Talk:Elastigirl/GA1: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

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

Nominator: Changedforbetter (talk · contribs) 18:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take this on for review, as a long-time fan of the Incredibles. I’ll be reviewing this as part of Women in Green’s 9th edit-a-thon and the October 2025 GAN backlog drive. This review is also part of my pledge for the review at Talk:Rosa Dubovsky/GA1. —Grnrchst (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems some citations or using publisher rather than periodical (website=, magazine=, etc.) parameters, which results in some inconsistent citation formatting. These should be standardised.

• It appears as though there are some sentences, constructed from multiple sources, which imply a connection, contrast or conclusion not explicitly stated in the cited sources. I worry that this at times approaches novel synthesis and suggest such sentences should be broken up, where necessary.
• Having noticed that one of the url parameters includes a reference to ChatGPT, I have to ask how generative AI has been used in the writing of this article. Was the text of the article written using ChatGPT? If so, how much?
• Some of the citations include quotes, but are then cited multiple times, which means the quotes provided often have nothing to do with the text they are cited for.
• There are some big cases of citation overkill in the Reception and Impact sections, where some sentences have four citations and others have as many as six.
• Much of the sources in this article come from pop culture websites or news publications. While this is to be expected, I wonder if we could be incorporating more scholarly sources into it? A Google Scholar search brings up some interesting potential sources.

Role

• I’m not sure we should be citing Pixar or Disney’s own websites and publications for this article. The sentences about Helen adapting to domesticity and Screenslaver are already verified by independent sources, so there’s no need to cite Pixar as well. And I’m convinced we can cite an independent source for her marrying Mr. Incredible and retiring.
  • The Incredibles 2 press kit appends ?utm_source=chatgpt.com to the url. So not only is this source not independent, but every click through to it tells the Internet Archive that we are linking people there from ChatGPT.
    • The ?utm_source=chatgpt.com tag appeared because the link was originally accessed through ChatGPT while I was verifying whether the document had an identifiable author or writer (it does not). ChatGPT wasn’t cited as a source — it was only used to locate and interpret the material on the Internet Archive. I’ve since corrected the link to remove the referral parameter.–Changedforbetter (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter half of the second paragraph is uncited. While technically not necessary, as this falls under the Manual of Style for plot summaries, it does lead to an inconsistency with the rest of the section, which provides copious citations. If a citation could be provided for the rest of this plot summary, that would be great.
• Why does “crash a luxury ship” link to piracy? This seems like a submarine link to me.

Creation

• Spotcheck: [24] Verified.
• “”a certain part of herself that is still alive …” Are we quoting Bird here? It’s unclear.
• “rediscovering and reawakening that side of her” What side of her?
• Publication date (9 November 2006) should be provided for the HowStuffWorks citation.
• Spotcheck: [26][27] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [28] Verified.
• “cited his own wife” Can we name her?

I’ve added “Elizabeth”. She doesn’t have her own Wikipedia article, and it’s unclear if she goes by her maiden or married name.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, if we could cite independent sources for this information rather than the Disney website, that would be preferable.
• Spotcheck: [29][30][31] I was only able to verify this quote in the Washington Times. It’s misleading to cite multiple sources for a quote that’s only in one of them, so please cut the others.

Fixed; kept all three sources and replaced the quote with a statement that summarizes the fact each citation is supporting, being that “he gave Helen elasticity to represent mothers who are constantly balancing countless responsibilities and being pulled in multiple directions”.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [32][33] Verified.
• Was this scene of her acknowledging she gained weight included in the film? It’s left unclear.

Clarified so that there is no ambiguity as to whether or not the scene was kept in the final film.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [37] Verified.
• There’s no need to cite this Spanish-language source when the information is already verified by English-language sources. (Also the citation is improperly formatted, using an English title translation in place of the original title)

Removed the citation from this section and fixed the formatting by replacing with original Spanish-language title.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the YouTube video you are linking to is a copyright violation. The citation is also unclear that this is coming from the making-of documentary in the DVD extras, and does not provide a time stamp. Are there any sources we can cite instead of this?

There are a few sources that are also included elsewhere in the paragraph for pertaining to the same deleted scene for additional citations, but I couldn’t find one that out-ranks hearing it directly from the director. To fix the citation, however, I’ve removed the YouTube link, and was able to track down that the scene is from a “Deleted Scenes” bonus feature from the 2005 The Incredibles DVD. I’ve updated the citation accordingly.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What page is being cited from this trivia book?

Pages aren’t numbered in this book, at least not on Google Books.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [41][42] Verified.
• Are there any English-language sources we could be citing for the “India Golf Niner-Niner” fact, instead of a French-language source? (No worries if not)

There are English sources discussing Helen/Holly Hunter’s use of military lingo in general that are included elsewhere in the article where relevant (notably “Voice” section), but none I could find that mention what India Golf Niner-Niner means specifically, aside from the current Digitec source.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [48] Verified.

Characterization and animation

• “his own wife and mother” Phrasing here is a bit uh, awkward. Suggest “both his wife and his mother”.

I understand. Fixed.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “According to Hunter,” This is the first time that Holly Hunter is being mentioned in the body of the article, so she should be properly introduced with full name and clarifying she’s the voice actor.

Fixed.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “in juxtaposition to her competitiveness” It’s unclear how this relates to the previous quote, i.e. how is this juxtaposed with her “not leading with a maternal instinct”? Also, her being competitive hasn’t been mentioned before, so this could do with some elaboration.

I’ve removed the “in juxtaposition to her competitiveness”.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, suggest trimming the citations to Disney’s own website.

Are you referring to the press kit?–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “insisted that Helen’s stretching use scientifically accurate physics, despite being “physically impossible”” How can it use “scientifically accurate physics” if it’s physically impossible?

Fixed; changed to “real physics”, which is what the director actually says, I believe suggesting that Helen’s movements use accurate, believable physics within the context of the film, even though humans stretching the way she does can not be replicated in real life, if that makes sense.–Changedforbetter (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Animator Lou Romano found designing her in a believable manner that showed her as both maternal and heroic to be challenging” Suggest: “Animator Lou Romano found it challenging to design her in a believable manner that showed her as both maternal and heroic”

Fixed.–Changedforbetter (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Helen’s second supersuit comprise tights” It comprises tights? What?

“comprise” is grammatically correct here, but I’ve changed to “include”.–Changedforbetter (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this Yumpu link might be another copyright violation; it’s also duplicating a source that we’re already citing, so it’s just redundant.

I’ve deleted the Yumpu source.–Changedforbetter (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Character articulation artist Mark Therrell […]” This is a rather long sentence with lengthy quotes. Could it be broken up and/or the quotes be summarised?

Fixed.

• Spotcheck: [59] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [63][64][65] Verified.
  • Side note: This is a really interesting detail for a possible DYK feature.

Noted, thank you 🙂

Voice

• Spotcheck: [69][70][71] Verified.
  • Side note: another interesting fact for a possible DYK.
• Spotcheck: [74] Verified.
• “for which she was better prepared by the sequel” She was better prepared for the animation process by the time of the sequel, or the production process for the sequel prepared her better?

The former. Revised to “unfamiliarity with the animation process, which she was better prepared for by the sequel”.

• “Compared to the first film, Hunter described working on the sequel as fun due to being more familiar and comfortable […]” Suggest: “Hunter described working on the sequel as more fun than the first film, as she was more familiar and comfortable […]”

Fixed.

• Spotcheck: [83] Verified.

Incredibles 2

• “Helen becomes the protagonist of Incredibles 2” Suggest “was” or “became” instead of “becomes”.

Done.

• Spotcheck: [87] Verified.
• “, while retaining some conflict” Think this could be trimmed, as this follows naturally from Bob expressing his unhappiness.

Removed.

• “Ultimately, they wanted […]” This is quite a long run-on sentence. It needs breaking up or trimming down, as it’s rather hard to follow.

Trimmed.

• Spotcheck: [78] Verified.
• “adult-adolescent hybrid” There must be a better way of phrasing this; this reads incredibly weird.

Revised.

• “It was her largest solo action scene to that point” Huh? What was the largest solo action scene? The previous sentence is about her costumes!

Fixed. That sentence belonged after “They rewrote Helen’s runaway train chase to be interrupted by a phone call from Dash searching for his sneakers to reemphasize Helen’s family” from the following paragraph

• Again, if there is an independent source that could be cited, instead of a press kit on Disney’s website, that would be preferable.

It’s the best source of its kind, atm.

• The transition from talking about the real life production designers working on her supersuits to the in-universe costume designer, then back again, reads a bit odd. I think we could be introducing Galbacki a bit more clearly to rectify this.

Understood. Fixed: “In-universe, the suit was created by Edna’s competitor, Alexander Galbacki. His design was intentionally off-putting, serving as a commentary on how supersuits in modern superhero films have become less vibrant and colorful”.

• “They rewrote Helen’s runaway train chase” Who is “they”?

Fixed; the IndieWire article identified them as “the team”.

• “The “Elasticycle” was an extension of her own powers” How?

Revised “The “Elasticycle” was designed as an extension of her powers, matching her flexibility and agility”.

Fixed.

• “brought new rigging opportunities animators” Huh?

Fixed; “new rigging opportunities for animators”

• “and technology granted” We could just start a new sentence here, rather than appending it to the previous sentence with “and”.

Done.

Removed.

• “which they applied to her second rig” “Second rig” meaning her rig in the second film?

Yes. I’ve changed to new rig.

Powers and abilities

• “loop-the-loops” In my mind, “loop-the-loops” are a path of motion, not a shape?

to clarify, in this context, “loop-the-loops” here refers to motions Elastigirl can make, not a geometric shape. It’s consistent with the other examples (arcs, curves, zigzags) describing how she stretches and bends.

• “100 feet”; “300 feet”; “80 feet” Again, conversions to metric should be provided.

Fixed.

• Spotcheck: [121] Verified.
• “the competitiveness depicted in Helen and Bob’s superpowers” Wait, their superpowers are competitive or they are competitive with each other in how they use their superpowers?

The latter. Fixed, for clarity.

• “in maintaining” -> “and in maintaining”

Fixed.

• Spotcheck: [68] Verified.
• “Fleenor of Syfy Wire” This is the first time we’re mentioning Fleenor, so we should be including their initials as well as their surname.

Fixed.

• Spotcheck: [128] Verified.

Reception

• It should be made clear that this first paragraph is talking about the first Incredibles movie. Right now, it just refers to it as “the film”, but doesn’t mention which film.
• I don’t think we need to be introducing every single film critic with the words “film critic”, that much is already clear from the context of the section. Their name and the publication they’re writing for should suffice.
• “has attracted commentary” Not only is this a funny use of passive voice and weasel wording, it also tells us nothing. What was this commentary? What did these six sources have to say about that scene?

Changed to “drew commentary”; reduced sources to four by removing the ones that aren’t really adding to the conversation/statement, and the remaining four all mention how the interview offers insight into the character’s perspective on gender roles.

• “female stereotypes” Female stereotypes? What stereotypes are we talking about specifically?

Revised; changed to “Helen’s willingness to trade her career for a house and children reinforces traditional gender stereotypes, despite uttering ‘one or two semi-feminist wisecracks'”

• Spotcheck: [142] Veriifed.
• “yearning longing” These two words mean the same thing. Pick one, discard the other.

Fixed; kept “yearning”.

• “the character’s revelation” Revelation of what?

Fixed. “She concluded that the character’s eventual rediscovery of her confidence and ambition comes ‘almost, but not quite, too late’.”

• Spotcheck: [143] Verified.
• “At the 31st People’s Choice Awards, Elastigirl was nominated for Favourite Animated Movie Star.” This feels a bit jarring and out of place following several sentences of criticism. Perhaps it could be moved somewhere else?

I think the current placement of the People’s Choice Award nomination is appropriate considering the character was specifically nominated for her appearance in The Incredibles, which the entire paragraph is dedicated to discussing.

• “a range of feminist analyses from critics and audiences” What were some of these feminist analyses? Again we’re citing six sources, but not going into further depth about them.
• “despite being set near the women’s liberation movement.” It’s set near the women’s liberation movement? What does this mean?

Removed this.

• “Some outlets” Which outlets? This is another case of weasel wording.
• “Inkoo Kang’s enjoyment of Helen was limited to two scenes,” Uh what? “Enjoyment of Helen” reads a bit odd.
• “Guilt” linking to separation anxiety disorder is a completely unacceptable easter-egg link.
• Spotcheck: [170] Verified.
• “Chicago Reader’s Andrea Thompson” The rest of the sentence says Changedforbetter of [publication], so this should be consistent with that structure.
• Spotcheck: [173] Verified.
• “her revolutionism” What? She’s a revolutionary now? This comes a bit out of nowhere.
• “underserving” Is this supposed to say “undeserving?”
• “IndieWire ranked her Pixar’s third-best performance,” Behind who?

Added “behind Peter O’Toole in Ratatouille (2006)”

Legacy and commendations

• “In a master’s dissertation published by the University of Jaén” Per guidelines on reliable sources, did this master’s dissertation have “significant scholarly influence”?
• “despite her supporting role” In the first film, no?
• Could you provide a specific chapter and page number for Dundes’ book? It seems to me that this is in a chapter by Suzan G. Brydon, so attributing all this to Dundes would be incorrect.
• This section reads a bit repetitive at times, as though I’m reading “[X] publication ranked her [Y]th out of [Z] category” over and over again. I wonder if there’s a way to make it a bit more concise.

Body image and sexualization

• Might be worth linking to the wiktionary entry for thicc.
• Spotcheck: [158] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [252] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [243] Verified.
• I’d strongly recommend moving the image of the cosplayer to the “In other media section”; both as cosplaying is mentioned there, but also because it’s potentially problematic for us to be including an image of a real person in a section about the sexualisation of the character they are portraying.
• “exaggerated leering” Are we saying this in wikivoice, or can we attribute this phrasing?

In other media

• “Disney installed a two-part billboard advertisement […] across a heavily trafficked area” Where was this?
• Spotcheck: [41][295] Verified.

Lead and infobox

• Per the Manual of Style on lead sections, there’s no need to provide citations in the lead for information verified in the body of the article. The article itself already verifies all of these names, so there’s no need for citations next to each of them here. The sources cited here for Truax’s name (a tweet and a guidebook) are also not great.
• prompted a range of reactions […] with commentary ranging from praise to criticism. This is rather broadly and vaguely worded. I think a being a bit more specific about what some of these reactions and criticisms were, and how it related to “feminism, gender roles, and working women”, would be helpful.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some areas where the prose could be clearer or more concise.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Some parts where it deviates from the Manual of Style.

2. 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:

   All references are mostly properly laid out and formatted, although there’s some minor issues with publication parameters, title translations, quotes and missing information.

   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):

   I worry that we’re making too much use of a self-published Disney press kit; replacing it with independent sources where possible would be preferable.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Some possible cases of novel synthesis in some of the longer sentences.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No plagiarism as far as I could see; Earwig mostly flags clearly-attributed quotes.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Everything I would expect to be covered in this article has been.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No major diversions from the subject of the article.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   One case where unattributed text results in a problematic wikivoice statement.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   The article has had some additions since the GA nomination, although most of these come from the nominator. There has also been a few recent reversions, but they were rather quick and mostly vandalism focused.

6. 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:

   Elastigirl image has valid free-use rationale; photographs of Hunter and the cosplayer have valid CC licenses.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are directly relevant to the subject.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is very well-written and broad, but it still falls short of GA criteria in a number of places. I think these could be fixed with a bit of work, so I’m more than happy to give it some time to be worked on. Feel free to ping me once my comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions. Nice work so far! —Grnrchst (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]