Talk:Princess Fiona/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 03:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Article is well-written for the most part, but issues with consistency and information present in lead but not the article is nontrivial.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Article contains original research and loose claims from sources that don't actually match what is in the source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article has POV issues and sometimes uses claims that are not justified in the sources.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

Fiona's children are mentioned in the lead by name, but only implicitly mentioned by name in the body.

Added sources for the triplets' names in "Appearances" and revised the sentence.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Her nickname is only mentioned in infobox and has no source.

This nickname is never (or extremely insignificantly) mentioned in the series and was likely added by a fan; removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ogre and Human should not be capitalized, as neither are proper nouns.

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thriller Night is mentioned in the lead as her last appearance, but this is not sourced nor mentioned in the body.

I usually omit "last appearances" from character infoboxes altogether because characters, particularly animated characters, are constantly appearing in new movies, video games, shows and franchises, making it virtually impossible to determine what we should consider their "official last appearance". Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Holly Fields is mentioned in the lead, but this is not sourced nor mentioned in the body.

Added source and supporting text in "Voice" section.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Renee Sandstrom is mentioned in the lead, but this is not sourced nor mentioned in the body.

Removed. Despite popular belief, Sandstrom's contribution to the character appears to be largely unsupported and a borderline rumour; will re-add if a verified source becomes available.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sally Dworsky is mentioned in the lead, but this is not sourced nor mentioned in the body.

Removed; similarly unsupported.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Images

Rationale for human Fiona is weak. Needs to explain it further the value of depicting human Fiona

Photo removed from body of the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The caption for Diaz' photo is too long. Can reduce it to (2010) instead of pictured in, drop the detail about Garofalo, and the sources aren't necessary as any information found in the caption should be in the article elsewhere.

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Creation and writing

The article uses the word unattractive, but the source does not. Do the designers or the source identify her as not attractive, or is that extrapolated from the premise of the source material?

The source uses the word "ugly". Replaced.

Looking at the same source (citation 6), I see that the claim that Farquuad's attraction to Fiona was more compelling doesn't seem to be something specifically mentioned. Caan you point to the part of the text that backs that up? Furthermore, if the text does remain, be sure to rephrase to indicate who is saying it is compelling. The source? The designers?

The word used in the source is "practical". The film historian, Furniss, wrote "There are practical reasons why Princess Fiona must be beautiful most of the time: why else would Prince Farquuad want to marry her? He is vain and the bottom line is that he wants to marry a princess, so he can rule the land. Nonetheless, he 'naturally' is taken by her beauty and she becomes his choice." I've rephrased the sentence and replaced "compelling" with "practical".--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of ogre and ogress. I recommend that you stick with ogre.

Fixed, throughout the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No need to quote the source for using the word enchanted, as it's just the way they described the character.

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The article says "permanently beautiful," but the source just says beautiful.

Fixed.

The article says that it was more complex originally, but the source doesn't seem to be the origin of that claim. Cut that out, and add a detail about why it wasn't used (due to test audiences).

Done. Thanks for the suggestion.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The detail on her being more empowered seems to be loosely based on an interviewer identifying her as more empowered in Forever After. Unless I'm missing the context, cut that detail entirely.

Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Voice

"to the point at which he" -> "to the point that he"

changed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You mention Diaz finding Ogre Fiona beautiful earlier, but you probably can cut this instance here as you mention it later, thus making it feel redundant.

Thegamer.com is not a reliable source

Sources replaced.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Consider paraphrasing some of these quotes more. Also, the end of Diaz's quote about Ogre Fiona's beauty lacks a closing quotation mark.

Done, as well as throughout the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Condense the "between $10 million and $15 million" part to just say "She ultimately earned somewhere between $10 to $15 million for reprising her role."

done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"described the experience one" -> "described the experience as one"

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Design and animation

"Animator Lucia Modesto recalled that her team was ordered to "pull back" on the character's design because she was beginning to appear too realistic,[82] resulting in a "distinctly unpleasant" effect.[83][84]" Redundant, basically sums up what was already said.

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"Adamson explained, "There's something that happens in the translation from real life into the computer that gets tricky, especially for a humanoid."" This is basically just explaining the uncanny valley, we can just attribute it to that without Adamson's explanation.

Done. Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"Adamson identified Fiona as easily the film's most difficult character to animate because "everyone’s used to watching people talking and expressing themselves on a daily basis" whereas "You can get away with a lot with a talking donkey”, according to Adamson." Summarize this. For instance: Adamson identifies Fiona as the film's most difficult character to animate due to people's familiarity with human expressions, whereas people have no such familiarity for talking animals.

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"which Adamson identified as “extremely hard things to achieve in animation, but they give the character a richness you’ve never seen before.”" Summarize

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"Although she does not think the character resembles her" -> "Although she did not think the character resembled her"

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"Diaz personally prefers Fiona as an ogre." Cut this line, she clarifies this elsewhere and here it feels like random trivia.

Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"without layout supervisor Nick Walker" -> "with layout supervisor Nick Walker"

Corrected.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Do a search for any first quotation marks that have a space after it, it occurs three times in the article.

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Paraphrase the Banderas quote to the best of your ability.

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove content relating to The Matrix and fighting style, as it relates mainly to the scene and not the character.

"Despite closely observing the animators work on Fiona's hair, Mitchell admits that his understanding of the process remains limited." Remove

Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to these issues. I'm going to go through the article piecemeal, and it'll take a bit of time. Thanks for being so patient. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for taking the time to review in the first place. It's a very long article, so I get it haha. Take your time :-) Bryn --Changedforbetter (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

All right, getting back to it @Changedforbetter:. You've my full attention. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Changedforbetter: Would you like a new reviewer on this, since it's been quiet for a while? Kingsif (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif OMG to be honest I totally forgot this article was still under review lol, but yes please! --Changedforbetter (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

New review

• There's a few deadlinks, but other sources are good. Some are a bit dubious but are reliable for what they're sourcing.
• Feminist analysis could be its own analysis section, above the reception

I've made it its own section, but below "Reception" instead.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Is there any way to add more media? Images, sound (voice clip?) - not asking for it to be a picture book, but it's a long article to only have one piece of media in the body. A table, if there's been awards and nominations for Diaz's work? A table for film/tv appearances? Something that makes it look like a less intimidating read. There's some really interesting notes on animating her - is there any illustration of that? And analysis. Some movie screenshots can be fair use.

I'll work on this, if possible.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• More detailed notes to come, though a lot of the little bits have been mentioned above.
• Kingsif (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Suitable length
• A sentence ends with transforms her into an ogre nightly. - either reorder of change to "at night."

Changed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• 'new husband' doesn't need to be wikilinked

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• The mention of Garofalo's sarcastic tone and Farley's death sounds like she was fired for making funny comments about his death. So, rephrase or remove - why she was fired is not pertinent for the lead.

I don't think it reads that way at all; the statement says "it is believed that the producers found Garofalo's sarcastic approach to the princess unsuitable after Shrek's original voice actor died", meaning they didn't like the sarcastic voice she used for Fiona.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

See, I read it the other way until I got to the relevant part in the body. It's perception, really. Kingsif (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good overview in lead

Development

• I'm not sure what the intro to the second paragraph refers to; Feeling that remaining undiscovered until the end... - Feeling that what remaining undiscovered? It seems like it's Fiona's ogre-ness, but this is already explained in the paragraph above.

Yes, her "ogre-ness". I've changed it to "her curse remaining undiscovered".--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's also not clear that the objection was to the 'shapeshifting' element (until reading on that 'enchanted' was preferred)

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Could Elliot elaborated that this prompts audiences to debate if Fiona's "true form" is beautiful or unattractive: "Her true form is beautiful by day, ugly by night.' ... and she was trying to rid herself of part of who she truly was, because society maintained that was wrong." be better elaborated, because I'm not sure what it means. It might be the unclear quotation, but the lack of context isn't helping

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• The paragraph on the scrapped ideas has some areas where it needs to be more explicit that the plot discussion is both fiction and not in the films

Revised in various areas.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call Timberlake's role a cameo, he's one of the main characters in that film

The "cameo" refers to Timberlake's photograph in Shrek 2 which appears for a few seconds, not is voice roles in Shrek the Third.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• And the use of wikt:commemorate in The film's May 2007 premiere in Los Angeles commemorated the first media event at which the former couple had been photographed since the end of their relationship is incorrect.

I agree. Changed "commemorated" to "was".--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the word currently - there's no plans for more films.

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Re. the Despite being currently in development, Diaz has yet to confirm whether or not she will reprise her role in a fifth film,[51] although she had previously said that she would return for a fifth installment if asked part, does [51] explicitly mention Diaz? And updates, since it's from 2017? But, really, I thought Shrek 5 was a reboot, i.e. a new franchise, without Diaz

The source reads "It’s unclear if Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz and Eddie Murphy will return for the new film", in regards to Shrek 5. The reboot is essentially a separate project, at this point.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove "once again" from She once again earned $10 million for Shrek Forever After, since the figure isn't confirmed for any film before.

Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Would be worth mentioning that Fields is often a voice artist to imitate Diaz.

Added.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Test audiences is linked too many times - link things at the first instance in lead and body (some exceptions for e.g. captions)
  • Other things with multiple wikilinks: Andrew Adamson, Sun-Sentinel, Beauty and the Beast, martial arts, Shrek, King Harold, Queen Lillian, Fairy Godmother (though I think the first instance could be replaced with a generic link to the fairytale concept rather than the character), Shrek the Third, Shrek Forever After, Emanuel Levy, Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian, girl power

Revised all instances I could find.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Writing suffering from a phenomenon known as the uncanny valley suggests that the children suffered from uncanny valley, which is just wrong. Rephrase in a way that knows it's a well known literary theory.

Okay, fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• For example, when Fiona squints her eyes and compresses her lips while listening to someone else, movements Adamson identified as extremely difficult to achieve in animation but offer "a richness you’ve never seen before.” is a sentence fragment - either add the closing clause or remove 'when' (it also uses a text ” at the end instead of a http ". Difference seen most in text editor.)

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Although did does not think the character resembles her - did → Diaz

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• review break Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note throughout: make sure each sentence with a quotation in it has a ref at the end.
  • And the apostrophes

Fixed all instances I could find.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• The sentences about Antonio Banderas rejecting the ugliness might work better with the earlier paragraph on choosing to make her an ogre rather than human.

Okay I've moved this section to the beginning of the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Allure mention of Fiona's hair is much more analytical than the rest of that paragraph, which is about how things were animated; it seems like the appropriate place to have it, but it could be incorporated better so that reading it isn't so jarring

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Characterization and themes

• Generally good, would recommend a look over for small matters of phrasing, punctuation.

Revised; thanks!--Changedforbetter (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• break Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Appearances

• have invited them to the kingdom of Far, Far Away to celebrate their message - presumably marriage at the end?

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps rephrase Fiona's parents, King Harold and Queen Lillian, are surprised to find that their daughter is still an ogre, having married one herself to say ", and married an ogre" - if I remember correctly, they were surprised to find out Shrek was an ogre?

That is correct. Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• This section shows there is a link to the Arthur Pendragon character in Shrek, while I think a link further up the page heads to the King Arthur of mythology page, worth checking

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Both 'she' and 'Fiona' are used next to each other in Since Shrek never frees Fiona from the tower, she Fiona remains under the witch's spell, where only one is needed - I don't mind which :)

Thank you, fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Rumpelstiltskin is referred to as 'Rumpelstiltskin', 'Rumpel', and 'Stiltskin' - one should be used for consistency

Fixed all instances.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• The end sentence, The change in the timeline also restores the ogres. needs some more explanation

I've removed this part altogether, since it's hardly essential to Fiona's role.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Is Foster continued, "She's trying to be this perfect princess, but ultimately she is struggling with her inner ogre" until she meets Shrek. But it's still a bit of a struggle, because everything she's been told is that she's supposed to look a certain way and act a certain way, but everything on the inside is telling her something different." supposed to be one long quote and, if so, can it be broken up? Kingsif (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I've shortened the quote overall.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reception

• I think there's some missing words in The Daily Telegraph's film critic Andrew O'Hagan believes that Diaz Fiona "with the kind of easygoing shrillness that modern eight-year-olds may find likeable in the extreme." (I'd go with 'imbues', but whatever your intention was should be fine)

Yes, that's the word I would have used also. Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Generally good, though the phrasing and "X said Y" structure could be improved upon

Revised.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Feminist analysis

• Ditto here re. the writing style; it's written more like a review section than a compilation of analysis, and a bland review section, too

Kingsif (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Well this was originally intended to be part of the reception section. With this in mind, I've re-assimilated it with the Reception section and renamed it "Feminist response".--Changedforbetter (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

That header kind of makes it sound like response from feminists. I'd say just put it back into the reception section without a header, but that would be a very long section. Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Then I'll rename it "Analysis", since this has less of an implication that it is from feminists.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• On hold, ostensibly for a week, but I feel a bit of extra time should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif I believe I've addressed all points; awaiting final verdict.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Changedforbetter: Hi, I still think the response section is weak in style; some of the paragraphs are an entire page-scroll long and are just "X said Y. A said B. But C said D." over and over for the most part - this is not engaging or easy to read. I think it's all technically correct, so I can pass it, but I don't personally believe this meets the style criteria (well-written, good flow, reader-oriented). Kingsif (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif Hi there. I agree that the article tends to run a bit long (what can you expect from a character one of the sources cites as one of the most talked-about and beloved characters of the 21st century), therefore I've spent the last few days revising the Reception section, into which I've incorporated a shorter third section more-so devoted to Fiona's general impact on the media and accolades/commendations she's received (formerly part of the Critical response section). I've also shortened, removed and paraphrased several quotes/citations throughout the Critical response and Feminist sections to offer a less repetitive read. Thank you for your patience; hoping you'll appreciate these efforts and consider passing the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Changedforbetter: - I don't mind about length, if it's all relevant coverage, that can't be helped. Of course, a short reception section that follows a boring style is a lot more readable than a long one! I'll look at your changes, thanks for putting in work. If you wanted to look at some FA reception sections and see their style, it might give some inspiration? Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

ETA: edits look good, I feel happy to pass this now, but still recommend looking over other quality articles, it helps anyway! Kingsif (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)