# Talk:Meg (Hercules)

{{editsemiprotected}} User:Ardavu
 Not done: Welcome and thanks for adding this article. The {{editsemiprotected}} template is used by non-autoconfirmed users to allow them to request changes in semiprotected pages. I think you are trying to request semiprotection for the page. For that, you need to go to Wikipedia:Request for page protection and follow the directions. An admin will evaluate the situation and decide whether to protect he page. I am not an admin, but I'm pretty sure they will decline since there is no disruption or vandalism here. I reviewed the IP's (and your) changes and the IP appears to be improving the article. In most cases, the IP is correcting the copy to conform with the Manual of Style. If you disagree with some of the changes, you need to discuss that here on the talk page. Everyone here appreciates your contribution, but you do not own that contribution; other editors are free to contribute by improving the article you started. Again, welcome and thanks. Celestra (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please redirect this article to Megara (Disney)? It's just silly to have that redirect to the film when the article for the film contains a link to the character. It essentially just takes the user to a link to this page, and is unnecessary. I'm still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia, and don't know how to do that. User:Ardavu

This review is transcluded from Talk:Megara (Disney character)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: OnePt618 (talk · contribs) 06:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I plan on reviewing this article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ   06:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Looking forward to your feedback OnePt618 --Changedforbetter (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


### Criteria 1: Well-written
The article is unquestionably well-written. The prose flows naturally, and it makes for interesting reading about why the character is important in the Disney pantheon. All claims are well-cited. It is properly sectioned. There is a lack of puffery, restricting praise to only quotes and comments from third-party sources. There are no contentious labels, unsupported attributions, expressions of doubt, or editorializing.

Oh wow, thank you for your kind words! This means a lot.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The one area where this article falls down is the "Synonyms for said" sub-criteria. (See WP:SAID.)  Several dangerous words are used here, for example:

"Disney refused to allow Egan to audition, claiming she was simply 'not right' for the character".  The word 'claim' violates WP:CLAIM.
Fixed. Replaced with "asserting".--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Changedforbetter, you changed the sentence to "Disney refused to allow Egan to audition, asserting she was simply 'not right' for the character". Unfortunately the word 'asserted' is in the same problematic bucket. Per WP:CLAIM it says "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence."  Can we change 'asserting' to 'stating'? (Compare to your replacement of 'found' to 'described', which is an absolutely perfect edit.) -- φ OnePt618Talk φ   01:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, okay I got it. Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
"Egan explained to the filmmakers that 'when I play Belle, I'm acting'".  Dangerous word: 'explained'.  There are two other uses of the word 'explained' in the article that need addressing.
Fixed both instances.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Changedforbetter, in "Meg's personality into Belle, expounding"... I personally like using the word 'expounding' in my speech as well :) , but for wikipedia it seems a bit stuffy per WP:EMPHATIC. Maybe simply leave it at "saying"? ---- φ OnePt618Talk φ   01:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
"Egan found the process unusual".  Dangerous word: 'found'. There is another instance of the word found in the article.
Fixed both occurrences.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The word 'observed' is particularly problematic; it is used 9 times.
Fixed all occurrences, except one.--Changedforbetter (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Changedforbetter, your replacement of "observed" to "noted", "discerned", and "believes" are arguably more problematic, since per WP:CLAIM it says "To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.".  Since you are referring to quotes issued by various media sources, I would suggest simply replacing these with the neutral "wrote".  Same story goes for the word 'believed' for Kate Knibbs, since we are making claims to know what's in her mind with this word! -- φ OnePt618Talk φ   01:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Understood. Fixed! I've also fixed other instances of believes/believed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
More minor nitpicks:

"instead of casting separate actors as the character's speaking and singing voices, as they had been doing recently."  Change the word "recently" per MOS:REALTIME.
Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
"Apart from occasional updates from Kosarin" Change the word 'occasional' per WP:WHATPLACE.
Changed to "periodic".--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


### Criteria 2: Verifiable
The References section is a treasure trove. All references seem to be valid and from reliable sources.

Wow thank you so much! I always try my best to obtain reliable sources.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violator tool reports that the only copied words come from quotes, so no problem there.


### Criteria 3: Broad in its coverage
The article explores not only the character's origins, but the impact on society and on feminism as well.

Always my favourite part haha.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


### Criteria 4: Neutral
The article is overall neutral. Change the troublesome words as spelled out in Criteria 1 and you're all set.

Think I've addressed all of these.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


### Criteria 5: Stable
No indication of a recent edit war or content dispute in the article history.


### Criteria 6: Illustrated
The three images are fine, and they are properly license-tagged. I couldn't find any additional free images in a web search that added significantly to the article, aside from a few cosplay photos which wouldn't add anything material.
The existing images have great captions.

Thank you!--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


### Conclusion
This article is almost there.  The troublesome words in Criteria 1 need addressing -- these should be pretty quick and relatively easy fixes.  I believe the article qualifies for Good Article status once these issues are resolved.  For now, I am placing the nomination on Hold.

OnePt618Thank you for your thorough and extremely kind review. I've addressed and fixed all issues, and await for final verdict.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
OnePt618 Okay I've taken a second pass and addressed your comments again! What do you think?--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Changedforbetter: Thank you for all the timely fixes! I've promoted the article to Good Article criteria. Congratulations!! -- φ OnePt618Talk φ   04:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)