Talk:Escape from Tomorrow/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've been interested in this film ever since reading the /film and NYT articles about it, so I'm glad to see somebody's developed this into a quality article. Thanks for investing the time on this one. The article is well-sourced and well-written, and does a good job guiding the reader through a quite offbeat film and legal tangle. It's clearly ripe for promotion.

I made a few copyedits as I went for style and grammar; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with. A few small additional points that I'd like your thoughts on:

• " he takes his daughters to the rides " -- below, Jim is described as a "father of two", so how does he have a son and multiple daughters?
  •  Done This is probably the result of relying on reviews that aren't primarily devoted to summarizing the plot. It seems clearer now that he has only the one daughter ... I think I was confusing the daughter with the French girls. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• "White's son, working with a wheelchair-bound man, makes attempts on his life"-- who is the "his" here-- the wheelchair-bound man? White?
  •  Done I think this was an artifact of recasting the sentence at some point when the pronoun alone wouldn't do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• "and interrogated about this" -- is the "this" here the cat flu?
  •  Done Made this clearer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• "At the end of the film he dies at the Contemporary Resort Hotel" -- is this the same hotel his family is staying at?
  • I'm not sure. The reviews did not make clear where they were staying. I sort of got the impression from them and that clip of the French girls that's been shown online that they were at the Polynesian Resort (I've stayed there, albeit many years ago, and that looks like the pool there). But I don't feel comfortable saying that in the article yet. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done Not a problem. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• This isn't an action point, but I just had to say that "The scene where a Disney Princess attempts to crush a child seems to eliminate that possibility" may be the best sentence I've read in 100+ reviews.

Sorry I've been sort of AWOL on this for a few days ... it was a busy holiday weekend.

Thanks ... other people made this same comment about the original post as well. I knew I had to work it in there somehow. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• That said, four paragraphs may be excessive length for Tim Wu's blog post (even if it's the New Yorker blog). Is there any way this bit can be shortened? It feels a bit unbalanced next to the one sentence of Sciretta, who's much more down on the film's legal situation. Admittedly, Wu's by far the more important authority here, but it's still quite a lot of his opinion.

Probably from my work at WP:SCOTUS, I tend to think that we should try to explain legal issues at a little bit greater length than the demands of mere brevity and succinctness would otherwise dictate. They are not only vulnerable to misunderstanding from the public—the consequences of such misunderstandings can be unfortunate.

I quoted Sciretta on the one issue he raised that Wu didn't. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense; the legal issues are the biggest aspect of the film's coverage so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "At Slate, Aisha Harris admitted this was a possibility," -- "admitted" makes her sound a bit grudging/guilty about it. What about simply "agreed"? Or better yet, "also raised this issue", since she's not responding directly to /film?

I will change this to "allowed that", since I think that's the best characterization of what she said. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "they have the perfect in-house strategy to achieve that. Just hand the film over to the John Carter marketing team. The film will open in 3,000 theatres and no one will see it." -- this is a good dig at Disney, but the joke seems off-topic and a bit unencyclopedic; it doesn't really add anything to the reader's understanding of the main subject. What would you think about cutting it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. It's a great quote; until I added Moore's final word it was a great way to let people out of the article. But deep down I wondered if someone else would necessarily agree; and if you don't, you're probably not the only one. So I am cutting it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good; spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Probably best to change "admitted" in the Aisha Harris quotation for another word (arguably a WP:WTW point).
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A few points may verge on unnecessary detail--the John Carter joke, the lengthy summary of Wu's argument.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass