Talk:Pete Docter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Pete Docter was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 9, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Animation / American / People / Pixar (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Minnesota (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Not a correct citation[edit]

Regarding the edit made by User:71.114.232.137, the statement on the (since removed) linked site that says "Ronnie is currently working in development on Peter Docter’s original feature film" does not provide enough information about Docter's next project to the point where it can be said that it's even a Pixar production. Until Docter's project is announced or reported by citable 3rd party (not a blog), it cannot be included in WP. SpikeJones 13:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pete Docter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I am Majorly and I'll be reviewing this article.

It's looking good at a glance. Some points to work on:

  • In the lead, it says "key figure and collaborator in Pixar Animation Studios for the past twenty years". This is obviously going to change, so I'd consider reworking that or leaving it out altogether.
  • Per WP:LEAD, it needs expansion, to cover all aspects of the article, and not introduce new facts.
  • "his sister, Kirsten Doctor"... should not be Docter?

Saving for now, but I'll be back later to finish. Majorly talk 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • "Nick and Elie (Nicholas and Elizabeth), ages 12 and 10 as of 2009" Again, this will change, why not leave this unimportant information off? It then goes on... "He can play several music instruments. Elie has a speaking part in Up as Young Ellie." Is the he referring to Nicholas or Pete? It should probably removed either way.
  • Pixar filmography - why not a full filmography?
  • Nitpick - please format the references consistently. The dates, for example, should all be the same.
  • The main image is a blurry out of focus shot. Why not use the other image as the main one?

Once these points are fixed, I'll check it over against the criteria. Majorly talk 00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the article 'on hold' now? The Squicks (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much. Majorly talk 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
No response for over a week, I've had no choice but to fail this. Please renominate it when you have fixed these issues. It should have no problem passing. Ping me on my talk page if you do, I'll be happy to review it. Majorly talk 13:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)