Talk:The Lion King/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead has too many sourced statements that appear to introduce new facts; lead should primarily summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Plot is too long (952 words/400-600 it should be) and uses inappropriate tone and OR-ish language in several places. A plot summary should be a summary of the film, not someone's interpretation of it. It also has too many song titles randomly dropped in that are unnecessary as the songs are already covered in another section. Character section has excessive bolding, is unsourced, and not an appropriate section. Voice actors best merged into the plot if there is no reliable, third-party information on their casting or creation available. Timon and Pumbaa are individual characters and should be listed as such. The release section has a table that should be prose, and the inflation adjust needs to be removed. This has been consistently rejected for addition in film articles. The article as a whole needs a thorough copy edit. The awards section is poorly formatted and needs to be redone, preferably in prose, or in an awards table. The Home Video section has inconsistent header sizes. The infobox is not filled in correctly - the release date should be the first theatrical release only, its missing the country, and starring should be only the major characters not all. Would highly recommend applying WP:MOSFILM which would fix many of the sectional issues and many of the references need format fixes and are missing basic details available from the sources such as authors, publishers, etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article contains multiple unsourced statements throughout the entire article. Plot does not need sourcing, nor does the character list as its just a list of names and brief roles; except for Sarafina which claims her name is given in the credits but does it say Sarafina or does it also note "Nala's mother"; if not, a reliable source is needed for that. Several of the unsourced statements appear to be interpretative or otherwise OR such as combining different numbers from BOM to draw a conclusion. Among the references used, several are not reliable sources: LionKing.org (fansite), IMDB (user edited), TV.com (user edited episode summaries), ltimateDisney.com (fansite), kimbawlion.com (fansite), eeggs.com (user edited), bcdb.com (user edited), eyesonff.com (fansite), and whatsitsgalore.com (personal site) #10 is a dead link. What makes ReelViews and The OscarGuy, and worldvillage.com reliable sources?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   For a film of this caliber and popularity, the main critical reception is far too short; there is no way that is all the reception information available for this film, or even half of it. The plot is too long (as noted above), and there is too much focus on criticism (as noted below), the sequels, and the home video releases are excessively detailed and should be a single section without all the fan details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The production summary has some non-neutral language, making claims about the notability of parts of the film. Controversies is a non-neutral label and section. Being written the way it is and split the way it is, it gives undue weight to latter three events. The Kimba event does not need a "main" link as "Kimba the White Lion#The Lion King controversy" is not a standalone article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The Simpson's image is unnecessary and violates WP:NONFREE. File:Lionkg2.jpg needs a better FUR. File:Kimbasimba.JPG is very low quality and would be better replaced with two individual images from the films, in a proper format, using the side by side image box.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article fails almost all of the Good Article criteria, as noted above. This GAR is on hold for the next seven days to allow time for interested editors to try to bring the article back to good article standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it is unlikely that this will be back up to good article status in seven days, particularly given the amount of things which need to be fixed to keep GA. I would recommend delisting it for now and then it can be re-affirmed as GA at some point in the future. I will give a full response to these concerns shortly. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have given the article a bit of work this morning, it has far from addressed all the issues in the article, but I will keep working on it, particularly since activity here is rather low at the moment.

The plot has been a problem for a long time and was the primary target of what appeared to be BambiFan attacks for a while making improvements more difficult. I have cut down the plot to just over 700 words, I am sure there are more cuts that can be made. I have also removed some WP:OR language present, but there are probably still bits in there which need to be re-worded, so I will come back to it. I have also removed the randomly dropped in song titles. I would agree with merging the character list in with the plot, the link to the main article is already covered by the navbox. I am leaving the bolding as it is for now until discussion at WT:FILMS has concluded.

I will review the references later, I was told IMBD was tolerated in film articles but I am sure replacements can be found. I will need to do some research for the other references, they are probably unreliable and hence replacements will need to be found, as most but not all fansites are unreliable.

The reception does not need to be exhaustive for GA, but I agree it should be expanded. The home video section was rather awkward and I have replaced it with a section for each release, though I agree these should probably be merged into some kind of DVD and VCR release section. I don't like the Awards section at present either, I would prefer to convert it to prose as it is technically easier and would flow better than a table.

I agree with getting rid of the controversy section, it is inherently a WP:NPOV violation at present and does not fit well with the rest of the article. Possible restructuring of the article could be to merge this into release; or perhaps even creating a reception section separate from release and putting the controversy stuff merged in there. There are also some essays surrounding the film currently not mentioned at all, which was criticised at FAC, these should probably mentioned somewhere as well, though that is a less important area of the topic and is probably not needed for GA.

The inappropriateness of The Simpson's image I found debatable, though I have removed it just to be on the safe side. I would oppose any more cuts on fair use images as this article has gone from eight to three and all those remaining serve a purpose. I have re-written in detail the fair use rationale for File:Lionkg2.jpg. It would be very difficult for me to improve File:Kimbasimba.JPG as I don't have any episode of Kimba the White Lion, and I don't unfortunately have The Lion King on DVD either at present. There is an alternative image at File:Earlypresentationreelwhitelionking.jpg that can perhaps be used instead, though it would need an improved fair use rationale. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who told you that, but IMDB is not tolerated as a source as it is not a reliable source (it is only acceptable as an EL). Per the notes above, the article has seen some improvements since the GAR was started, but it does still need a fair bit of work to bring it back to GA status. As such, and per the general lack of activity and Camaron's accurate assessment above that it needs more than just a week worth of work, I have delisted this article from Good Article status. It is in better shape than many film articles, particularly the Disney ones, and I hope someone will take these notes and continue working to bring this article back to Good article status. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will continue working on it, don't worry. I think I will be nice and not reveal who told me IMDB was tolerated as a source. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) To clarify, IMDB is often used to get credit lists for convenience (i.e. copy/paste rather than opening the DVD, and typing furiously), however it is not a citable reliable source. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)