Talk:Snow White (2025 film)/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by SNUGGUMS in topic GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA review

edit

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

Nominator: Lililolol (talk · contribs) 18:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply


Auto-fail: article isn't stable per criterion 5 of GACR due to lots of ongoing changes lately, plus the movie still is playing in theaters and there's an ongoing content dispute on the talk page. It therefore was taken to GAN prematurely. After the theatrical run concludes, I would recommend adding some stats on Blu-Ray, downloads, DVD, Disney+ views, or any combination of these once known, so it's best to at least wait another month or two before renominating to ensure the page covers all major aspects per criterion 3a. On the other side of broad coverage, this also fails 3b when going into excessive details for other matters. For example, projections on earnings are worthless trivia and can safely be removed. It's far more important to focus on the actual total grosses. Furthermore, "Zegler's criticism of the 1937 film" is bloated, and I'm not sure we even need such a section or "Political views". You regardless shouldn't have "IMDb ratings" when that site is full of user-generated content (failing WP:USERG) and thus any ratings they give are meaningless. From a glance into the citations used, I can't say criterion 2b was fulfilled either when MovieWeb, TMZ, and BuzzFeed are subpar sources to avoid and the lattermost also goes against WP:USERG. "castittalent.com" (which should read "Cast It Talent" without italics) and ScreenRant are questionable and should also be replaced with stronger sourcing. On a more minor note, there are various super-short paragraphs consisting of just one sentence. Those at best look incomplete and should either be expanded or merged into other paragraphs. Better luck next time! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.