This article attained GA status last month, and I am eager to improve it to A status, perhaps get it near or even to FA status. What separates this article from Wikipedias best? Thanks! Judgesurreal77704:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has the makings of a good article, as it has a good use of inline citations and a decent structure, but I found it unbalanced and not comprehensive. It also needs copyediting for style ("he's too much of a wimp" for example, doesn't have a very encylopedic tone).
The plot section is far too long - it should be a summary, not a blow-by-blow account of every scene.
It needs a section on the characters. This is currently interwoven with the plot section and makes it difficult to read as well as increasing its length still further
The production section covers immediate pre-production only. It needs information on earlier pre-production, production and post-production.
I assume the film is CG animation, but the only clue is in the accompanying images.
Some of the information is disconnected, assuming a familiarity with the subject:For the design, Shakespeare noted that "The first film had primary colors that were coded to the areas and a younger feel.". Coded to the areas? What does that mean?
