Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Toy Story
I'm trying to make this article a GA (and, in the long run, a FA). Some other editors and I have edited it extensively, and would like some input as to whether it will be ready for a GA nomination anytime soon, and what we need to do to prepare it for GA-status. Any input or suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(Of course, I would love to know anything we could do to prepare it for FA, as well.) SunDragon34 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I am also interested in knowing how we can expand the article in the places it needs work on. (I already know the history section needs work.) SunDragon34 (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Gran2
[edit]To get this to GA, then FA, would be a great achievement, with this probably being one of the most important films ever made.
- On quick inspection, this article needs a lot of work, so I'll give some pointers, both minor and big.
- Infobox
- John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton are linked twice; only the first occurrences should be linked.
Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The runtime only needs to be given in minutes, so just "81 minutes" is fine.
- Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The budget lacks a source.
- Gross revenue does not to include "Domestic" - America is not more important than the rest of the world ;). The worldwide figure is fine on is own.
- Fixed SunDragon34 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Plot
- It's nice to see a plot which is not overly long.
- As you have a cast section, I personally see no point in including bracketed cast names in the plot. But this is a personal preference.
- If you do include them, then you need to include the actor for every character, not just Woody and Buzz.
- Production
- As you say yourself, this is lacking. There needs to be a huge amount more information here, about the development, writing, casting, animating and whatever. This is the part that needs the most work. Everything here needs to be sourced.
- Cast
- Should preferably be renamed "Cast and characters".
- You can incorporate casting info into this section.
- The "Additional voices" section seems a bit trivial. Maybe mention that Ranft, Stanton and Penn Jillette have cameos in a sentence or two?
- Terminated. :-) I reduced it to a sentence.
- Reception and rest
- This is another big one. The reception needs to be expanded with more reviews, box-office info, and the awards should be in prose.
- I think there certainly needs to be a section on the films influence on cinema. It was the first CGI film, so this is very important. This is also where you can mention the sequels.
- Because it's such an important film, some sort of analysis or themes section would be good as well.
- Very minor point - the Joss Whedon template should probably be below the other two. The Toy Story and Pixar templates are more important.
All in all, the main thing the article needs is expansion. If you don't already have it, you should consider getting the special edition DVD, which I'm sure will contain plenty of information. Also, there are bound to have been multiple books and articles written about the film, so that might be worth looking into. Good luck, Gran2 08:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Cliff smith
[edit]I might be echoing Gran here and there, but when it comes to comments and suggestions, I go by the phrase "the more the merrier".
- Lead
- List all contributing writers, not "Joss Whedon et al.", that doesn't cut it.
Done I listed the names of all four screenplay writers. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Since it's supposed to summarize the article to some extent, I don't know if one critic's quote would be appropriate. It's right after a good summary sentence on the film's critical reception anyway, so it (the quote) can probably just go.
- Production
- Needed improvements are pretty obvious (i.e. expansion, referencing, copyedit thereafter, et cetera).
- Unless there was something special about the direction, it won't need its own subsection. Might want to check out the film MOS for guidance.
- Same thing with "Technological innovation/achievements". Actually, that will end up under Influence.
- Cast and characters
- Info on casting could be incorporated here.
- "Additional voices" seems questionable to me. I second Gran's suggestion to include cameos only; maybe we could get a short paragraph out of that.
- Crew
- Loads of unnecessary bolding (i.e. none of it should be bolded).
- It would be nice to see it in prose, if not incorporated into Production altogether.
- Fixed Most of it was redundant anyway; it was already in the infobox, so I got rid of a lot of it. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- In popular culture
- Can we say trivia? Personally, I doubt that any of it is worth keeping, especially since it's unreferenced.
- Fixed I moved a couple of things, but we'll get rid of it or incorporate it as those sections develop. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Real-world toys that appear in Toy Story
- This is somewhat questionable to me as well; it's unreferenced anyway.
- Release
- Should be prose and needs refs.
- "Video games" and "Computer software" don't need their own subsections; they should be made into one prose paragraph.
- Reception
- Echo—it needs expansion.
- Another echo—Awards should be in prose; subsectioning for each award ceremony is unnecessary.
- Echo again—an Influence subsection is a great idea.
- Music
- I'd rename it Soundtrack. Needs at least a sentence on the composer and when it was released.
- Sequels
- Like Gran suggested, this should be incorporated into Influence.
- See also
- Move the character list link to Cast and characters, and the rest will probably end up in Influence somewhere.
So, overall, the medicine this page needs is referencing and expansion. One last echo—the special edition DVD is always an indispensible source for an film's article. The commentaries alone may end up referencing Production. Best of luck, Cliff smith (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Bzuk
[edit]- Very minor point but dates in month year convention are written out as "January 2000," rather than "January, 2000."
- Dates are now routinely being de-linked, as autodatelinking is not mandated any longer. January 2, 2000 would now be written as January 2, 2000. See: talk page about Dates.
- Two terms are still"redlinked."
- "Old-fashioned" and "top-grossing" are not hyphenated.
- Replace "-" with "–" as dashes.
- Reduce the number of common words that are wikilinked, e.g. "puppy".
- Punctuation falls inside quotation marks, e.g. "space toy", should be "space toy,".
- Remove extraneous white spaces, (extra blank lines) as the Wikipedia format takes care of that.
That's all for now, on a quick perusal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
Quick comments from Dalejenkins
[edit]- More references from reliable sources are needed.
- "Toy Story 3 is already slated to open on 18 June 2010" is a colloquialism, try "...is scheduled for release on 18 June 2010" instead?
- A merchandise section is needed
- The soundtrack section needs a brief few sentences, not just a wikilink.
- Some dead wikilinks (like Toy Story Racer).
- Turn the awards section into a table, adding reliable sources.
- Fixed I converted it to prose. SunDragon34 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- The use of Halloween costumes in the lead is not needed, just "costumes" as they can be worn at any time of year.
Good luck, Dalejenkins | 13:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)