Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning to review this article for GA over the coming days. The first thing I noticed when taking a quick look at the article is there are not many reviews in the critical response section and there seems to be a reliance on long quotes. I will definitely be commenting on that in the review so you may want to get a head start on that if you have time while you wait. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Good job expanding the critical response section so far. The article is looking good as far as coverage and media. I just need to do a more thorough review for the other GA criteria, any issues I find will be added below shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

First comments

• There are several references in the lead. Some of these details are already referenced down in the body of the article and don't need to be referenced again in the lead. Others are not in the body of the article and probably should be, it is generally a WP:DUE issue to so prominently feature details that are not noteworthy enough to be in the article itself.
• This may be a minor nitpick but can we clarify that "the film was selected for preservation" is the 1959 film and not the 2014 or 2019 films?
• Can sources be provided for the cast list and descriptions? Some of the existing sources probably cover some of these.
• Can you please add a bit more context in your quote boxes rather than just linking the names?
• Some of the quotes in the Reception section are coming up as potential copyvios in Earwig, can you please look at paraphrasing these more?
• I appreciate the archiving done for web references. Can you please make sure the references have wikilinks, for example Los Angeles Times. There also appears to be unnecessary bolding in one of the references.

As I began reading through the Production section I came across several different simple writing mistakes or confusing phrasing. I am going to put this review on hold and would like you to do a full review and copyedit of the article to make sure the wording is good. Then I will have another look through the article. If you are not comfortable doing this copyedit or would like someone from the Guild of Copy Editors to have a go then we can discuss failing this review and having you re-nominate in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have added all the changes you mentioned to the article. The only thing left is the wording and phrasing, but I will most likely send a request to the Guild of Copy Editors. English is not my first language, so for me occasional mistakes are quite natural, and I believe I will only make more mistakes in trying to eliminate others. De Disney (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I will do another look through shortly to see if I have any other suggestions before we fail the review for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Final comments

Good work responding to my concerns above. This article is definitely close to the GA criteria but it needs a copyedit to ensure it meets criteria 1 (well-written). Once someone has been able to do this you should be able to submit the article for GA again and hopefully pass. In the meantime, this first review is a Fail. Good luck with the article! - adamstom97 (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)