Talk:The Walt Disney Company/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 13:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decent article which could meet GA standards with some work. Quick failing this article for two reasons however:

The nominator has retired, therefore the time spent doing a detailed review could well be wasted.
There is a lot of work to do (some examples listed, but very much not an exhaustive list). If someone wants to make a start with these, then renominate, I would be happy to undertake a forensic review and work collaboratively on getting the article to GA standard.

By far the issue requiring most work is the need of a thorough copyedit to fix clumsy language, grammatical mistakes and redundancy. Real basic stuff like:
- Florida legislatures > Florida's legislature
One consistent grammar issue is that Disney is referred to as "they"/"their" - companies are singular.
Please consider the amount of times Walt Disney as referred to as simply "Walt". I get that we can't refer to him by his surname alone as it would be impossible for the reader to understand if we're talking about the man or the company. But first name alone seems to informal.
Strange choice of language/tense, e.g. "While they were there, they would fix equipment in large soundstages and convert storage sheds into ammunition depots" - would read better as simply "While they were there, they fixed equipment in large soundstages and converted storage sheds into ammunition depots"
Referencing - I'm amazed that a topic as important as the Disney Renaissance doesn't have a reference.
Referencing - "Some Disney princess films have been considered to be sexist towards women. Snow White is said to be too worried about her appearance, while Cinderella is deemed to have no talents." - an example of weasel words with no substantiation.
Images - the amount of images around the '2005–2020: Bob Iger's leadership, expansion, and Disney+' section makes this very busy/messy.
Images - lots of double images, and sometimes with no direct relationship between the two.
Review of WP:SEAOFBLUE - lots of them are necessary, but this could still be improved. e.g Disney would acquire most of Fox's assets > Disney would acquire most of Fox's assets. Another example (of many): a racist term referring to segregation laws > a racist term referring to segregation laws
Is the amount of Financial data overkill? I am not saying it needs to go for GA status, just worth a discussion on level of detail.
"Disney traded ABC Sports commentator Al Michaels to NBCUniversal to get back the rights to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit and the old 26 Oswald shorts" - the reference isn't clear about the "trade".
The one sentence devoted to its acquisition of Pixar is wholly inadequate (and no reference!), and begs the question what other important things are missed or not covered in sufficient detail. For example the deal made Steve Jobs Disney's biggest shareholder.

Mark83 (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]