Talk:Lightning McQueen/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Fieryninja (talk · contribs) 07:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Heidi Pusey BYU (talk · contribs) 19:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this article for GA. My name is Heidi, and I'm paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia. I will be the one reviewing this article. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Fieryninja, this article is ready to be approved for GA. Congratulations! Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Well-written:

Y a. The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

Y b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

Ya. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

Yb. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

Yc. it contains no original research; and

Yd. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

Ya. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

Yb.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Neutral:

Y a. it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable

Y a. it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Ya. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

Yb. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

General writing

The writing is generally well-done, but I do have some suggestions and questions:

• In the lede it mentions McQueen’s role in Cars 1, but it doesn’t actually say it was in Cars 1. I’d recommend mentioning that, since Cars 2 and 3 are mentioned. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Also in lede: maybe make the mention of NASCAR commentary less general. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• “[T]he animators worked to improve their expressions, such as smiling, where the lower lids had to be pulled up slightly to connect to the mouth.” This is confusing. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Both Characterization and Design summarize the process of designing the cars. Is it possible to do some condensing and combine them into one section? Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• The summary for Cars 2 says Axelrod is “the mastermind behind the plot”, but doesn’t specify what the plot is. This would be a good thing to add. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• “Story supervisor Bob Peterson said that they took one athlete's response to the question of how to know when it is time to change by putting it in the film: ‘The kids will tell you.’” I don’t feel like this adds much to the article. We've already read about how athletes have different approaches to aging, and I feel like this doesn't enhance that idea. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• “In Cars, he sports bright red paint to go with his cocky attitude and he has stickers for headlights.” The source does not mention the paint as relating to his attitude. It says his stickers are reflective of his attitude. Please fix this to more accurately represent the source. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• “In Cars 3, his design varies, beginning the film with an updated Rust-Eze logo” (emphasis mine). This is a little too close to what the source says: “With five Piston Cup wins to his credit, Lightning McQueen (left, voiced by Owen Wilson) begins 'Cars 3' sporting an updated Rust-eze logo” (emphasis mine). The first part of the sentence is fine, but the end of the sentence is exactly the same as that in the source. Consider replacing “updated” with “new” and/or “logo” with “design”. However, if it proves difficult to rephrase the last part of the sentence, the review won’t be affected. This is just more of a nit-picky thing.

Hello Heidi Pusey BYU and thanks for reviewing this article. I have actioned all of the above comments, except for the comment about merging the design and characterization sections. This is because one section was written to focus on the character's appearance, while the other is about his personality and character development. They are both chunky sections so I would prefer to keep them separate. I won't be available to respond to this review next week, so if you have further comments/changes, I can action until the weekend but will then continue it from 3 June. Fieryninja (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine! Thank you for explaining about those sections. Also, I'm expecting to be finished with the review within the next couple days (if not today). Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for making those changes. The part about smiling and eyelids is no longer confusing, so thank you for rephrasing that. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• I was taking a look at the Animation World Network sources used for McQueen's appearances in Cars short films. Most of them are fine, since they link to news releases. However, the one for Mater and the Ghostlight links to a blog post within Animation World Network. We have to be careful about using blog posts as sources. I brought this up on the Sources Noticeboard, asking if it was allowed in this situation. I have not yet received an answer. As such, I am going to follow my best judgment and ask that you replace the blog post with this press release or another similar source. (This link seems to have similar information to the current source.) Even if you could find a news report in Animation World Network like you did what was done for the other ones, that would be great. I'm sorry about any inconvenience this may cause. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources are few on this one. Animation World Network is a reliable source but I'm not sure about the blog section, so I have replaced it with a ScreenRant reference, which is an acceptable source. Fieryninja (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I should have mentioned as well that we can't use primary sources such as the Pixar press release for Good Articles. Fieryninja (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that. And I'm sorry about the source I suggested. Thanks for letting me know so I don't make that mistake again! Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)