Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Disney/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2016 [1].

Walt Disney edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney was one of the biggest figures of the Twentieth Century. From a small-time animator in the 1920s, he built an empire on the back of a mouse His work has, probably, been seen by most people on the planet, and he influenced cinema, the illustrated arts, television and recreation time like no other individual ever has. This is a level 3 article and it is the 50th anniversary of Disney's death this December, and it's probably appropriate he has an article that reflects this. After a very well-attended and constructive PR, any further constructive comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Had my say at PR. The article has looked even better since. Thank you for taking the initiative to bring out a fine article on one of our biggest childhood idols, SchroCat.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with one comment — I had a small say at PR and am impressed about the quality of writing on this very important figure. It's definitely much better than the previous version. There are a few issues I found regarding the references.

  • Refs 22, 66, 78, 125 display the message "When WebCite tried to archive the page, it received a Page Not Found error from the website concerned." — Can this be rectified? Z105space (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Z105space: Rectified.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Z105space and Ssven2 - many thanks to you both for your comments and fixes both at PR and here - they much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination isn't listed on the WP:FAC page, so you need to complete the nom process. I'll be back anon with additional comments. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... You'd have thought I would have learnt by now! Thanks Brian. – SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Just checked UPenn film and artwork renewals for the years 1954 and 1955 There was nothing for Disney, Iwerks, Winkler Productions or Universal, so it's clear, however you want to license it. We hope (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, new version uploaded and cats added. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility edit

The article meets our accessibility standards quite well.

  • The headings are properly structured, so that a screen reader can navigate around the article without problems.
  • There are no issues of misuse of colour or text-size, so that people with diminished vision will have little problem in reading the text.
  • Although none of the images have alt text, in most cases the caption text will be sufficient for a screen reader to understand the content and purpose of the image, for example "Disney in 1938" is about all that's needed for File:Walt Disney NYWTS.jpg. Captions such as "The first appearance of Mickey Mouse, in Steamboat Willie (1928)" will be adequate for that purpose - an alt text something like "A cartoon mouse is operating a ship's steering wheel" could benefit a screen reader, but its absence won't cause a serious problem. Similarly File:Walt Disney Grave.JPG could be improved with alt text that states what a sighted reader would see written - perhaps something like "A gravestone inscribed 'Walter Elias Disney', 'Lillian Bounds Disney', 'Robert B. Brown', Sharon Disney Brown Lund ashes scattered in paradise' ", but it's not crucial. However, in the case of File:Disney1968.jpg, a screen reader might be confused by hearing "1968 U.S. postage stamp" at the start of the Personality and reputation section. It really needs some alt text along the lines of "A portrait of Disney with cartoon representations of different nationalities on a 6 cent US stamp" to supplement the caption in this case. It's worth checking each of the images to see whether an alt text is needed or would make an improvement.

Subjectively, I found the article an engaging read and very informative, dispelling some of the myths that have developed around Disney. It's clearly well-researched and very well written. The references are clear and the use of list-defined references along with shortened footnotes makes the wiki-text much clearer for an editor. The reference named "Variety biopic" is defined, but is not presently being used in the article - it just needs to be commented out or removed. [Update: the text In 1993, [[HBO]] began development of a Walt Disney biographical film, but the project never materialized and was soon abandoned.<ref name="Variety biopic" /> was cut in this recent edit./]

In my opinion it meets the standards we set for our Featured Articles. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Than you Rexxs. The alt text is something I constantly overlook, so I appreciate the nudge. I'll go through and add where appropriate. The "Variety biopic" reference has now been removed. Thanks again: your comments are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Cassianto edit

Support - with a few, minor observations:

Theme parks and other interests
1950–66
  • "Although there were early teething problems with the park" - "teething" let's this sentence down here. It would work just as well, if not better, with it ripped out. If you want to convey the fact that the problems were small, then "minor", I think, would be better.
  • "In 1955 he was involved in "Man in Space", an episode of the Disneyland series, which was made in collaboration with NASA rocket designer Wernher von Braun. He also oversaw aspects of the full-length features Lady and the Tramp..." -- Disney or Braun?
  • "Disney spent considerable time in 1966 traveling to meet with corporations willing to sponsor aspects of EPCOT, increased his involvement in films undertaken by the studio, and was heavily involved in the story development of The Jungle Book, the live-action musical feature The Happiest Millionaire (both 1967) and the animated short Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day." -- Noun+ing going on here; travelling to meet...increased his involvement etc... . This way of formatting would work better with a full stop after "EPCOT", not with a comma. For example: "Disney spent considerable time in 1966 traveling to meet with corporations willing to sponsor aspects of EPCOT. He also increased his involvement in films undertaken by the studio, and was heavily involved in the story development of The Jungle Book, the live-action musical feature The Happiest Millionaire (both 1967) and the animated short Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day."
Honors
  • "He was nominated for three Golden Globe Awards, but won none..." -- You can't win nothing, right? "Failed to win" or similar would be better.
Personality and reputation
  • "Instead of direct approval, Disney gave high-performing staff financial bonuses, or recommended certain individuals to others, expecting his that this praise would be passed on." -- doesn't quite make sense towards the end of this.
  • "his studio contained a number of Jewish employees, including in influential positions." -- "his studio contained a number of Jewish employees, some of whom where in influential positions" would work better, I think.

I'm with RexxS on this one; this is a superb account of one of biggest men in cinema. You have certainly excelled yourself with this one! CassiantoTalk 12:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Cass - your suggestions incorporated throughout. Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- "Disney received 59 Academy Award nominations; from these he received 22 awards: both totals are records. He was nominated for three Golden Globe Awards. Although not winning any, he was presented with two Special Achievement Awards—for Bambi (1942) and The Living Desert (1953)—and the Cecil B. DeMille Award." -- I see that Forbidden User has tried, and my opinion, failed, to fix the above sentence. Did Disney win the two awards at the same event as the nominations? If he did, might I suggest that we leave "nominated" as it is and not mention the fact he didn't win? As I understand it, a nomination and a win are two different things; if he had of won them, we would just say so, right? We could then use a conjunction to join the nominations and the two awards. CassiantoTalk 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe say: "Disney received 59 Academy Award nominations; from these he received 22 awards: both totals are records. Although he was nominated for three Golden Globe Award, he was presented with two Special Achievement Awards—for Bambi (1942) and The Living Desert (1953)—and the Cecil B. DeMille Award." -- only if the nominations were at the same event. CassiantoTalk 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional comment. I agree that the change introduced a measure of confusion that was absent before, and I've altered accordingly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi edit

  • Formatting on postage stamp img in "personality" section is way off (email me if you wanna see a screen capture, but I'm sure you can guess). Normally I would put {{-}} on the page myself, but recently two different editors on two different pages have rather brusquely reverted that edit. Perhaps it has become socially unacceptable. I dunno.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops! Many thanks Lingzhi - I missed an uprighty thing | when moving the image across the page. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see the propaganda work expanded on at least a little, e.g, the really dark and scary Education for Death and also Donald pays his taxes in The New Spirit. Some scary screenshots would be effective IMHO e.g. as at the bottom of this. May be public domain.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me think about this a little. The article is supposed to be a summary of WED and his life, and I think this may be moving a little too far outside that scope. As I said, let me think about it a little – and to what others have to say about the suggestion too. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent link - I didn't realise we had anything like that. I may have a quick dust up of that article after this, if I have some spare time. - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes... the discussion on the lede is scattered across several editors' comments, but I will now try to stay here inside my box... and say that I think the lede seems to work better now after your edits. Some adjacent pairs of sentences that I found slightly jarring in the earlier version now seem to be better arranged. Thumbs up.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done

  • FN44 and others: museum shouldn't be italicized
  • References uses mdy but Sources uses dmy - should be consistent
  • FN148: Esquire should be italicized as a work title
  • FN161 through 164 present publishers as work titles. Same with FN169, check for others
  • The Van Nuys News (Va Nuys, CA) - typo? Also, why include location for this and similar but not the Manchester Guardian?
  • FN174/178 need copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria: all now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I brought this up in the talkpage but you haven't adequately explained why mentioning the creation of Donald Duck is "trivial" but mentioning films like Sleeping Beauty and Sword and the Stone aren't, considering Walt was barely involved in their production. LittleJerry (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to hear what others think. LittleJerry (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil edit

Leaning support Have read the article a few times, and am impressed, a niggle is that i dont prefer short opening paras, and that "He was a pioneer in the American animation industry, became famous around the world, and is regarded as a national cultural icon" seems a little like hagiography. Its true of course, but I would spread it out a bit, and merge the opening and second paras. Overall the article is outstanding, but now giving a third/fourth read through. Haven't looked at sources yet. Ceoil (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reworked this a little more, so this should be ironed out now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I disagree with the merge. The opening paragraph should be about him generally, and the second paragraph should begin the chronological summary. You could solve the "short opening paragraph" problem by moving some of the stuff from the last paragraph to the opening paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, following on SSilvers above, while we're talking about the lede, I thought the sentence about his death was in an odd place. maybe as the last sentence of the first para, or the last sentence of the entire lede? I also thought the organization of the lede might need reconsideration (there wasn't anything wrong with the individual sentences).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the introductory couple of lines, the lead follows the course of the article (main points of his life, his death, honours personality and a closing line). I think that a lead that sits to broadly the same structure of the article's progreession is the best way in most cases, and this is true here.
In terms of the merge I think that I am in broad agreement with the biography starting at para two, but that leaves a short paragraph to open. Personally I don't mind such a short opener, but I know others may find it jarring. It could be increased with information from the final paragraph, but I think that's just moving things round for the sake of it, and the final para, as it stands, covers some good ground and remains to be balanced in its approach. I am open to suggestions on what to add to the opening para, but I'd strongly advise against moving much up from the fourth para just on the grounds of making the opening one a bit longer. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes are a great improvement imo, I quite like how it stands now, maybe apart from the placement of his dying. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have given another run through, and happy now to support. A *huge* undertaking on a subject I had previously not cared for, but this article does a fine job in drawing out the man, for whom I now have sudden and unexpected respect; the cultural context, artistic development and his day to day strife and challenges are explained very well here, it was a pleasure to read. Ceoil (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Ceoil for your comments and thoughts here: all are much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp: edit

Hi SchroCat, I plan to do a full review, but expect I may not get very far today. Bear with me if I only add one or two comments for now.

  • (Lead) Three instances of "although" in two sentences: "Although there have been accusations that Disney was racist or anti-Semitic, they have been contradicted by many who knew him, although one biographer thought Disney was likely "racially insensitive",[2] like many of his generation. Although his reputation changed in the years after his death..." Perhaps break the first sentence in two (or use a semi-colon) and use something like "nevertheless" somewhere for the "racially insensitive" part. But you'd still be left with two sentences close to each other beginning with "Although". Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworked this a little more, getting rid of two of the three of them, so this should be ironed out now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro edit

I've read down to the end of Early Career and made a few minor tweaks. So far, it is a very engaging read, as usual. Just a few nitpicks, which may be safely ignored if you prefer. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Disney moved into the amusement park field": I have an odd vision of him moving into a tent in a large field with a ferris wheel in it! Is there a better way to phrase this?
  • I wonder should we mention Academy Awards earlier; it's a little jarring to have the first mention of this award as the 22nd time he won! But not too sure as the last section is mainly about his awards. Either way, I think this should be tweaked a little.
  • "Disney and his brother Roy woke up at 4:30 every morning to deliver the Times before school and delivered the evening Star after school": Is there a way to avoid deliver... delivered?
  • "a correspondence course ": Worth a link?
  • "He borrowed a book on animation and a camera and began experimenting at home": Nothing really wrong here, but is there a way to avoid two ands? But feel free to ignore.
  • Worth a note briefly comparing the cutout and cel animation techniques? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sarastro1, haven't seen you around for a while – nice to see you again. Your comments all dealt with in full (or mostly, at least), aside from the final one. I'll draw up a brief description that I'll probably add as a footnote, I think. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing Gavin here; lovely to see you back Sarastro. CassiantoTalk 16:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Read to end of the Biography section now. Just a few minor points. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Iwerks revised Disney's provisional sketches to make the character easier to animate, although he provided Mickey's voice until 1947": This is unclear. "Although" suggests that Disney voiced Mickey, but the sentence as written looks like it was Iwerks. Either way, the sentence needs clearing up, and if Disney did the voice, it should say so explicitly.
  • I see this sentence changed as I was typing these words to say Disney voiced him. I still wonder do we need to make that a separate point, not a throwaway? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped "although" to "and", which ties it together a little more. Does that look OK? - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to abandon the practice of animating straight through in favor of the more efficient technique of drawing key poses and letting lower-paid assistants sketch the in-between poses.": Not clear what "animating straight through" means here. Presumably doing the animation himself?
  • "The success of Snow White heralded one of the most productive eras for the studio; the Walt Disney Family Museum calls the following years "the 'Golden Age of Animation', [and] it was to be one of the most creative periods in the history of the Disney Studios"": My inclination here, to avoid repetition, is to cut the quotation back to "... calls the following years "the Golden Age of Animation"."
  • "after a series of accidents involving guests to his property": Not quite clear what this means. I'm intrigued how you can cause guests to a property!! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks again Sarastro1: your comments all incorporated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch: Down to the end, and very enjoyable. Just four last points. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know Tim asked for some dirt to be dished on his films, but do we now go too far the other way? As much as I hate these films, perhaps we should say SOME nice stuff. Some people liked them!
  • I've beefed up the opening sentance to that para, just to change the nuance to something more positive. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alice in Disneyland" was the name of the review, but not the name of the film as given in the "reputation" section. Also, refs 187 and 189 both refer to Lejeune's "Alice" review, but have different dates, namely 1938 (!) and 1951.
  • Doh! Wrong title in the reference: ref 187 refers to Snow White, not Alice. Now corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wonder, as we spend 3 paragraphs looking at some fairly unpleasant accusations against him, could we balance this by looking a little more at positive things that were said? Not a big deal either way for me, though.
  • I'll have another look at this shortly, as I think we may be overplaying the nastier criticisms. A lot of those paragraphs are the refutation of the rumours given by people who actually knew him, but I think I may have to revisit this again to make sure it's balanced. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now have in the lead "A shy, self-deprecating and insecure man in private...", but I wonder does this come across in the main body enough?

That's it from me. I'll probably just have one last read through before I support. I enjoyed this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers Sarastro1 - one point to try and readdress, but the rest sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm more than happy to support now. A great piece of work on a tricky subject. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Sarastro1 for your thoughts and comments here – all much appreciated. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Looking good overall, but I've got nitpicks.....

  • I'm not seeing anything on The Walt Disney Company itself aside from a mention in the infobox. There should be something on that given how the company he and Roy founded is one of the largest corporations ever.
  • I'll add this a little later, once I have all my sources to hand. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth mentioning in the lead that Walt voiced Mickey in addition to creating him, especially since he is described as a voice actor in the opening sentence
  • The lead should focus on more than just Oscars in terms of awards, and should definitely not downplay his Emmy and Golden Globes. I'm pretty sure those wins can take place of mentioning the Oscar noms he lost.
  • Added, although I'm leaving the nominations in, given the record number. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several of his films have been included in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress"..... let's include names
  • Reluctantly, yes. It means we now have two lists of films in the lead, which I hate to have to read through on an article - my eye slides over the lot without taking any of it in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was the fourth son of Elias Disney—born in the former Province of Canada to Irish parents—and Flora (née Call)"..... I of course understand why Roy is given more weight than the other siblings because of their business work together, but it would help to at least mention them by name within prose and not just a hidden note
  • Better, but it still needs to mention the other brothers; it doesn't help to say "he was the X of Y children" and not mention all other names. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops: I did add it, but only part way through a different footnote. Now brought up into the main text. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disney and his brother Roy formed the Disney Brothers Studio—which later became Walt Disney Animation Studios—to produce the films"..... I believe what you meant to say was that the main company was founded in 1923 rather than the animation studios, though they are often used synonymously and this is an understandable confusion
  • This source suggests Walt Disney Animation Studios. I suspect it's not a clear cut A -> B match, but probably A -> B/C/D, etc match, as the corporate set up changed a little in the 50s ad 60s, but I'll go through the sources again a little later and see what they say. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see from there are a few companies that claim the link (understandably), so I've put the main company name in there to cover all the different companies. – SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the light of the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's son"..... let's mention Charles Jr. by name
  • Is that necessary? It's too tangential to this to worry about, and the link is there to the kidnapping should anyone be really interested. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you may as well just say "the Lindbergh kidnapping" Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the 1927 sensation, The Jazz Singer" shouldn't have a comma after "sensation"
  • It's actually correct with it there (in parentheses, as it were), but I've taken it out. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should either be a comma after "1933" in "In 1933 Disney produced The Three Little Pigs", after "1934" in "By 1934 Disney had become dissatisfied", after "1950" in "In early 1950 Disney produced Cinderella", after "1954" in "In mid 1954 Disney sent his Imagineers", or those should have the years moved towards the end of the bits
  • Mea culpla: I'd forgotten the American fetish for excessive commas! - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Snow White premiered in December 1937 to high praise from critics and audiences"..... I'm pretty sure we can use "acclaim" here
  • Its one of my pet hate words, overblown and unencyclopaedic. "High praise" is fine as is. – SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response to the financial crisis, in 1940 Disney and his brother started the company's first public stock offering"..... I assume you mean Roy, and this would also read better if the year came at the end of this bit
  • I wouldn't trust Rancid Tomatoes as far as I could throw it, let alone for an old work (the modern reviews twist their awful scoring system out of line); the Numbers also includes re-releases. The figures were insufficient at the time. – SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the majority of reviews it counts for really old works are probably more recent than its release. What I'm getting at is that if it wasn't as successful as Disney hoped, then say how much it had aimed for (i.e. goal was to earn X amount of money, recieving less than that) Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the sources say what they were aming for, but (from memory) there is reference as to why it wasn't successful. I'll dig it out a little later. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd slightly misremebered: Gabler states that they lost $200,000 at the box office. – SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hit" in "The show's theme song, "The Ballad of Davy Crockett", became a hit" is too informal
  • Should "It's a Small World" be in quotation marks to keep people from worrying about how informal contractions are outside of quotes and titles? This could particularly be a problem without the link. Makes me wonder the same thing about ride names in general.
  • Not according to the MoS or the It's a Small World article. I have sympathy with your thoughts on this and I'm tempted to add the quotes, but I think these would be removed simply because of the reasons I've just given. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm normally inclined to just focus on accolade wins within a biography and place pending/lost noms on accolade pages to avoid overfocus on awards in bios, but am on the fence with total record number nominations.
  • My main concern aside from Disney Company vs Animation Studios is probably the "Personality and reputation" section; I fail to see the benefit of talking much about one's personality within an article. It at least shouldn't be lumped into one section and would be better interspersed throughout the article and/or kept to at most a few sentences rather than the full paragraph it currently has.
  • I'm fine with a section that examines it separately (it's not uncommon in FAs and external biographies to discuss the personality in one block) otherwise the impact of the knowledge is lost when interspersed throughout the work. – SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very few articles I've personally seen with sections/subsections dedicated to it, and I worry that it would likely become bloated if given its own block. If you do keep this, just please be sure it doesn't get out of hand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a fair aim to have. The section as it stands is a combination of a couple of points and is comprehensive enough already that it doesn't need anything extra added, which I think would be bloating. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is substantially better than when I reviewed and failed this at GAN in 2014. You have my applause for improving it so much. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Snuggums. I've adopted most of your points, and demurred on a couple with my reasoning shown. There is one I have to do a little later: the information about the company, which is not a clear-cut one and I need to have a closer look about the sources this evening. Thanks agin. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. There was no way I could miss the opportunity to review such a big person, especially with my available reviewing time being limited these days! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article again, I can now support since all my concerns were addressed. I have no doubt Walt himself would be proud of this work. Major kudos. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Snuggums for your thoughts and comments, they are very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley edit

This seems to me an impeccable article as far as it goes, but after reading and rereading I cannot support its promotion as it stands, because I think it fails criteria 1b and 1d. The article seems to me to pass over the critical reception of Disney's films. He was often praised, but was also strongly and regularly panned. In a five-minute search of the archives I found "condemned for its vulgarity and lurches into bathos", "a children's classic vulgarized", "Tinkerbell...a peroxided American cutie", "flat and conventional", "he has slaughtered good Barrie and has only second-rate Disney to put in its place", and "it may drive lovers of Lewis Carroll to frenzy". There is also much praise between the censure but I don't find any of this reflected in the article. If a section is added dealing with the critical assessment of the films made by Disney or under his management, I think the article will be on course for FAC. Tim riley talk 13:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My concerns are now addressed, and I am very happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 06:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim: your thoughts on this re much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I must applaud the nominatior for working on it so well and fast. Overall the article was an enjoyable read, but I haven't checked the sources, infobox, links and hidden text, everything except the prose. Anyway, just a two minor ones in the lede from me which can be ignored.

  • Disney received 22 Academy Awards for his work, from 59 nomination how about shifting the nomination part to after 22 Academy Awards?
  • The second last sentence of the intro is a bit long. Consider breaking it into two. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.101.203 (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016
  • Many thanks IP: I've acted on both your suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very well put together. 13:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.101.203 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks IP - Much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I raised a few concerns in a partial peer review, duly addressed. More points have been raised and resolved during this FAC. Ready to go I think. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian, for your input and comments: much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from indopug edit

Not a fan of the lead, mainly because so much of it is devoted to listing out film names (paras 2 and 4). This makes for tedious reading + it isn't clear whether Walt had a major role in the making of these movies. (so they might be much central to the story of The Walt Disney Company rather than Walt himself) I think you should shift the focus away from his company, and towards him—his personality, his working style (how he treated his employees), his specific contributions to the films, his politics etc.

  • I agree on the films list and I'll work on reducing the number and focussing on those of particular import. The information on his personality, working style, etc isn't really lead-worthy to be honest, aside from his politics, which we touch on tangentially in the fourth para. See below - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of reorganisation is needed as well; his lifelong smoking (might be better to bring this out as a contradiction to his public image?) and death comes abruptly after his city of the future. Similarly the racism stuff after the Library of Congress. And the last sentence is clunky, featuring the word "continues" thrice.—indopug (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Indopug, many thanks for your comments. As I've said a little further up the page, the lead broadly follows the path of the article, so his death comes at the best place for it: while he was planning the EPCOT city. This reflects both the article itself and the chronology of WED's life. The whole fourth paragraph is given over to the examination of his life, rather than the passage of it, and it reflects the positive and negative aspects in balance (to do otherwise is to present a misleading hagiography). I'll re-work the final sentance - it was an experiment of form (re-iterating the three main strands of his business life that all do what he designed them to do), but one that obviously jars too much: I'll re-work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Opening para about who, when, what and his film awards
2. Chronological run through from birth to the end of his major film work
3. Chronological run through from start of theme parks and up to death
4. Legacy etc, incorporating brief mention of personality, main personal controversy and impact.
Given the number of people commenting on this FAC, and the old adage of not pleasing all the people all the time, I'm sure this will not be to everyone's taste, but fingers crossed! Any further suggestions would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Doctor edit

Lede
  • "As producer of the films he received 22 Academy Awards from 59 nominations and he has won more individual Oscars than anyone else." -wouldn't ", and won more individual Oscars than anyone else" suffice, do we need to repeat "he"?
  • "With Ub Iwerks, Disney developed the character Mickey Mouse, his first highly popular success; Disney also provided the voice for his creation in the early years. " -what period was this?
  • "As the studio grew, Disney became more adventurous, introducing synchronized sound, full-color three-strip Technicolor, feature-length cartoons and technical developments in cameras." -can you really "introduce technical developments in cameras"? perhaps
  • "His film work continues to be shown and adapted; his studio maintains high standards in its production of popular entertainment, and his amusement parks have grown in size and number to attract visitors in several countries." "his" gets a bit repetive here.
Early life
  • "became enamored of trains" -"of" or "with"
  • I think it's "of" in AmEng, but perhaps one of our American editors could confirm for us two Brits? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creation
  • "a film described by the media historian Adrian Danks", "the professional composer and arranger Carl Stalling, " etc -American English, does it use the definite article?
  • I think they are flexible, but I've removed these to be consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though later on you did say "Journalist Bosley Crowther" rather than "The journalist"♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Golden age
  • Is it worth mentioning Snow White and Fantasia on the AFI 100 list, the 100 greatest American films ever made?
  • I'll add this to the legacy section, alongside the National Film Register information. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Theme parks
  • " the Nine Old Men,"
  • what about them...?!
  • No mention of Lady and the Tramp being the highest grossing film of the year?
  • "In 1955 he was involved in "Man in Space", an episode of the Disneyland series, which was made in collaboration with NASA rocket designer Wernher von Braun.[t] Disney also oversaw aspects of the full-length features Lady and the Tramp (the first animated film in CinemaScope) in 1955, Sleeping Beauty (the first animated film in Technirama 70 mm film) in 1959, One Hundred and One Dalmatians (the first animated feature film to use Xerox cels) in 1961 and The Sword in the Stone in 1963.[129] In 1964, Disney produced Mary Poppins,"

-nearly ten years here covered very briefly. Is there nothing more to say about his work in the late 50s and early 60s, I'd expect a little more detail.

  • It covers the film developments of the time, rather than just all his work - we go back to cover other aspects of his work in the following paragraphs. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The heart of Disney World was to be the "Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow" (EPCOT),[138] which he described as:
   an experimental prototype community of tomorrow that will take its cue from the new ideas and new technologies that are now emerging from the creative centers of American industry. It will be a community of tomorrow that will never be completed, but will always be introducing and testing and demonstrating new materials and systems. And EPCOT will always be a showcase to the world for the ingenuity and imagination of American free enterprise.[139]

" -oddly set up quote as you repeat Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow" (EPCOT), can it be reworded somehow?

Support Looks to be an excellent account of an important figure, meets all of the requiremenrs for FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Doc - your thoughts and comments are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I recently made a couple dozen minor proofing changes to the article. From what I can see and from what others have said above, this interesting article meets the criteria. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Finetooth for the excellent copy edit – it's much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax – Hi, SchroCat. I have made several edits to Disney's article to put it even closer to a Featured Article promotion. I will be happy to !vote on its promotion when things get a little closer. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Montanabw edit

  • Support: Similarly to Ssven, I commented extensively at PR and have been lurking at this FAC for a bit. As far as I am concerned, I have little to raise that has not been raised and addressed here already. The television and theme park section was expanded. The only nitpick I have is that I do think that perhaps that subsection heading could be renamed "Theme parks, Television and other interests..." The impact of the TV programming cannot be underestimated. Also, the TV series, as noted at Walt Disney anthology television series went through many name changes, and is probably best-known since 1961 by the various "Wonderful World" titles (1961-1981 and 1991-present), particularly The Wonderful World of Disney. I would suggest a minor edit of that section to note that the series title, as it is by far better-known than the original name. But, these comments all fall under the heading of "I'd like to see it changed, but not mandated for FAC." Montanabw(talk) 19:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Montana, and thanks for your comments at PR and here. I think it's a fair enough change, given the weight of what is in the section, and I've made the change accordingly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Walt_Disney/archive2&oldid=1138475144"