Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Walt Disney Animation Studios/1

Walt Disney Animation Studios

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues concerning broadness have not been addressed, and no work in fixing them seems to have arisen nor has there been any commitment to do so. As such, delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has an orange "additional citations needed" in the "Production logo" section from 2023 which needs to be resolved. It is over 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be reduced. There are also a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to prune and source. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update, here are the changes so far.

The article was 11705 words as of October 5, the last edit before I became involved, and now is 11470 words. I'll see what else I can weed, but this is a studio where even the unproductive eras are the sole focus of multiple books. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanimum: This article might be a good candidate to WP:SPINOUT sections of its history. This has already started with Disney Renaissance. After spinning out these sections, this article can give an overview of that time period (I recommend 4 paragraphs max per spun-out article) to reduce the word count. If readers are interested in finding out more information, they can go to the relevant article. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zanimum, do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements have been resolved, but I'm still concerned about the length Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's on the long side, but not so long that I think WP:TOOBIG is in play, considering the significance of the topic. I'm in favour of keeping, Z1720. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Some of the history sections have several paragraphs, which I think can be trimmed. My opinion is that each section should have four paragraphs, maximum, before the next heading breaks up the text. This article has several opportunities to WP:SPINOUT the text, letting this article be an overview of the most important information. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A four paragraph maximum in sections would see many FAs delisted Z1720; more importantly, it's not supported by any part of the MOS. Which text do you feel should be spun out, and to where? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I do not have four paragraphs as a hard and fast rule, but I use that as a rule of thumb as MOS:LEAD used to have that as the target number for the lead. Articles need to be readable: I do not believe sections with 10 paragraphs enhance readability. MOS:BODY talks about how headings enhance readability, and adding these headings to the table of contents help readers find information. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS talks about how "Readers of the mobile version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation."

In answer to the question about spun out information: "1989–94: Beginning of the Disney Renaissance, successful releases, and impact on the animation industry", which already has a spunout article at Disney Renaissance, "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", and "2019–present: Continued success, COVID-19 pandemic, expansion to television and financial struggles". If some of the information was cut instead of spun out, I would be OK with that too as the article has over 11,000 words. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, these are not GACR-relevant issues which should not hold up the closing of the GAR, but as I'm involved now I won't do that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: no further input appears forthcoming, could you please either venture an opinion or close? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Z1720 that the History could be on a subpage. However, I would say the focus just on that size is isolation hides other issues. The History section is not only large, it's so large it's almost the entire article. Of the 11501 words (not including the bulleted lists), 10119 are history. There's almost nothing else, with almost half that remainder being the lead. There's really nothing to say about the leadership, past and present? The feature filmography of the Walt Disney Animation Studios is covered in 3 sentences? This seems far too thin to meet broadness. Further, the current studio, as well as the tables and timelines at the end, do not appear sourced. CMD (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chipmunkdavis about the broadness; I think this is a remaining concern, however, it was not much discussed (except potentially spinning off some of the history), so I'm planning to leave this open (although other coords may close it, of course) for another week or so to see if anyone commits to resolving these issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.