Talk:The Walt Disney Company/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'll review this, and comments should be added below soon (perhaps in chunks, it's fairly large). My first impression is that the article doesn't seem long enough to give good coverage to its long and extensive history, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised! Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Lead looks a little short for length of article
• infobox looks good
• Well-written with good grammar.
• Summative style in some places (i.e. Silent film era) can make the information seem even shorter than it is - on the one hand, this makes reading faster, on the other, it leaves readers feeling like there's more to know.
  • A better flow between sentences should fix this; if wanting to work on the start of some sentences in the mentioned areas, generally ask what would you expect to come after the sentence you just read and start then next one like that
• "drawing up a few simple drawings" - perhaps one of the 'drawing's could be a form of 'sketch'?
• "Disney produced" should probably be hyphenated
• When saying "Disney used Pat Powers' Cinephone...", should probably establish that it was for the synchronous sound - seems obvious, but it may not be and this would integrate the sentence into its context better.
• The sentence about PC and GG being "re-released" seems odd since the article says they weren't released before this point. Clarify?
• Should "highest-grossing film of that time" not be 'at that time'? And should "distribution of Disney's product in July 1937" not be 'Disney's products' or 'production'?
• The sentence on "The theme park design and architectural group", though placed chronologically, is at the end of a long paragraph on films, rather than the one on theme parks. It makes it seems like somehow the films are related to architecture before getting halfway through the sentence when it's clear that isn't true, and so it just hangs there uncomfortably. Should be moved to the theme park paragraph.
• The part about selling the rail-based rights is not as well written as the rest of the article. It's only a few sentences, but even just removing "Finally" and "Also" would be an improvement (but some commas are needed, too)
• Does the See also: Timeline need to be repeated specially for 1984-2005?
• Sid Bass not mentioned before, so this section/sentence shouldn't start like it's just been established.
• Where talking about KHJ and then Silver Screen, starting the sentence with "Organized in..." makes it seem like you're talking about the previous company, for which no detail was/is given. I'd also recommend a new paragraph for these because of the lack of relation to the other info. - Layout and considerations for context need to be looked at. Yes, it's a condensed history, but it has to be good as a standalone brief history.
• The second half of the 1998-99 paragraph is poorly written
• Shouldn't "and making the studio re-independent" be either "and made..." or simple "making..." - also, is re-independent a word?
• Is there an available wikilink for the Disney+ streaming service?
• Needs work

Coverage

• N.b. I've asked a friend with a film studies degree who's taught history of Disney to read the article and tell me if there's anything salient missing. I'll then make a judgment call based on GA criteria and integration of other articles.
• Lead seems like a good overview, a little brief. Could be expanded but probably good for these purposes.
• Timeline of The Walt Disney Company exists, so the histories do not need to be extensive, but still sufficient...
  • Silent film era could have a bit more content on the Universal contract and Oswald loss, since it's so important in the company history
  • Apparently Plane Crazy was shown before Steamboat Willie, so question accuracy of this statement. And that the production of Gallopin Gaucho and SW was all overlapping, so hard to say SW was the last to be made.
  • The mention of comic strips comes out of nowhere. Needs some context.
  • Otherwise, coverage of Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphonies looks good
  • Maybe add some info about why Disney would not want UA to hold any rights (that he made a vow to protect his intellectual property after the Oswald debacle)
  • Post-war and television doesn't leave anything out; it may arbitrarily list too many example films - I ask, what's the reasoning behind each being listed? The section looks like it's half blue-links that are all e.g. X.
  • Could mention how/why Disney tried to keep his parcels-of-Florida land purchases secret
  • 1955-65 coverage otherwise good (and has reasons for including films it mentions)
  • 1966-71 good, but is mentioning Blackbeard's Ghost necessary?
  • Wasn't Tron at least somewhat well received and Oscar nominated? The article says it had "minimal success"...
  • Needs some clarification on what Retlaw is when mentioned about selling rail-based rights, otherwise it's just a random company who didn't get anything (yes, it's Walter backwards, but if readers don't know things, they don't know things, and we assume they don't)
  • "Theatrical malaise and new leadership" seems like an inaccurate heading for this period, which even just reading the contents tells me (what about "Theatrical diversity, Epcot, and failed takeovers"?)
  • Could explain what W. D. Imagineering is ( must assume people don't know)
  • There is an image of Celebration, but no other mention of it...
  • Coverage seems generally good up to present, though could mention some more of the controversies
• Some questions

Illustration

• Good use and spread of images, though I'm surprised there's no Magic Kingdom castle, an icon of the company (or Mickey Mouse, e.g.).
• good choice of columns for management, good use of tables.
• Pass

Neutrality

• Well written and handles
• Pass

Verifiability

• Ref errors, including missing ref
• Mostly good looking RS, wide range
• But what are "Filmbiz.asia" and "News.muckety.com" - this is a level 4 vital article and a widely covered topic, are there no recognizable sources for their claims?
• Some parts appear to be unreferenced? I.e. WW2 films, NBC and ABC TV shows, cn tag dated to 2012 attached to "Walt Disney Productions invested little into television ventures in the 1960s", opening of WDW and Roy's death and the company takeover, 1980s TV revival, Fox Family, etc.
  • I'm concerned that there will be even more parts unreffed that look like they're included in an end-of-paragraph citation but aren't, given how frequent those are and the many obviously unreffed parts.
• Fail - dubious sources, missing source, uncited info

Stability

• Quite a big edit a few days ago - productive, but only a few days ago.
• Page is protected so hopefully only good edits will be made
• Pass

Copyright

• Check seems good
• All images free except Disney at theme park opening, which is under fair use and important to the topic
• Pass

Overall

• I'd like responses to the questions raised in the style/coverage/illustration sections, but note that this is a very important article, and I'm very concerned about the referencing. This cannot pass until that is fixed, and it may take some (a long) time to find out what is and isn't referenced based on its length and the deceptive tend to stick the fundinguniverse.com company profile at the end of long paragraphs. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)