Talk:Wicked (2024 film)/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 17:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 14:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments on Wicked (film)

Here are some comments to start this moving forward. I'll await your completion of your other edits at the film article we discussed at Kpop before continuing this evaluation of Wicked:

(1) Lede and Plot sections seems fairly well written and organized; I’m thinking that I may have more comments about the lede when the end of this review approaches.

(2) Cast section might look better if you move the image to the bottom of the section where you have some prose material. After moving the image to the bottom the section looks better as ‘div col 2’ for the character list.

Done. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(3) The organization of your section for production going to your subheadings of ‘development’ and then ‘pre-production’ seem a little untraditional. In addition, there appears to be no separate section for either Casting or for Writing/Adaptation. These are fairly generic subheadings which do not appear explicitly, though you include some mention of various details of each of them in your other sections. The Wikipedia article for filmmaking shows the standard outline for the making of films which might have some ideas for this article. The basic rule of thumb is that once a project receives its green light, then it enters preproduction to filming and photography, eventually to f/x and editing. That’s not quite how it is set up here. Could the TOC be adjusted for this subheading; could there be a regular Casting section, and a regular Writing/adaptation section to help organize the section a little more.

Readjusted the casting section. Let me know what you think. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(3.1) The film section included those 2 fairly large block quotes almost back to back next to each other; that’s fairly heavy quoting. Is there anyway to shorten the quotes or possibly to covert to prose descriptions for use in this Wikipedia article which should try to use Wikipedia voice.

Done. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(4) Music section starts out ok, however, I’m not sure if this track listing at the end of the section belongs here on the Wikipedia film article or on the Soundtrack article for the film. Could it be moved to the Soundtrack article?

Agreed, there's no good reason to have that here. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(5) The Changes section here looks a lot like a presentation on a Featured List article, however, this is not a Featured List article. Might there be a better organization of these comparisons which could be presented in prose for the benefit of interested readers. A list of bullet points in the middle of a prose article for Wikipedia seems a little out of place, and would look better, I think, as being written in prose style.

Not sure if you did this or not, but someone looks to have already made this change. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was converted quite nicely. I'm thinking that it might integrate into the article even nicer if it were adapted and retitled as a "Screenwriting" section placed within the Production section. You might look at the 'Gone with the Wind' film article which was adapted from a book and how they did their 'Screenwriting' section. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

(6) Marketing section with its 6 paragraph opening section, followed by a poster controversy section, followed by a derivative toy production section; this seems like its cobbled together and not always fully coherent as to why these subheadings are related. As a film article, the topics usually discussed for marketing the film would include discussion of the amount of money for advertising and promoting the film, both leading to its premiere, and then supporting its actual release once its in theaters. I can see the poster discussion you include as being part of this. The derivative toy products seem less coherent in this section and seem more related to post-marketing merchandising. Toy products derived from the film comes at the end of the article and should be separated from this relatively early subheading in the article.

The opening was changed to two paragraphs. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(7) Much of the material in the Marketing section looks like it would be better as a discussion for a subheading called Promotion under the release section.

I think I'll just change the section header to "marketing and promotion" to make it a little more accurate. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(8) Release section includes the October reviewers release ‘’after’’ to the discussion of the November premiere of the film seems out of sequence, and the chronological sequence should be observed in this subheading. October comes before November, and the article discussion should follow this chronology.

Moved the paragraphs to match chronology. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(9) Your Localization section looks more like a discussion of “Foreign Languages Dubbing” which is a better name for; Localization does not really work as a fully accurate description of the contents being discussed here. Dubbing, sound effects, subtitles, and soundtracks are often related, and I’m thinking that Dubbing and Subtitles would normally go into post-production discussion, much earlier in the article.

Moved that to a subsection of the post-production section. Seems a little more appropriate there. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems to look better as either a section called "Dubbing" or "Foreign languages" on my preview page; one or the other, your choice. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Gommeh 📖   🎮 16:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

(10) What you are calling Pre-release is really more often discussed as Advanced sales and Marketing projections. This type of material would be more appropriate in a newly fashioned Marketing section, as this was discussed in the above comments. Projection of marketed sales looks misplaced in this section currently under Release.

This is currently in the Reception section. I've retitled the header for accuracy. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(11) I’m not sure the aggregator numbers are well-placed in this section after your discussion of box office performance. The Critical responses seems fine as a good diverse compilation. The section might have an enhanced look if the Aggregator results came first, followed by the shortened version of the box office I commented upon previously, and then followed by the group of Critical responses; that would look more like other GA articles I’ve seen on Wikipedia.

Looks like this has already been done. Not sure by whom, and to me it doesn't matter lol. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(11.1) The article as a whole seems to use a mix of ‘mdash, no spaces’ and ‘mdash, with spaces’; it should be one way or the other way. ‘mdash, no spaces’ to my experience seems to look better when approaching upgrades and promotions on Wikipedia.

I think it looks better with spaces, personally. With the exception of dashes appearing in source titles, I've adjusted the article to match this so at least it's consistent. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(11.2) Citations look fairly good and are generally all formatted. It seems the current article uses a mix of prose style cite titles on the one hand, and a caps-in-titles style on the other hand. Its optional, though it would be nice to see them all in one format; you can choose one or the other and try to stick with it throughout.

It looks like all Caps format now, which is quite nice. You appear to have two redlinks in the citations; is this very helpful? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixed them both. Gommeh 📖   🎮 21:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

(12) I sort of like the way you have done the Cultural impact section and the Accolades section, followed by the Sequel section. By the way, the current Wikipedia article for Part I appears to have received some large daily page count spikes on Wikipedia with the release of Part 2, and I’m not sure why this took place. I mean when sequels finally come out, there is some heightened attention given to the original film, though Wicked Part One received a really significant boost in attention; if you might know any explanation for this with RS, then you might add it here at the end of the article.

I have no explanation for why that is. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That should get things started; formatted cites and images looks rather good in the article as a whole. Ping me when ready to continue. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Ready to continue. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I've left some more comments, mostly to see what you think of possibly adapting the section on "Changes from stage musical" and moving it into a new section called 'Screewriting' under Production; did I miss your comment about this. I'm inclining toward seeing this article move forward, so give a look at my comment. The citation section looks quite good at this time. By the way, that was a really thorough read through on the Kpop article which was nice to see. Let me know your response on 'Screenwriting' here. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with it the way it is. A change like that I think would need consensus from other editors. Gommeh 📖   🎮 14:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Two follow-up points:

(13) It might be a nice feature to include a short clip from Cynthia Erivo's version of Defying Gravity, either from the soundtrack version or from the Academy Award performance version from earlier this year. The clip could be either the audio version if you are good with that, or the video version snippet if you are better at that. It's usually ok to include a 30-second snippet, which might look pretty good in the article.

• That might be a little better for the Defying Gravity article than the one about the movie. I'll keep that in mind though in case I decide to work on that one. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

(14) Regarding the Production section as a whole, then I'm still having some concerns: there is no actual "Development" section and there is no actual "Writing" section. That makes me think twice about whether adding a somewhat unexpected section between the Production section and the current Marketing section is really the best way to go and the best alternative for the article. It seems to me to you get two birds with one stone if you add either a Writing subsection to the current Production section, or a Screenwriting subsection which would normally discuss how the staged version was adapted into the final film script. I'm going to suggest giving it a try to move the current "Stage play conversion" section into Production section; in my preview page it looks pretty good. I'm providing the consensus and support for you to go ahead with adding this material to the Production section.

Let me know when ready. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I've moved the section on differences into the production section and am currently doing research about the writing process. If I find anything useful, I'll add it. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find much more that wasn't already in the article. Nevertheless I did do some reshuffling of the sections. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a significant improvement and the article is getting closer. For the title of your Marketing and promo section, then I'd suggest simplifying to the single word Marketing. Everyone pretty much knows that promo is inside of Marketing as a discipline. For the title of your Cultural impact, I'm going to suggest simplifying to calling it simply 'Impact'; shorter looks better here. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Closing comments: Actually that may be 'done and done'. The transition between Production and Marketing is now seemless and the article looks fairy good. I'm not saying that more work might be needed if you eventually want to think about a FAC nomination here. The images are well-chosen and well captioned; prose throughout the article is good; article length is acceptable to GA standards. Try to take seriously the optional idea of bringing in a clip for Miss Cynthia's singing performance which was really exceptional. The article needs to move forward now and is promoted. Good going. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)