Talk:Cinderella (1997 film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one for review. Looks like a pretty comprehensive article, so I'll try my best to give it a good, thorough review and then get back to you with some feedback. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First wave[edit]

Here are thoughts from my first pass through the article:

I am a fan of big, comprehensive leads in articles. However, this may be a bit much. I think each paragraph could be condensed down by about a third of its current size without losing much in terms of good detail.

I've removed some unnecessary details from the lead, specifically a summary of the film's plot (everyone is at least a little aware of the story of Cinderella, which hasn't been changed much for the film), production details in the second paragraph, and paraphrased various sentences to make them more concise.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead generally doesn't need references (they are unnecessary if the content is referenced in the body of the article, and it probably shouldn't be in the lead if it isn't). If these ones are there for controversial reasons then that's fine, but I still think the number of references in the lead is a bit overkill.

I agree that leads should lack references, but these ones' primary purpose is to avoid contention regarding the film's title, which alternates between Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella and Cinderella. I've decreased the amount to 3.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary is way too big. It should ideally be between 400 and 700 words. Also, you don't really need to include actor names in it since you have a cast section that covers all of that.

Shortened, and actors' names removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The line "Had Houston accepted the role, she would have been the first black actress to portray Cinderella on screen" is strange given that this is discussed better in the next paragraph. I think it should be removed.

Agreed, removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The start of the second paragraph in the development section could do with some indication of when Disney became interested in that, for context.

There isn't an exact year, but the source does imply that this was around the time Houston was still negotiating her involvement. I've added "By the late 1990s".--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how it is possible for them to be the first black actor to play their roles if an all-black version of the story has already been told?

It's kind of complicated, but I'll try my best. Before the 1997 film, no black actor had portrayed the title character in any direct adaptation of the fairy take, according to the sources I've cited. Although the 1978 film Cindy is technically based on the "Cinderella" fairy tale, its story, characters and settings have been significantly modified and contemporized to the point at which Cindy is more-so considered to be a re-telling or re-imagining than a direct adaptation. Think of it as Romeo and Juliet vs West Side Story; the latter stage musical/film is "based on" or "inspired by" Shakespeare's play, but due to its entirely re-imagined story and setting it is not considered to be a direct adaptation of R&J. I hope this makes sense.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The line "The film has a total of five executive producers" begs the question, who are they?

added.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the themes stuff in "Writing and themes" could probably be split-out to a separate "Themes" section after the production info, otherwise it is just a bit strange to have all the outside commentary on the film when we haven't finished talking about the making of it.
The lines "Peters, Alexander and Goldberg had each won Tony Awards for their respective work on Broadway" and "Garber had just completed filming Titanic (1997), which he jokingly referred to on the set of Cinderella as a film about "a big water tank in Mexico."" don't seem particularly relevant.

I find that the reference to the Tony Awards ties back to the paragraph's first sentence – "To complete the film's multi-racial cast, the producers recruited performers from various facets of the entertainment industry, spanning Broadway, television, film and music" – and demonstrates how prestigious the film's cast was considered to be at the time, but I've removed Garber's Titanic allegory.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The line "Due to the well-known cast, tabloids often fabricated stories of the cast engaging in physical confrontations, particularly among Brandy, Houston and Goldberg, which turned out to be false" seems dubious, and I can't see where it is sourced in the given reference either.

This information is actually cited on the fourth page of the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the casting section sounds like reception information to me.

Agreed, moved to "Reception".--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The musical section should probably detail all of the songs in some form, even if it just a listing with some specific ones elaborated on in prose.

My issue with this is that, unlike most musical films, an official soundtrack was never released, and there don't seem to be many options in the way of reliable sources that site the musical numbers in full. If I can find one I'll add them.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the broadcast and viewership information in the release section should be subsectioend.

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that all web sources are archived so readers will always be able to get to them.

Work your way through those, and let me know if you have any questions. Once these are sorted, I'll be back to review how the article is going. I do have one major concern with this article that I haven't really raised yet, but I think I'll hold onto that until you've got these bits sorted out. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Adamstom.97:! I hope you're well. I'm sorry once again for the delay, but I think I've addressed all of the points you've brought up in this review thus far. If you're okay with it, I'm ready to move on to the next phase of the review whenever you're ready.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm pretty happy with your responses to all of those points, so we can move on to the next phase now. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second wave[edit]

I really appreciate the amount of work that has been put into this article, but as I have started to hint at already, there are areas where the article is simply too big. There isn't really clear places to me that need to be cut out or anything, I just think in general you need to try and say the same stuff in less words. If you use the page size tool in the left-hand menu bar on the article, you will see that it currently has 66 kB of readable prose. According to WP:SIZESPLIT, this means the article is so big that it probably should be split into some sub-articles, which I don't think is right. I do recognise that this subject is quite noteworthy and had a lot of good critical coverage which does justify a slightly larger article, but honestly I would still rather see you get the readable prose size down to about 55 kB if possible. Could you please give this a go, even if it means having to remove or change things that you have become quite attached to in your time putting the article together? I know this can be difficult as I myself have been in your exact position before, but I have come to see that the way I was pushed to make the article I was working on smaller benefited it in the end, so I hope you can see that too. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback; I appreciate you giving me the time to work on this before passing final judgment on the article. I'll continue to work towards reducing its size and content as much as I can over the next few days and let you know when I'm done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still making some revisions; should be done by the end of this week!--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Adamstom.97:, so I'm done my revisions. To be quite honest, there isn't a dramatic decrease in the size of the article, but I've definitely gone through the prose as much as I can to try and make certain paragraphs and sentences much more concise. I hope you'll at least appreciate my efforts and look forward to your verdict!--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your efforts, and it is actually looking a lot better even though you have not taken out as much as I asked. I still think it can be cut down a little, so can you maybe try get it a bit closer to 60kB? You may have to get a little ruthless, but I think it will pay off for you in the end. Let me know how you go. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll see what I can do; thank you for your patience with this!--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Adamstom.97:! As per your feedback, I've made some further edits to the article to reduce its size, and I am honestly of the opinion that I can not make many more eliminations without compromising the quality of the content and coverage that I have written – much of which is outside commentary, yes, but commentary that establishes the importance of the (think Black Panther, which currently sits at an astounding 258,138 bytes). Taking this into account, I'm hoping you might consider passing the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job trying to get the size of the page down, and though I don't think it deserves to be as big of an article as Black Panther (full disclosure: I am one of the editors behind that monstrosity), I do agree that it deserves to be bigger than your average TV movie page. I am happy that you have put a genuine effort into making the page more concise, and think you have cut it down enough to make it feel a lot more manageable even if you technically were not able to get the size much lower. Good work. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

This is a very well researched and written article, with a lot of care put into its creation and expansion. Good job responding to my issues, including my pretty major request to cut down the size of the page, and on putting together such a fantastic article. I am happy to now pass this review. Congratulations, and keep up the good work. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]