifiers.
• "The sing-along version of the film also dominated ticket sales." – "dominated"?
• "Thanksgiving grosses among films released during the holiday season" – as opposed to films released at some other time?
• "Frozen also set records for three-day and five-day Thanksgiving grosses among films released during the holiday season." – not according to the cited source it didn't. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, released a few days earlier, outgrossed it.
• "ahead of the 1999's Toy Story 2" – stray definite article.
• "Frozen became the first film since Avatar to reach first place in its sixth weekend of wide release." – if it reached first place in its sixth weekend, that means it wasn't in the top spot prior to that. Which is of course wrong, and not what the source says. And this is rather dubious for inclusion regardless.
• "achieved large weekend grosses from its fifth to its twelfth weekend (of wide release), compared to other films in their respective weekends" – that's straight-up WP:ANALYSIS of the raw data.
• "On April 25, 2014, Frozen became the nineteenth film to gross $400 million in North America and the fifteenth to do so without a major re-release." – seems like extraneous detail.
• "In North America, Frozen is the twenty-sixth-highest-grossing film, the third-highest-grossing 2013 film, the fifth-highest-grossing animated film, the highest-grossing 2013 animated film, the twelfth-highest-grossing 3-D film, and the second-highest-grossing Walt Disney Animation Studios film." – excessive level of detail.
• "Excluding re-releases, it has the highest-grossing initial run among non-sequel animated films (a record previously held by Finding Nemo (2003)) and among Walt Disney Animation Studios films (a record previously held by The Lion King (1994))." – this just comes across as superlative-chasing.
• "Frozen is the fifth-highest-grossing film, the highest-grossing animated film, and the highest-grossing 2013 film." – even if the geographical scope is clarified by the subheading, it needs to be included in the text as well. This is also straight-up incorrect. It's not number 5 outside the US and Canada or number 1 animated outside the US and Canada (though it is number 1 released in 2013 outside the US and Canada). At present, the correct figures are 18 and 2. If the intended meaning was that this was the best positions it ever reached, it needs to be rephrased.
• "It is the highest-grossing animated film in South Korea, Denmark, and Venezuela." – this fails verification. The cited sources do not mention Denmark at all and the only source that mentions Venezuela is the 2013 yearly box office chart for the country, which obviously isn't sufficient sourcing for that claim.
• Try to find a way to link box office territory somewhere.
• "It is also the highest-grossing Walt Disney Animation Studios film in more than 45 territories" – the highest-grossing film for a particular company is rather niche. The highest-grossing film for a particular company in a particular box office territory is even more so.
• "It is also the highest-grossing Walt Disney Animation Studios film in more than 45 territories, including the Latin America region (specifically in Mexico and Brazil), the UK, Ireland, and Malta, Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Ukraine, Norway, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and China" – Latin America fails verification. The combined box office territory of the UK, Ireland, and Malta fails verification. Australia fails verification.
• "the film's top market after North America is Japan ($247.6 million)" – this figure does not match either the one given by boxoffice.com ($236.8 million) or the one given by Box Office Mojo ($249,036,646).
• "Since its release, several publications have named Frozen as one of the best animated films ever made" – the sourcing is nowhere near strong enough for a statement like this. The first source is a top 50 list that puts it at number 46. The second source is a top 100 that puts it at number 48. The third source is a top 51 that puts it and Frozen II collectively at number 40. This just comes across as cherry-picking.
• "Despite emphasis on its story, publications including The Seattle Times and Variety argued that Frozen falls short in delivering a deep and engaging experience." – that's straight-up picking a side in the disagreement, in clear violation of WP:NPOV.
• "with the primary comedy source comes from the interactions between male characters" – anacoluthon.
• "However, a Lee and a Disney spokesperson clarified that DiSalvo's comment was misunderstood, explaining it was about technical aspects of CGI animation, not comparing animating male and female characters." – this is also engaging in the dispute by picking a side.
• "DiSalvo later confirmed such, expressing frustration over the misinformation online" – ditto.
• "Elsa's song "Let it Go" has been compared to the phenomenon of coming out of the closet." – "the phenomenon"? That... has unfortunate overtones.
• "When questioned about the indirect homosexual themes in the film" – this phrasing presumes that there are indeed such themes, which is a point of contention.
• "This made the first Disney film to win Best Animated Feature." – anacoluthon.

Legacy

• "former UK prime minister David Cameron" – not "former" at the time.
• "When Lopez and Anderson-Lopez were asked about this in an NPR interview" – it is very unclear what "this" refers to. This is the first sentence in an entirely new paragraph.
• "She used the film's strong female characters to inspire her daughter" – another example of the inappropriate use of WP:WikiVoice for opinion.
• "In a 2014 mid-year report of the 100 most-used baby names by BabyCenter, 'Elsa' ranked 88th, making its first appearance on the site's chart." – the geographical scope of this report really needs to be included for context here.
• "Parents revealed that their naming choices were influenced by the film's characters, particularly siblings." – what does "particularly siblings" mean here?
• "It was the top entertainment Google Search of 2013." – is "it" the film or something related thereto?

The above list of issues is non-exhaustive. I am going to have to oppose this mainly on WP:NPOV grounds (but also prose quality and other issues); if I came across this article as a WP:Good article nomination, I would close it as a WP:QUICKFAIL. I suggest this nomination be archived so the article can be brought to WP:Good article reassessment. TompaDompa (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the comments anyway. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure I will have it archived so I can work on it quietly. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks Tompa. Given Wingwatchers' last comment I think we'll treat this as a withdrawal rather than a simple archive. Pls note that the usual two-week hiatus before nominating an article still applies; I'd strongly suggest using that time for Peer Review before another nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.