Talk:Song of the South/Archive 3

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (18 July 2006 to 2 February 2007):
• Archive 2 (next to start):

---

To be released?

'Song of the South' release mulled despite possible controversy Bytebear 22:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is mentioned in the article. (Ibaranoff24 19:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Error on the main page

Song of the South has definately been released on VHS and I believe Betamax as well. The tapes have since been pulled from stores by Disney in their futile attempt to bury what is quite possibly their best live action film ever. —The preceding Smokachu 11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• The film has never been officially released on any format in the United States. (Ibaranoff24 19:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Controversy

The article should include more on the controversy over the film's content. I've tried adding info from Karl F. Cohen's book, but I couldn't, because the author has such a negative POV against Disney and Song of the South, and I didn't want the article to look biased. (209.247.22.138 04:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Article status

I stress the importance of improving this article. Attempts should be made to rewrite and expand the article by obtaining copies of the books currently mentioned in the references and additional books that discuss the production and release of the film and of the controversy over the subject matter. There should be attempts made to get this article up to FA status. (172.129.237.224 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Simply put, this article sucks. Put some more effort into it. It's a major classic.

65.11.137.165 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Links to buy

I added two links to sites with SotS for sale, but somebody removed them. What's up with this? I was trying to add to the article but it seems like here doesn't want this movie seen by anybody. 75.56.58.187 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)signed 7/5/07

According to the Manual of Style, such links (links to the article in question for sale) are considered spam and are inappropriate. For example, look at an article for any book. You shouldn't see links to Amazon.com, for example, to buy the book. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

A few notes:

• "History" needs to detail Uncle Remus a little more, explaining what the storybook was for reader reading this for the first time. Mentioning "a collection of black folktales" would suffice. Also, the quote from Disney should be converted into prose instead of quoting so much of him at length. For example, say, "Disney believed that Uncle Remus should be portrayed by a living person..." Try to limit quoting to what would be Disney's opinion, such as "...were encouraging in the way living action and animation could be dovetailed." Regular production detail doesn't need to be quoted.
• For "Production", can it be mentioned in the prose content that filming took place in Phoenix, Arizona?
• Can I suggest Template:Cquote for Neal Gabler's quote? Also, try to clarify that it came from him, as it's not immediately clear.
• You should not cite IMDb's trivia section. It is user-submitted and should not be drawn upon for verifiable information. You may need to revise the sentences which are referenced to the trivia page.
• There is also a concern with using Song of the South.net as a reference for this film article. The About page clearly reflects that this is a personal website, with the author having no credentials. It's as bad as citing GeoCities. It may be better to find out what sources that webmaster used and draw from these instead.
• Two sections have only one subsection, which I believe is frowned upon in WP:MOS. If subsections are used under a section, there should be at least two. Try to re-organize the headings accordingly.
• The 1986 reissue poster has insufficient fair use rationale, saying, "[It] describes the film." So can any other image, but there needs to be directly-related content, per WP:FU.
• Is there a reason to list the international release dates? A few editors, including myself, contest them on the basis that it's indiscriminate information and gives no encyclopedic understanding of the film. Also, I assume that the release dates are drawn from IMDb, which is questionable for reliable information. (You may need to take a look at WP:CIMDB for arguments opposing IMDb.)

The article is well-rounded enough, but there are glaring issues in regard to the citation of some of the information. Is it possible to draw upon subscription databases' articles from during the film's time period? Some heavier research may need to be done for a film of this age. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Due to the above changes not being addressed within 7 days of my review, I have decided that this article fails to qualify as a Good Article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC review

I agree with many of the concerns addressed above. I also feel that there are many instances in which the length of the article is inadequate. The length of the history section is reasonable, but the intro for the 'production' section is very short. The list of international release dates should be removed from the "Releases and availability" section. There should be more information from the cited books added. You should also look into the books and resources that were used to put together the information on the Song of the South fansite, and use those sources as references instead of the fansite itself. I generally try not to nominate articles as GA candidates unless I think that they are ready or almost ready for FAC. If you can get the quality and length of the article to where all it would take would be maybe a slight expansion or copyediting before it can be ready for to be nominated as a Featured Article candidate, then, I think, it would be ready for a GA nomination. This article definitely has potential, but it's a long way from being ready as a GAC. (Ibaranoff24 19:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Plot

Has some one noticed that the Plot text is a rather literal copyvio of this site? MoiraMoira (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Splash Mountain

I didn't see the ride Splash Mountain mentioned in this article once. Splash Mountain is one of the things that this movie is most famous for, and it seems like a crucial thing to mention in the article.