Talk:Kitbull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 14:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments
  • "distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, and produced by Kathryn Hendrickson and Pixar Animation Studios." — Shouldn't it be the producers first and then the distributors?
  • Wikilink "kitten" and "pit bull" in the lead as well.
  • Too much of quotes in the production section, especially in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs. You can try to write and interpret at least some of them in your own words. That would be better.
  • "Sullivan since she had first lived there after coming to San Francisco" — you mean after she moved to Frisco?
  • "The possibility of Kitbull initiating discussions regarding the reputation of pit bulls has been mentioned" — Are pit bulls regarded as a dangerous breed? Is this common knowledge? Just curious.
  • Is "Film Music Reporter" a reliable source?

Other than that, that's all from me. Address my comments, Flowerpiep, and the article is passed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Thank you for providing the review! I tried to address the comments from above. The mentions that I'd like to make are the following:

- Switched.

- Linked.

- I tried to paraphrase several quotes from the "Production" section. Let me know if you believe that I should paraphrase more of them.

- Yes, I meant that the Mission District was the first place where Sullivan had lived after she had moved to San Francisco. In the text from the article, I changed the verb "coming" to "moving".

- Unfortunately, yes, pit bulls are sometimes (or rather often) seen as an aggressive breed, mainly due to instances of them being used as fighting dogs. While the pit bull from this short is also used as a fighting dog for a limited period of time, he is depicted as far from aggressive (even though his initial owner tries to make him become this way through training) and all he wishes is to befriend the kitten and gain an owner's affection (both of which he eventually manages to do).

- I'm not too sure about the reliability of the source. Would this be more reliable? Flowerpiep (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Yes this source from Soundtrack.Net can be used, Flowerpiep.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ssven2: I changed the link. Also, I noticed that you had placed the reference that had been right after "the director of photography" below this part. Still, that reference was used only regarding the fact that Arjun Rihan was the director of photography, so shouldn't it remain right after that part? Flowerpiep (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Flowerpiep
It looked kinda odd to me, IMO. So, hope u don't mind, Flowerpiep.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Of course I don't mind! Since it was used for such a small part, maybe it should be removed. Also, thank you for the edits made to the article! Flowerpiep (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Flowerpiep

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
    Pass or Fail:

You are most welcome, Flowerpiep. Thank you for addressing my comments. Congratulations, the article has passed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)