I am once again nominating this for featured article. Since the last FAC nom it has undergone more improvements, another peer review, and another copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I believe the source and image review from the last attempt still applies as these were not changed. Thanks for your input in advance. DrNegative (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: It should be understood that the recent peer review only dealt with the lead and plot sections. After an intial readthrough of the article I have several issues :-
The plot section contains a hidden note pointing out that the plot summary at present considerably exceeds the 400 to 700 wordlength guideline of WP:FILM.
I added that note myself to deter IP's from constantly adding to it after every trim I make. As you can see, they seem to ignore it. The word guideline is a case by case basis for films, but I will try to trim it down further. It seems that every time I do, either an IP will add to it, or a reviewer will say it isn't thorough enough. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I made some trims to the Plot. DrNegative (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know when Jules Verne's book was first published under the translated title A Journey to the Center of the Earth, with the AmEng spelling. Unless it was indeed in 1864, it would be more accurate to replace the year in the text with a note: "first published in 1864 as Voyage au centre de la Terre".
Added note clarifying. DrNegative (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that the article has been copyedited, but there are some odd sentences. For example:-
"The character of Molière was originally intended to be professorial, but..." Professional in what sense?
I put professorial in quotation marks as it was quoted from the director from source #43, dictionary meaning: relating to, or characteristic of a professor. I am unsure what you are implying here. Do you feel I should paraphrase or did you misunderstand it? DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like my misreading of "professorial"; sorry, please ignore this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Later: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial for the nostalgia evoked by the film's action-adventure setting." Can you explain what this means?
They were implying the film as a throwback to films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and others of that genre which used CinemaScope. Do you fell that I should make it more clear and mention these examples? DrNegative (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe something like: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial, as a nostalgic reference to old action-adventure films presented in the Cinemascope format" – and give an example if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a tendency to overdetailing, particularly evident at the beginning of the "Writing" section. Why is it relevant to know that Whedon worked on Toy Story? Why is the very vague wording "about three to four months, plus or minus a few weeks" useful information? Towards the end of the same section we are even informed that Trousdale used spiral-bound notebooks – why is that significant?
I have not carried out a sources review, but three quick points:
I wonder if the star displays are necessary; is this some convention in film articles?
Film articles have used, and at times still use the star ratings when citing a film critic who uses them. It gives a scope of the critic's actual grade regardless of the prose covering him/her within the article. If it is a problem I can remove them though. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, what makes ReelViews.net a reliable source?
I would like to quote myself from the previous FAC in regards to your comment: "This is a site owned and maintained by notable web-critic James Berardinelli. Along with his site, he has also had books published which featured his site reviews. Notable film critic Roger Ebert has wrote his book forwards and considers him "the best of the Web-based critics." Rotten Tomatoes also considers him a "Top Critic", a title which they reserve for only the most notable film critics around the world."DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Images: There are three non-free images. I don't honestly think that the sketch of Milo and Kida can really be said to vital to readers' understanding. I would accept the other two.
I strongly disagree with you here. I have stated within the 'purpose of use' of the image description as to why I have included it within the article. That being so the reader can identify the unique character design employed within the film, which was heavily influenced by Mignola'a personal style. It displays the hands and faces where Mignola's influences are most prominent. It also gives context to the tidbit from Milo's lead animator and his inspirations for Milo's final design. Finally, instead of including a film-still, I chose production artwork, which qualifies as fair-use more so than a film-still, as it would not in any way, or in a much lesser way, tarnish the original commercial purpose of the film. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, be ready to defend your decision if others raise the point. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not an expert as far as film articles go, but in terms of its general structure and approach this looks reasonably promising. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Support: My comments were handled in the PR; good luck! ResMar 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments on prose (from SteveT • C): I see this article has had numerous copyedits, including one from the GOCE; I don't know if it's a by-product of having too many editors' playing with the text, but a review of the lead section alone reveals some issues; I haven't gone beyond this section, but if representative of the rest of the text, it would indicate that the article needs more work before gaining the star:
Overlinking: common English words and phrases should not be linked; the sea of blue is often unavoidable in the lead, but linking terms such as ensemble cast, musical film, adventure film, linguist, film score, target audience, direct-to-video and cult film will only reduce the impact of the higher-value links around them. Also, and I may be wrong on this point, but I don't believe it's usual to put anchor links in the lead to sections of the same article, such as Atlantis: The Lost Empire#Related works; the table of contents is situated right below, and the lead is meant as a summary of the entire article in any case, so the question arises as to why you're linking one and not the others.
I cut down a lot of links and removed the anchor. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you really need to name so many castmembers? The long list renders the sentence snakelike and exhausting. Do you think it would be a good idea to keep it just to the leads, or at least trim those with very minor roles?
Trimmed the cast list to the main characters and most notable stars. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"Atlantis was noted for adopting the distinctive visual style of comic book creator Mike Mignola."—I'm not sure "noted" works, or even conveys your intended meaning; "notable" might be better, given that Mignola worked on the film, though its use can be lazy. What exactly are you trying to say?
The use of the word "produced" in the first and second sentences is jarring—not because of the repetition, but because of the (near) homonymy: while strongly related, they are slightly different concepts (the job of a film producer and the more straightforward "made by").
I rewrote those sentences a tad taking your suggestions into account. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"... while James Newton Howard (composer for Disney's 2000 animated feature Dinosaur) ..."—does the parenthetical have any relevance? It's quite odd.
Point taken, removed the parenthetical. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, the film performed modestly at the box office and received mixed reviews from critics. With a budget of $100 million, Atlantis earned $186 million in worldwide box-office revenue, $84 million of which was earned in the United States and Canada. Some critics praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others felt the unclear target audience and the absence of songs hurt its premise."—this part begins with a statement summarising the box office performance, then the critical reaction, before returning to discuss the box office in more detail and finally doing the same with the reviews. This approach hurts the flow of the piece, and feels conspicuously structured; do you think it would be better to rephrase to present a more linear telling (and remove some redundancies from the prose to boot)? The following is just a suggestion; it isn't the best writing in the world, but you get the idea:
"Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, Atlantis performed modestly at the box office. Budgeted at $100 million, the film grossed $186 million worldwide, $84 million of which was earned in North America. The film received mixed reviews from critics; some praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others ..."
I moved the sentence to follow the box office statement as suggested and rewrote it a tad. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
While we're at it: "... felt the unclear target audience and the absence of songs hurt its premise."—I can't parse this. How can these things hurt the premise?
Tweaked sentence, more to the point now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, these issues are just what I picked up from a quick scan of the lead, which at this stage should be the most finely-honed of any section in the article. It's the first that your readers will see, and if it's clunky or difficult to read, it may discourage them from continuing. When you've fixed these, I strongly advise going through the rest of the article to look for similar. From what I can tell, it's a well-researched and comprehensive piece; it'd be a shame if the lack of polish on the prose were to let that promise down. Good luck, SteveT • C 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and your valuable input Steve. I'll continue scanning it over for any tweaks. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Lobo comments Support. This is a very thorough article, congratulations on a fine effort. I do however have some comments and a couple of issues, that for me would need to be addressed before supporting.
"Development of the film began after the directors and producer finished The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)" could be made more concise > "..began after production had finished on..." ?
I'm a bit confused by the section on "Cast > Milo James Thatch". It says that the character was based on Okrand, but then Pomeroy is quoted as saying it was like a "self portrait"?
Removed "self-portrait" statement. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
"Randy Haycock, stated that Summer was very "intimidating" when he first met her; that indicated how he wanted Kida to look and act on screen when she meets Milo". I'm not keen on this sentence. At the least, I think the "that" should be changed to "this". And maybe "influenced" instead of "indicated"?
"Burton mentioned that finding his performance as Mole was allowing the character to "leap out" of him by making funny voices". It feels like there's a word missing here too...."by allowing"? "like allowing"?
Is there a quote available on why they decided to create their own language?
The development section paragraph directly above it has a quote from Wise that states, "Let's get the architectural style, clothing, heritage, customs, how they would sleep, and how they would speak. So we brought people on board who would help us develop those ideas." Do you not feel that this is satisfactory or should I move it down? DrNegative (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
"The initial draft was 155 pages, much longer than a typical Disney film script (which usually runs 90 pages)". Is this fact covered by the next footnote?
Yes. Are you implying that I should replicate the footnote for the prior sentence? DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph of "Animation" ends without a reference, which I've been told paragraphs always should.
The lead currently has this sentence: "The film was released at a time when audience interest in animated films was shifting away from traditional animation toward films produced with full CGI." I don't see any mention of this is the "Animation" section? This surely influenced their decision to use CGI, and is pretty important?!
This was in reference to the beginning paragraph of the box-office section in which there were concerns by the directors and reporters over the film's competition with Shrek. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
"The VHS edition presented the film in its original theatrical ratio with the use of anamorphic widescreen." Ref? Maybe not essential, but preferable.
I removed the sentence for lack of a reliable source. It is not really important but will re-add later on if I manage to find one. DrNegative (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The second video game seems to have its own article, that should be linked.
Linked, that article was removed and re-added very recently, so I was unsure if a wikilink was appropriate. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is appropriate to have Ebert's comment singled out in a quote box. It could influence readers' take on the film, which breaches WP:NPOV.
Moved quote in to paragraph body. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The "General response" section suggests that the film received many negative reviews. I'm afraid I don't feel that this is accurately reflected in the "reviews" section. Too much weight is given to the positive reviews.
I added another negative review. As it stands now, the section has 4 positives, 2 mediocre, and 3 negatives. Does the weight look better? DrNegative (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the last two paragraphs could easily be given their own sub-section called "Interpretation", or something similar?
Added sub-section "Themes and interpretations". DrNegative (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead says it has become a cult film. We need some mention of this in the article.
Added this mention to paragraph regarding Mignola in the animation section. DrNegative (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
A comment on the structure: To me, it feels a bit awkward having the home media/video games/etc stuff come before the critical response. Chronologically, it just doesn't make sense. I think these should come at the end, somehow. --Lobo(talk) 13:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I reorganized the placement of those sections taking your suggestions into account. The only logical place for home-media to be is under release in my opinion. Other FA film articles also place it there. I am not sure where else to place it. DrNegative (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Home media could just have its own section, a level 2 heading coming between 'Accolades' and 'Related works'? I personally think that would be fine. The paragraph is big enough to justify its own section. If you really don't like this idea though, I won't push for it. The main thing is that the related stuff is now at the end, that's much better.
I made it a level 2 sub header and moved it down. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
"Development of the film began after the directors and producer finished production on The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)." This sentence has got longer, not more concise! I was suggesting "Development of the film began after production had finished on THoND."
The original intent for the longer sentence was to clarify to the reader that the producers and the directors were both involved with Hunchback, and that chronologically, this film came after it in their timeline, not Disney's. But I changed it to your suggestion anyway, I guess the original intent wasn't being conveyed as I thought it would. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
"Burton mentioned that finding his performance as Mole by allowing the character to "leap out" of him by making funny voices while trying to "throw myself into the scene and feel like I'm in this make-believe world". This sentence has become even more unclear. It's a jumbled mess, I'm afraid. Please completely revise it.
I split that entire statement into two sentences and rewrote a tad. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the reviews section now, I can see that there is very little structure to it. You've just sort of tagged a review on the end, without really thinking about the best place to place it. I think it all needs to be a bit better organised, with clear indicators of what the film was criticised and praised for. I'm also wondering if the "General response" and "Reviews" subheadings are even needed at all? --Lobo(talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The overall structure is following alternating positive, negative, mediocre reviews. Very common is film articles with "mixed" reviews. IMO, the negative review which I added fit perfectly on the end, and captures a reviewer's feelings on the comparison/competition with Shrek (mentioned elsewhere within the article) in relation to the plot. I feel that the quotes/statements from each reviewer sum up and accurately reflect their reviews nicely, without implying that they were cherry picked. What examples/changes would you suggest? This would quite possibly be a major content change which entails a withdrawal of the FAC.
The subheadings are more subjective personal taste at this point. "General response" titles the paragraph from the aggregates and CinemaScore polls, while "Reviews" focusing on the film critics. I think it could swing either way, but I'm open to suggestions. Was that a rhetorical question or are you wanting the headings removed? DrNegative (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the subheadings need to be there. But again, I won't push for it. Just a suggestion for you to consider. As for the reviews paragraph, I'm not asking for any huge changes, I just think it could be better organised. Looking at other FA film articles, the "Reviews" section usually has paragraphs focusing on specific aspects. I think an excellent example for mixed reviews is in Conan_the_Barbarian_(1982_film): see how it highlights the divisive areas? Or if you just need something more simple, the very recently promoted Jaws (film) goes for a clean break of "positive" followed by "negative". This is also effective, because you can ascertain straight off what was praised and what wasn't. This article doesn't need to be exactly like these, but I just think there needs to be a bit more focus, rather than "on", "off", "on", "off". I hope I'm not being disheartening, on the whole it's an excellent article. --Lobo(talk) 16:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Duly noted. I'll look into it. DrNegative (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I have copyedited and restructured the Reception section to a point in which I believe you were going for in your suggestion. Let me know what you think. DrNegative (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That is looking much better! It feels so much more crafted and professional now, don't you think? I have declared a full support above. Well done. --Lobo(talk) 09:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
p.s. I'm nitpcking here, but you now have two consecutive sentences that begin "Critic X disliked the film..." I'd suggest recasting one for some variation.
Ah yes, thanks for catching that, and for your help and suggestions. DrNegative (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Support - everything in the article looks good to me. However, I think there should be a recapitulation of all reviews and review aggregators (in this case, it's "mixed"). DarthSjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Note -- Re. nominator's comment at the top, while citation and image reviews were conducted on the last FAC for this article, I haven't seen a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of copyvio and close paraphrasing. Pls point one out if I've missed it, otherwise one will be required here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see the sources have been looked over but the actual spot-checks have not yet been done. Thanks for pointing that out. DrNegative (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
SupportComments from Noleander
Some footnotes are a bit ambiguous, such as "History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47". These footnotes are relying on the hyperlink to take the reader down to an entry in the Bibliography "Atlantis: The Lost Empire—Supplemental Material (DVD)". The text of the footnotes, without the hyperlink, should not have any ambiguity, that is, should uniquely identify a single source in the Bibliography section. For example: change "History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47" to "Supplemental material: History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47". Another example: "Art Direction: Designing Atlantis at 9:50–10:02" should be "Supplemental material: Art Direction: Designing Atlantis at 9:50–10:02"
The front of disc #2 has "Supplemental Features" printed on the front of it. Once you load it up, you have a menu tree that branches like the footnotes are labeled within the article. I assumed placing "Supplemental Features" at the beginning of every footnote that referenced that disc would come across as redundant. Per your suggestion, are you saying that you want me to place that in front of every footnote which references disc 2 in the Bibliography regardless? DrNegative (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. The key requirement is that a reader must be able to get from the footnote down to the correct item in the Bibliography without using hyperlinks. So the footnote text must include the name of the Bibliography entry. Thus, "History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47" is not sufficient. But "Supplemental material: History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47" is sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
... feel free to abbreviate to make it more concise. E.g. the footnote could say "Supp. Mat: History ..." and the Bibliography could say "Supplemental Material (cited as "Supp. Mat."), second DVD, 1999, etc". --Noleander (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I added "Supplemental Features" to each footnote that referred to Disc 2 in the bibliography. I believe this satisfies your suggestion? DrNegative (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good now. If you can clarify some of the wording about the aspect ratio, I'll change my comment to Support. --Noleander (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Confusing: " Despite the film's larger format, the production team worked within a smaller frame on the same paper and equipment used for standard aspect ratio (1.66:1) Disney-animated films for budgetary reasons" - I don't understand what this paragraph is saying. Before this sentence is says they chose to use an especially large format; then the quoted sentence says they did not. Need to clarify if they used the larger format or not. If they did, why then say " the production team worked within a smaller frame"?
A similar issue exists in the image caption showing the two frames: Is it true that the wider one was used in theaters, and the narrower one used on the DVD? If the wider was also used for DVD, then what is the purpose of showing the cropping?
I think maybe the wording could be tweaked to make this clearer to the reader. The widescreen format is larger or wider (longer rectangle in length assuming height was the same), but Disney's animation desks and paper were still the more square 1.66:1 ratio. So to draw the film, the animators had to shrink the rectangle to fit inside their traditional square. The picture conveys more so the advantage of that rectangle (2.35:1 widescreen) once it was projected in theaters. DrNegative (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that could be clearer. I think the article should clearly say that the movie was made and produced and delivered in the 2:35 widescreen format; and that that format is great, and used for most post-2000 movies; and that the animators had to go through some hassle because some of their animation equipment was geared to the 1:66 ratio. Also try to put it in context: Certainly Disney started making all its animated movies in widescreen soon thereafter, correct? So they just happened to be pioneers? --Noleander (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I gave that entire paragraph a copyedit and rearranged it a little in an attempt to be more concise and to the point. I also trimmed the caption down on the picture in order to do the same thing. Let me know what you think. DrNegative (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Wording - "Kirk Wise noted its design as a treasure map showing the path to Atlantis." - That doesn't read very well. Maybe "noted that its design was a .." or " suggested that its design could be interpreted as ...".
Fixed, used your first suggestion. DrNegative (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Good article, leaning towards Support once the above are addressed.
Changing to Support, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Note – Spotchecks of the sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing are still needed please. Graham Colm (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm sorry for opposing this late into the nomination, but I feel the prose isn't up to standard yet. The article is also difficult to follow in some areas. Samples:
"Written by Tab Murphy, directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, with Don Hahn as producer, it is the first science fiction film in the Disney animated features canon and the 41st overall." Lacks parallelism; suggest "Written by Tab Murphy, directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk wise, and produced by Don Hahn, it is the first"... also, I'm not sure, but I think it should be "1st... and 41st" rather than "first... and 41st" per the MoS.
"The film was released at a time when audience interest in animated films was shifting away from traditional animation toward films produced with full CGI." Also, I'm not sure what traditional animation is.
Fixed, also wikilinked hand-drawn animation. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"Released to mixed reviews, some critics praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others disliked it due to the unclear target audience and absence of songs." "Released to mixed reviews," is a dangling participle (grammatically it modifies "some critics"), plus it's redundant to the rest of the sentence anyway.
Removed the opening of the sentece. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It might just be me, but the lead ends somewhat abruptly. It suddenly switches from talking about awards to the film's being considered a cult favorite, which is somewhat vague on its own anyway.
This is notable enough for the lead but looking at it chronologically, there is really no other place to put it. The cult status comes over time, well after all of the events which the article depicts. To close the lead with it seems like the most logical place to put it. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"toward" in the lead (and elsewhere) but "towards" in the plot section
"Returning with Kida," had they ever left? If so, where for? It's not clear as is.
Made it clear that they went on a deep swim to explore. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"Rourke mortally wounds the King of Atlantis (Leonard Nimoy) while trying to extract information about the crystal's location, but finds it for himself hidden beneath the throne room." sentence is somewhat vague; technically "it" refers to "the crystal's location", and this is the first time we read about any throne room.
Tweaked this sentence a little in an attempt to make it more concise. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'm pretty confused to what's going on with the crystals. I'm guessing there's one main crystal that's important with other smaller crystals that are interdependent, but the article isn't too clear.
You are absolutely right, though it is never fully explained within the film. The little crystals are all fully dependent of the mother crystal. The 4th paragraph in the Plot section states: Milo helps Kida uncover the nature of the Heart of Atlantis: it supplies the Atlanteans with power and longevity through the crystals worn around their necks. That is all we have, anything more would be speculation and/or original research. I'm not sure how to make it an clearer without performing the latter. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"The surviving crew goes back to the surface and promises Whitmore they" subject-verb-subject agreement type of issue; suggest "The surviving crew members return to the surface and promise to keep the discovery of Atlantis a secret."
Stopping here. Some of these may seem nitpicky, but I really feel they mar the overall flow of the article. It could benefit from an independent copy-editor. Auree★★ 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of your opposition, thank you for your suggestions of improvement Auree. DrNegative (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Your changes have helped, thanks. Unfortunately this was just a look-through of two sections, and I'm not sure how much time I have for the rest (which, on a quick glance, reveals some similar issues). I might leave you more comments on this article's talk page or the FAC talk page, but asking an experienced copy-editor with enough time on their hands -- that is, time to read the entire article line by line -- would be the best approach here (instead of having a bunch of people copy-edit bits of the text). A few of the better ones I've seen around are User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Dank, User:Finetooth, and User:Mark Arsten, though I'm not sure if they'd be up for it (and I think Dank only copy-edits Milhist articles nowadays). Auree★★ 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Handling of grammatical theme at the opening:
There was a bit of confusion in dividing the meanings up into the sentences, I suspect; which bits are about the fundamentals of creation, writing, production, and the positioning of the film in the industry context? Which bits are about the voice-over actors?:
"Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a 2001 American animated film created by Walt Disney Feature Animation. Written by Tab Murphy, directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, and produced by Don Hahn, it is the 1st science fiction film in the Disney animated features canon and the 41st overall. The film features an ensemble cast with the voices of Michael J. Fox, Cree Summer, James Garner, Leonard Nimoy, Don Novello, and Jim Varney in his final role before his death. Set in 1914, the film tells the story of a young man who gains possession of a sacred book, which he believes will guide him and a crew of adventurers to the lost city of Atlantis."
Let me see ...
"Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a 2001 American animated film created by Walt Disney Feature Animation – the first science fiction film in Disney's animated features canon and the 41st overall. Written by Tab Murphy, directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, and produced by Don Hahn, the film features an ensemble cast with the voices of Michael J. Fox, Cree Summer, James Garner, Leonard Nimoy, Don Novello, and Jim Varney in his final role before his death. Set in 1914, Atlantis tells the story of a young man who gains possession of a sacred book, which he believes will guide him and a crew of adventurers to the lost city of Atlantis."
You can probably do better since you know the topic well. Tony(talk) 06:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. I implemented your example into the article as I feel that it flows far better than what was present. DrNegative (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Delegates Note: I think this candidate is close to promotion. A spotcheck for verifiablity and close paraphrasing is still needed. Any uninvolved editor can do this. Please ask around. Graham Colm (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll do the source review. --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Source Review from Noleander
Article:" English Budget $90–120 million[nb 1] Box office $186,053,725"
Article: and his quote "in a single day and night of misfortune, the island of Atlantis disappeared into the depths of the sea"
Source - Yes, supports that.
FN 39- Source not available.
Article "At the peak of its production, 350 animators, artists and technicians were working on Atlantis
Source - Book is available onllne in Google Books : I've read it and it does support the material (cannot cut and paste).
FN 51 -
Article " Mignola was surprised when first contacted by the studio to work on Atlantis." "I remember watching a rough cut of the film and these characters have these big, sq.."
Source: ""I remember watching a rough cut of the film and these characters have these big square weird hands," recalls Mignola. "I said to the guy nex..." ""As a reward for the little bit of stuff I did, Francis [Ford Coppola] invited me up to watch a rough cut of the picture," says Mignola. "I assumed it was going to be a dozen guys, but it was just me, him and George Lucas. At that point I was thinking, 'Well, my life has taken an odd turn.' It was pretty weird." ... Mignola's life only got weirder when Disney approached him to adapt his art style to the animated feature "Atlantis: The Lost Empire." During his first meeting with the studio, he was shown enlargements of his "Hellboy" comic pages overlaid with notes on how he did things, in terms he didn't understand."
Article "The film was one of Disney's first marketing attempts through mobile network operators, and allowed users to download games based on the film. "
Source: Cited page from book is available on Google books (cannot cut and paste); I read it and it does support the article's wording.
Article:"James Berardinelli, film critic for ReelViews, wrote a positive review of the film, giving it three out of four stars. He wrote, "On the whole, Atlantis offers 90 minutes of solid entertainment, once again proving that while Disney may be clueless when it comes to producing good live-action movies, they are exactly the opposite when it comes to their animated division.""
Article : Online Film Critics Society Awards 2001 Best Animated Feature
Source :"BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Atlantis: The Lost Empire; Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within ..."
Article: "Atlantis: The Lost Empire is an action game developed by Eurocom for the PlayStation console which was released July 12, 2001. The player controls Milo, Audrey, Molière, and Vinny as they traverse Atlantis and rescue Princess Kida, finally saving Atlantis from doom. Some features in the game unlock others (such as a movie) by finding Atlantean symbols which spell "Atlantis". "
Source: Not fully supporting that material. The source does review the game, but I do not see (a) release date; or (b) rescue Kida.
Conclusion: I see an issue with #110, which needs to be addressed, but overall I detect no problems with fabrication, copyright violations, or close paraphrasing.
End Noleander source review; --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your source review. I copyedited the sentence referencing source to support the material. Removed mention of saving Kida (even though you really do but I cant find a source that mentions it) but if you look closely, the release date is printed near the top of the IGN article under the game title and platform. DrNegative (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)