Talk:Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Toys (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Animation / Films (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Animated films work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Canada (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation:
  • Nominate at WP:FAC on January 10th; could be on the Main Page on the day the film turns 25 (7/3/2011 or 21/3/2011)[1]
  • Could the plot section be further whittled down? At least I've done my best to control it (726 words at last count; AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) recommends 400–500 for children's animated features) (UPDATE [7/7/2010]: Now at 784 words; universe bloat quickly got to it) (UPDATE [18/9/2010]: Now at 779 words)

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Care Bears Movie II opened in North America on March 7, 1986, and entered wide release on March 21. [1]

older comments[edit]

It may be a most unlikely candidate, but I am hoping that this, one of my first-ever efforts in Wikipedia writing, will finally get a place in this world as a featured article (maybe in time for its 20th anniversary). The film's been overlooked by so many critics and TV networks in recent memory, but still it needs a little touch-up from some serious fans of this movie and the Care Bears.

For more of my comments, see the peer review link above. --Slgrandson 23:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Major Edits and Clean Up[edit]

I've just started cleaning up this article, removing some glaring grammar errors, and I have been attempting to fix the style errors. The writing needs to meet wikipedia standards. I also removed a lot of NPOV. There was a lot of original research that is not allowed on wikipedia. Wanda5088 10:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please remember, just because you can add a lot of material to an article, doesn't necessarily mean you should. For example, there is no need to put the entire production cast into the article. This information is referenced by imdb. Wikipedia is not a database, it is an encyclopedia. Notable cast and crew are usually listed in the article. Seldom, if ever, is the entire production crew.

This article was overflowing with original research. For those who are interested in nominating this article as a featured article, please evaluate the criteria carefully. Rember the article must be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. If you clear up these issues, it would be a much better candidate. The article should be clear and succint. If you are new to wikipedia, read through some other featured articles to get a feel for the writing style. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.168.39 (talk • contribs) . --Slgrandson 04:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Care Bears Movie II is not a prequel to the first movie.[edit]

The second movie serves as a prequel to the television series and should be noted as such to clear any confusion.

This movie cannot be a prequel because it's doesn't match up with the first movie.

-In the first movie, The Care Bears know nothing about the Forest of Feelings. -The Care Bears meet the Care Bear Cousins for the first time. -The Care Bear Cousins have blank stomachs. -The Cousins do not know anything outside of the Forest of Feelings. -Noble Heart Horse and True Heart are never seen nor mentioned. -The first movie serves as an origin story for the creation of the Care Bears Cousins and how they joined the Care Bears.

In the second movie:

-All of the cubs grow up together and recieve their tummy symbols at the same time. -There is no hint at the possibility of the Care Bears and the Care Bear Cousins forgetting about each other if there was a linking time span between the first and second movie. -The above serves true for the Cousins losing their symbols and Noble Heart and True Heart simply not existing. -This movie is probably the origin story intended for the Care Bears considering that it coincides with the TV series.

The second movie can be a prequel to the series because of Noble Heart and True Heart. Also, the episode that explains Pleasent and Perfect Panda because True Heart alludes back to what happened in the movie while trying to explain how the pandas were lost. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.189.181.219 (talk • contribs) . --Slgrandson 04:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Titles in different languages[edit]

Most of this list was taken from the revision dated March 3rd, 2006. If you want to create a translation from it into one of these languages below, make sure to put the relevant link into the article as soon as it is done.

--Slgrandson 08:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge of plot with main movie article[edit]

Regarding the merge of Plot of Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation with this article, I wholeheartedly support such a move. Why this wasn't in the main article in the first place is something I'd like to know... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It was in the main article in the first place. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Even though I've started to trim it down, I am not really having a good time getting it done. See me at WP:FILMPR tomorrow afternoon and you can give me some advice. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 02:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Well-written, lead is fine. Basically just a few points to clarify in the prose. Issues with eliipses (not GA criteria).
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    No problems with original research. Very well researched and referenced. 2 bare URLs in citations (not GA criteria).
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers major aspects and does not go off on a tangent.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Balanced and neutral.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No problems here.
  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):
    Images are used appropriately and have suitable captions. Non-free images have appropriate fair-use rationales.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Well, you've been working on this for a long time; it's obviously a labour of love! This is very close to passing GA, with just a few small issues. I will also list some suggestions that are not required by the GA criteria as I suspect you'll be wanting to take this one further. I'll go through and mention any issues by section.

Infobox

  • Are two sources needed for the limited release date?
  • I'm curious about why the gross revenue for Germany is included in the infobox. Does the film have particular ties to Germany?
  • Are there any details (and this goes for the main body of the article too) about the release date or gross revenue for Canada? You mention the US and North America, but not Canada, which is where the film is from
  • According to the infobox, US$8,540,346 was the gross revenue in the US, according to the lead (and the release section), that figure is for North America. Was it not released in other North American countries?

Lead

  • Why is the footnote needed for the title of the film? Was there some dispute? I've never seen a film article where the title is supported by a footnote saying that it appears that way in the film. Also, the film poster shows the same title. Am I missing something?
  • You use both film and movie. If that is intentional, fine, but it might be better to be consistent.
  • "...and involved several crew members who worked on the original Care Bears Movie." - to me, this implies the same time frame as this films; would probably be better as and involved several crew members who had worked on the original Care Bears Movie.
  • Here, and lower down, you have linked Los Angeles, but not other cities like Toronto and Ottawa. This should be consistent.

Plot

  • "They safely escape while following a rainbow up to the sky..." - safely is perhaps redundant here. Maybe They escape by following a rainbow up to the sky...
  • It could perhaps be clearer what the Care Bear Cousins are. It's not vital to the plot, but without prior knowledge, it's not obvious that they're not bears. Maybe could be explained in a footnote.
  • "Noble Heart Horse hints at Dark Heart's return, and insist they never find out." - this is not completely clear. How does Noble Heart hint? How does he know Dark Heart will return? Who will never find out, the children? What will they never find out, that Dark Heart is returning? Do they already know about DH?
  • "The horse and True Heart tell them to babysit the Cubs while they are away." - where are they away to? Are they off to defeat Dark Heart?
  • "Back on Earth..." - Why are they back? Did they only go to the Kingdom for a quick visit? This may be nitpicking, but as you can gather, I find this and the previous two sentences a little vague.
  • "That night, the other children wreck the camp thanks to Dark Heart." - this is a little unclear. Why are they wrecking the camp? Has DH bewitched them or something? Is he one of the campers?

Production

  • "...the characters appeared as toys ... and also in greeting cards by Elena Kucharik. They also appeared ..." - try to avoid this quick repetition of "also"

Release

  • Here, and a few times further down, you have used an ellipsis. Per WP:ELLIPSIS, the MoS recommends "Three unspaced periods" with "a space on each side" (with a few exceptions).

North America

  • Is there a particular reason for starting this section with "On March 8, 1986..." and talking about how much it earned, before stating the release date the previous day?
  • "The film opened on March 7, 1986..." - was this just in the US, or Canada too?

Reception

  • "requires its audiences to have some prior knowledge of Care Bears....Very young kids" - apart from th ellipsis issue mentioned above, is this ellipsis in the original source? If not, you should be consistent with your use of square brackets in quotes.

Allusions

  • "Mike McLane ... gave a few suggestions of the storyline's possible religious subtext" - might be nice to read his suggestions

References

  • The references currently at No. 52 (Livres hebdo) and No. 61 (Visão) have bare URLs.
  • Just personal taste, but ISO date formatting (yyyy-mm-dd) can be confusing to some readers as they are not consistently used in all countries. Many readers won't know which number refers to the month, and which to the day. It can be less confusing to spell it out as month day, year.

External links

  • I'm not happy with linking to the Care Bear Zone. Firstly, it looks like a fansite and secondly, it's hosting images under copyright without permission.

Please let me know if you have any questions. The main issues for passing GA are the points I raised about the prose, and the external link the rest are just suggestions.--BelovedFreak 19:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but this could take me another week or two. At this moment, I'm depending on library access; our lone laptop (at home) caught some kind of virus. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Our system's fixed. I'll get this finished by either this Friday or Saturday. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't reply earlier but that would have been fine. Glad your system's fixed though. :) --BelovedFreak 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Now what do you think? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks for the work you've done. I'm happy to list the article as a Good Article now. Congratulations! --BelovedFreak 18:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)