# Talk:Mushu

Soooo... anybody have any ideas how to take care of the glaring in-universe problems throughout this article?  I have some ideas, but it's just such a mess (from an outsider's point-of-view) that I'm not quite sure where to start.  Thoughts, please? Orethrius (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An additional thought: one of the major, MAJOR issues here is that the Kingdom Hearts section (and, perhaps, the entire article, insofar as the movies go) is going to rely on the games as a primary source.  Unless there's mass media coverage of Mushu's abilities in the games (and I must admit, I haven't checked that out yet), the game manuals don't provide any help beyond the basic concept of Summon Magic. Of course, I'm not one to think that WP:OR need be invoked unless "facts" are entered into the page that can't at least be sourced back to the original media. :) Orethrius (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Further note: As I lack a copy of the media in question, the best I can do here involves putting in-universe information into an out-of-universe style.  Somebody with actual copies of the media will need to verify the authenticity of information in this article (and, perhaps, add a reference to the media that should contain this information). Orethrius (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I really like the referencing used over at Universe of Kingdom Hearts.  Perhaps this is a direction this article could take with the appropriate media? Orethrius (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mushu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Changedforbetter (talk · contribs) 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TheGhostGum (talk · contribs) 19:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
The prose is engaging, clear, and well-structured. No significant grammatical or spelling errors were identified.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
While the lead section effectively summarizes the article, the lack of sources in the opening section needs to be addressed.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
References are well-organized and formatted consistently.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
The opening section includes content that lacks inline citations. This could compromise the article's compliance with verifiability. Sources throughout the rest of the article have been conducted, with me checking 10 of the sources with all being correctly referenced in a neutral way. Fair-use copyrighted material used, this material meets Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria
TheGhostGum According to this article, the use of in-line citations in the lead of a Wikipedia article is neither mandatory nor prohibited due to the fact that "the lead usually repeats information that is [already cited] in the body"; its use is encouraged if the topics discussed in the lead are complex, controversial, or contestable in nature, but still not mandatory even in these cases. All content in the lead has already been properly sourced throughout the body of the article, therefore I would argue that my decision to avoid using citations in the lead of this specific article should not hinder its impending GA status. Having gotten several articles discussing similar topics (fictional characters) promoted to GA prior without citations in their leads, I would ask you to reconsider.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
You are correct that the Manual of Style does not require sources in the lead if they are addressed or sourced elsewhere properly, decided to side on caution and bring it up for the lead section because of the number of claims being named in it.
For example:
"Mushu's humour was generally well received by American critics and audiences. Most reviewers praised Murphy's performance, but some felt the character diminished the seriousness of the film's subject matter."
Is upheld later but is interspersed with more broad complaints about the character but I'm trying to think if a reader will connect those two sections at a glance.
I'll just double check that each claim is brought up elsewhere and are easily linked in a way the average reader would get, have a think over, and get some advice. But likely will approve it within a day. TheGhostGum (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright thanks! Changedforbetter (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Several claims in lead section checked and are sourced extensively later in the article in a neutral way.. TheGhostGum (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 
The article avoids original research.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
No issues with copyright violations or plagiarism were found.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
The article comprehensively covers Mushu’s character, reception, and cultural impact.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
The content remains focused on Mushu without unnecessary tangents.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
The article fairly represents critical and audience responses, including controversies about cultural representation.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
The article appears stable with no signs of ongoing edit wars or disputes.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The images used are properly tagged and comply with fair use policies.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
The images are relevant and include informative captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The article is close to meeting the Good Article criteria. However, the issue of missing citations in the lead section must be addressed for the article to comply with verifiability standards. Issue reconsidered, all lead section claims are neutrally sourced later in the article.
TheGhostGum Thank you for the quick turnaround of your review! I've addressed your concerns above and I'm awaiting your verdict.--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


### Spot-check
Adding Spotchecked sources in.
Checked 10 ref at random, all backed the claim being made (not ordered by #).

Ref-32: felt too much like what they had done with Hercules and some of the other films.
Ref-116: Disney films usually provide a supporting character who becomes a fan favourite – Mushu in Mulan
Ref-56: the trailer didn't have Mulan's dragon sidekick Mushu,...Unlike the fans though, Tony actually liked that the trailer didn't feature either...
Ref-1: When the Huns breach the Great Wall, the emperor (Pat Morita) decrees that one man from every household will fight the invaders.
Ref-8: However, she gets hurt and her gender is discovered. As a result, General Shang, sends her away
Ref-23: The animator then goes on to explain how Mushu was originally intended to be two characters, a Gryphon and a Phoenix.
Ref-40: Mushu is the only one who can understand Cri-Kee’s chirps, so he also serves as Cri-Kee’s translator.
Ref-54: Well, I mean, would they have thought of Eddie Murphy doing the voice for Donkey without him having already done Mushu?
Ref-57: Listening to Eddie Murphy’s voice was a huge influence.  Even before we got his dialogue, I did my research, watching “Trading Places” and his old Saturday Night Live sketches to get his facial expressions, what he does with his hands.
Ref-161: Without Mushu, the movie relies on lame jokes made by Mulan's male soldier companions about outdated gender roles in marriage to try to bring levity to an international audience.

@TheGhostGum: you need to do a spot-check- basically list out which 5-10% of the referneces you checked to see that the info is verified. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 Hey, I was going to write out a list of the sources with the quotes but read some one saying you have to "list how many you checked" as "oh I only have to state how many sources I checked".
Is there an example of the best case for displaying spot checks in a review? so I can edit the existing archived review with that information TheGhostGum (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Around 5-10%+ of references, chosen at random, is usually fine, depending on the number of references. You can choose any form you like as long as it shows you did a spot-check: quotes or what type of info was verified or anything else. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91 @TheGhostGum I like to spot check low quality sources and or bold claims in particular too. Bonus if a source is paywalled or offline and not easily verifiable by others. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Shushugah@DoctorWhoFan91. So taking on both your advice it. If I was to have an expandable section with listing each of the references with the In article and source quote, along with maybe a section with "Bold and low quality sources" section that would be good? And in a case like this where the lead section isn't sources should I also list/quote where the lead sections claims are backed up in the section? TheGhostGum (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
It's your choice how you want to format it, and with what sections. The lead section would already be repeated in the body of the article, so you don't have to do it that way, but you can if you want. To explain, here is a review of mine, where I mention the words that verify it. This one by Shushugah suggests changes changes. Others do it differently- this one only quote when there is an issue. You can check as you like, as long as a random and large enough selection of references are verified. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@TheGhostGum spot checks can be very simple - it can be as little as saying "checked references 3, 9, 11, 12, all verified" or it can be more elaborate. It'll make it smoother to give you credit for the review at the backlog drive, too. Thanks! Feel free to ask any questions you have. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)