Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)/GA4

GA Review

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

Nominator: De Disney (talk · contribs) 13:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 06:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review, and hopefully this is the one that gets it over the line! I typically prefer to make minor copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to revert or modify any copyedits you happen to disagree with. This article looks wonderfully thorough, I look forward to learning a lot! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have made all the necessary changes according to your review. I would also like to thank you for your own additions, they have significantly improved the presentation of the article. However, I still have to work on timestamps to the DVD features, it will take me some time. De Disney (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose

She was also given a different personality – "a freshness and a modern sensibility" – to make her more appealing to audiences -- can you attribute this quote in-text? Something like, a different personaly -- described by so-and-so as "a freshness..."? The current citations don't make it clear where this comes from. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm seeing a number of places where specific is language is quoted, but it's not clear who actually said it because there are multiple possibilities. Can you revisit the quotes below? They should be either fully attributed, or paraphrased so attribution is less necessary. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disney felt that the "eerie, haunting presentation of a victim powerless in the hands of evil" would be a stronger choice
Taylor Holmes was cast because of his "bemused, but dignified" voice
suggesting an "ethereal depiction of the Middle Ages"
a style which many considered "too cold, flat, and modernist"
he created a "leading lady of elegance"
preliminary drawings suggesting a "lighter and more delicate" look for the fairies

I think this would be clearer if split into two sentences at the comma, but I'm not sure how to expand the second part or distribute the citations: Animators struggled to make the characters (which had to be stylized to match Earle's design) stand out against his detailed background paintings, with their design and color styling hindering character animation. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio check: the plot summary has a very close match in Earwig, but the Wikipedia version came first by several years, so it's not copyvio. Everything else looks good. I'll continue to check for close paraphrasing too as I do my source review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the critical response section, I made some bold edits to clarify the transition where the article goes from discussing the mixed reviews from 1959, and starts presenting the more positive restrospective reviews from the 80s and onwards. You might take a look and see if there is anything you'd change. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In "Accolades", I think the list of American Film Institute honours looks very awkward after the table. I think this would be expressed better in prose as a few sentences, in the same paragraph as the Rotten Tomatoes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even more boldly, I organized "Legacy" into some sub-sections, to aid in navigation there. Again, this is just a suggestion that I think improves the article's readability, which felt easier for me to just try out than to explain. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

For source reviews, I like to check a randomly-selected 10% of the sources. In this case, that will be the following citations, as numbered in this diff: 27, 28, 44, 53, 54, 71, 78, 93, 111, 138, 139, 142, 144, 153, 168, 182, 189, 203, 218, 222, 224, 236, 237, 241, 244, 247. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

27, 28, 54, 71, 111, 139, and 144 check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
44, 53, 78, 138 are DVD bonus features that I can't easily access. These strike me as acceptable RS from the perspective of WP:ABOUTSELF. At the GA level, I will assume good faith regarding the contents (especially since 54 supports 53), though if you can provide transcripts that would be helpful. (In fact, it could be nice to add a small transcribed paragraph to the footnote.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or timestamps, at the very least, preferably rendered a Harvard citation footnote, as well. In fact, Template:Cite AV media encourages it. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also wasn't able to access 93 (Awaking Beauty: The Art of Eyvind Earle), though the book certainly exists and is a suitable source. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like this source reinforces this quote (they quote the same book but a bit less of it) so I am satisfied with source 93. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, this looks like a good set of sources -- lots of high-quality, scholarly books. I'll return to check the rest of the list later. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
153, 168, 182, 189, 203, 218, 222, 224, 236, 241, 244 and 247 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
237 (LA Times on HK Disneyland) doesn't fully verify Hong Kong Disneyland opened in 2005 with a Sleeping Beauty Castle nearly replicating Disneyland's design... it just verifies that Hong Kong Disneyland opened in 2005, and by 2016 it had a Sleeping Beauty Castle (no comment on its relation to the Disneyland design). Can you find a more thorough source for this? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that concludes my source review! The only thing I request is some edits around that Hong Kong Disneyland sentence (until then, I've marked the OR criteria as 'on hold'). If you think about this article for FA (which seems in reach to me!), that would be a good time to add timestamps and/or quotes for citations to the DVD features. But overall the sourcing looks appropriate and well-used. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The tapestry and photo of the park castle are obviously OK as non-copyrighted, as is the trailer video. The movie poster is uncontroversially fair use. I think the Maleficent concept art is also OK under fair use, given the substantial discussion of design elements that accompanies it. I'm less certain about the image of all the characters... I will ask for a second opinion.

The fair-use image does seem to be decorative, contrary to the MOS:IMAGEREL policy. The rationale is rather vague, too; for instance, the stated purpose is to merely "illustrate the characters". Would suggest just getting rid of it, no encyclopedic value would be lost if it's removed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think there are some untapped image options that would give the article more visual appeal: an image from Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, photos of Mary Costa or Eleanor Audley (both public domain), maybe even something related to the ballet in the music section (such as [1] or [2])? See if any of those speak to you. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nineteen Ninety-Four guy and L, sorry for the intrusion. However, this article features three non-free images which is really discouraged. I think two would be fine, thoughts? dxneo (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, dxneo. Where in the guidelines does it say so? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might fall under Articles are structured and worded to minimize the total number of items of non-free content that are included within the encyclopedia, where it is reasonable to do so. from WP:NFC. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the conversation above, I think the characters image should be cut. If you feel otherwise, you could raise the topic at Wikipedia:Files for discussion to seek a firmer consensus. I do see the value in letting someone mentally map characters to their images in this section, but I'm not convinced that's enough for fair use. All the characters have images on either their own page or the List of Disney's Sleeping Beauty characters, which I think is sufficient (and minimal) for identification. Maybe this is a good section for a voice actor photo? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I once added three non-free media files to an article and I was told to only use two (cover art included). I personally don't see a reason for the other two non-frees on this article. NFCC#8 states that "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Not sure about the trailer 'cause few weeks ago it wasn't properly licensed, but this needs a clearer consensus. dxneo (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The trailer looks fine to me -- it was clearly published in the United States between 1929 and 1977 without a copyright notice, so it's public domain and not non-free. I think the Maleficent art is OK as non-free by the same reasoning as the concept art at The Great Gatsby#Dust jacket art (which is an FA). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]