Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen II/archive3

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 January 2022 [1].

Frozen II

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an animated musical fantasy film by The Walt Disney Company. The article has just had a throughout copyedit, and thanks to editors who had made efforts in the process.Wingwatchers (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

Weird that the other candidates get at least one comment, but this doesn't. If you'd like to, I'm opening a film peer review that is still empty. No pressure though :) After all my comments are resolved, I'll support this FAC. I'll also do a source review if nobody does so by the time comments are resolved. Gerald WL 15:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis. All done except "Is there a possibility the citations in the "Attributed to multiple references" notes can be used in prose?" Wingwatchers (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurniawati comment still not resolved, it seems. Also, mind explaining why the Release subsection is titled "Context"? Gerald WL 05:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; the use of context also appears in the article The Empire Strikes Back. I am not the one merged the sections, but I guess the use here is fairly accurate. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The Empire Strikes Back uses the Context subsection to describe the conditions of the film's release time period, as well as Fox's ambitions, whilst here there's none of that. Gerald WL 16:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to " Theaters and Home Media" Wingwatchers (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several changes to the article, thought you might wanna review that. Once there's no more issues I'll support this FAC. Gerald WL 17:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found no issue with your changes. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, then that's a support. Good job with the article! Gerald WL 03:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gerald WL 03:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

=====Lead and infobox=====

The alt text merely just describes what's in the image, not what the image is. The caption does that job. Because of that, I suggest removing the "Frozen II theatrical poster showing" part of the poster alt
FA infoox generally don't have citations. I think you can put information about the cinematographers in "Animation" and put the citation there; the editor bit belongs well in "Development". Also if you're to follow this suggestion, I also suggest removing the "layout" and "lighting" as it's too specific for an infobox
Box office citations are already covered in "Box office", so that should not be in the infobox. I think you can cover the budget in "Conception"
I think linking reindeer and snowman is WP:OVERLINK. Otherwise lead looks neat

Plot

Suggest linking treaty
"Anna then becomes the queen of Arendelle" --> "Anna then becomes Queen of Arendelle"

Themes

Concerning paragraphs 4 to 6, this section I think should be retitled "Themes and analysis"
"The Northuldra dam reflects recent Sámi history." I think "recent" would be an outdated word as time passes; as of now it's 40 years ago. I think the word can be removed
The multiple images must have alt text
For the Kurniawati citation, I don't think the journal name can be translated, and since the article itself isn't in Indonesian it mustn't have the

Support from Chompy Ace

"Frozen II[a] is a 2019 American computer-animated musical fantasy film produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios, the 58th Disney animated film and the sequel to Frozen (2013)." MOS:REDUNDANCY and should be reworded or split. Remove "musical fantasy" to conform WP:NPOV and MOS:SOB.
"The animators received real-time feedback from the supervisors, directors, and producer.[69][70] The earth spirits had a long rigging process to avoid making rocks distracting.[37] The water simulation was intended to be more realistic than in Moana.[71]": Last three sentences in #Animation feels monotonous that start with "The", so rewording is recommended.
"Tony Smeed and Becky Bresee were the film's heads of animation.[35] Hyun-Min Lee was Elsa's animation supervisor, and Wayne Unten returned as Elsa's animation supervisor. Steve Golberg was the main animation supervisor. [58][59]": Repetition of "animation" and "Elsa".
The $150 million budget must be placed in #Development with a <ref name="DeadlineProfit" />, similar to Inside Out (2015 film), then remove the budget at #Box_office once placed.
Running time must be placed at the end of the second paragraph in #Marketing_and_release, similar to Inside Out. Then remove the ref if you already have placed in the body per MOS:INFOBOXREF
In #Marketing_and_release, here is your ref to have a 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray: https://www.polygon.com/deals/2020/2/25/21152556/frozen-2-dvd-4k-blu-ray-digital-special-features-collectors-editions-amazon-best-buy-walmart-target. Must be placed after the Entertainment Tonight reference.
"The production team traveled to Norway, Finland, and Iceland for background research,[33][34] making Elsa a "mythic hero" with magic ice powers and Anna a "fairytale hero" who lives in a magical world but has no magic powers. The team concluded that the first film successfully combined the two elements.[35]" Two sentences are monotonous that start with "The" and must be reworded.
"Lee later explained to The New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd that Elsa's main audience did not seem ready for such a relationship.[51] Lee said in a press conference that Frozen II would not acquire elements from the television series Once Upon a Time's non-canonical Frozen storyline:[52]" Two sentences are monotonous that start with "Lee" and must be reworded.
In #Critical_response, Remove comparisions to the first Frozen film in Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and CinemaScore for consistency.
In #Accolades, add Golden Trailer Awards using this ref: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/2021-golden-trailer-awards-winners-list-1234978230/
"The mist parts at Elsa's touch; the air spirit appears as a tornado, catching everyone in its vortex before Elsa stops it by forming ice sculptures. The sisters discover that the sculptures are images from their father's past, and encounter the Northuldra and a troop of Arendellian soldiers who are still in conflict with one another." Two sentences are monotonous that start with "The" and must be reworded.

Chompy Ace 22:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chompy Ace, I tried helping nominator here by resolving most of your comments. I did not do the critical response thing as it was my suggestion; I think it's interesting to compare it to its predecessor. Few time also made me unable to do the accolades one. I may do it later. Gerald WL 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the conflicted "comparison" in #Critical_response. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One last comment, Wingwatchers. Since the accolades table is ordered alphabetically, the Golden Trailer one should be placed after Golden Globe. Gerald WL 09:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Gook work! Chompy Ace 20:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has picked up only the one support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

I will leave some comments for this nomination shortly. SatDis (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does "(an iceman)" need to be specified in the first paragraph? As the same sentence does not go into detail about who Elsa or Anna is.
"a Broadway musical of the same name" - could that be changed to "a Broadway musical adaptation of the movie", so that it sounds less like a coincidence they shared a name?
Can "CCO" be expanded or linked?
""making Elsa a "mythic hero" - change to "and decided to make"? The sentence doesn't currently read well, as it sounds like their research trip led to Elsa becoming a hero.
"Harding's documentary depicted the process of..." - Before this point in the prose, it has not been stated who Harding is, or that there was a documentary except for in the lead. Those two paragraphs go into detail about what was shown in the documentary, so maybe a small introduction to it is required at that point.

I hope these comments help. I think the article has been written well, and must give extra approval to the precise lead. SatDis (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, and Wikipedia does not accept rumors (WP:CRYSTAL)

Just another point; are there any articles discussing rumours for a Frozen 3? They may be worth including even though no project has officially been announced. SatDis (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wingwatchers did you miss this? (t · c) buidhe 01:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I replied that "Wikipedia does not accept rumors (WP:CRYSTAL)." Wingwatchers (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SatDis are you intending to enter a support or oppose? (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thank you for the notification. @Wingwatchers: Good work making those adjustments. I will support this nomination. I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my current featured article nomination if you are able to. Good luck with your nomination. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Is Muncy, Julie a reliable source? She seems to be more focused on videogames at Wired. Same for Ed Masley who seems to focus on music more at Arizona Republic. Also I am wondering what Emily Heller's credentials are. Source #146 should probably mention that it is written by the staff. Apart from that the sources seem reliable (from editors, on-topic journalists etc.) and consistently formatted. Why is Maureen Dowd's opinion noteworthy? I like the variety of academic sources used (one Korean and one Indonesian). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus.

Julie Muncy writes for Gizmodo, which is generally reliable for entertainment topics per WP:RSPSOURCES. Where is the Wired source? And who is the first "She?" The Arizona Republic source is not replaceable because there is no suitable context-matching alternative. "Source #146 should probably mention that it is written by the staff." How? Wingwatchers (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Why is Maureen Dowd's opinion noteworthy?" Fixed; that wasn't Dowd's opinion, but an official statement from Lee. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"She" is Julie Muncy. I believe one can say "The <website> Staff" in the publisher parameter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, but doesn't Julie Muncy writes for Gizmodo? instead of Wired? Wingwatchers (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Julie Muncy I found writes for Wired. I was assuming that she also works for Gizmodo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Muncy's source. Masley's source is impossible to replace because of the lack of a suitable alternative. Heller covers "deals, new releases, and buying guides" at Polygon, so her source is arguably generally reliable.

It is inconsistent to single out ref #146 (The Next Picture) with a special "Staff" parameter; plus there's no valid parameter in Template: Cite Web intended for such use. Can I request keeping ref#146 and Ed Masley's source? Wingwatchers (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can use |author{{|}}= to this end. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did not work; all I got is errors. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got that one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several additional questions raised on my talk page: Are the writers of The Conversation and /Film experts in their field? Plus this and The Numbers might not be good enough for a FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Conversation should be OK; they usually only hire subject matter experts as writers. The blog is about postcolonial literature and the author is an expert in postcolonial literature. (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Next Best Picture and The Numbers sources. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for providing a source review! Are you satisfied with these changes? (t · c) buidhe 01:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Alt texts need a little work. They should convey the essence of the image to someone who cannot view it. I.e., "Elsa's hair animation evolution process" just repeats the caption and doesn't describe the process to the reader, as ostensibly that is the point of showing the image. Same for the dam screenshot and reindeer—if their depiction is meant to impart visual information that cannot be understood from the text alone, how would you describe those relevant details to someone who cannot view them? Same goes for most of these images.
The dam screenshot, especially with its tiny viewbox, I don't think meets WP:NFCC#8 for contextual significance. The viewer can understand the dam concept just as well without the fair use image.
The reindeer image claims to be from USFWS via an image repo but unclear where it originated.
Consider adding a word or two to caption who these faces are, i.e., voice actors for the main characters
Menzel original image link from Dept of Defense is dead
The hair animation has the same NFCC#8 issue as the one mentioned above. To justify the fair use argument, it needs to provide context that the text alone cannot. I recommend its removal.
It's hard to tell what the Nøkk image is meant to depict; recommend its removal
Image licenses and fair use rationales (FURs) otherwise look good!

czar 05:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar Fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] I see some images removed but it looks like the alt texts were largely unaltered—do you need a hand? Also the dam image is showing the wrong alt text. re: the below comment, I don't think there was an issue with sandwiching. Now everything is running along the right side of the page. czar 04:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do all these images have alt text issues, or is it only that of the dams and Elsa's hair animation? Wingwatchers (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the alt texts can be improved. The guidelines give some extra advice on how to make the non-caption descriptions useful for those who cannot see the images. I don't think they need much but they do need your review to not repeat the caption and to describe what visually about the image's depiction would be pertinent to someone using screen reader software. czar 07:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I touched up the remaining ones. Image review passed. czar 17:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

There are some MOS:SANDWICH issues in the Thematic analysis and the Development sections. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Thematic analysis introduces Inkoo Kang without saying who this person is or why their opinion is relevant context czar 18:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the Works cited isn't alphabetically sorted? czar 18:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We usually don't put brackets around ellipses (MOS:ELLIPSES) czar 18:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 21:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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