This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Escape from Tomorrow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Escape from Tomorrow has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 29, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Escape from Tomorrow was
covertly filmed on location at
Disneyland and
Walt Disney World without Disney's permission or knowledge, using
iPhones to store scripts and schedules and record sound? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not involved in any of the noted WikiProjects, but how is such a comprehensive, well organized, well-sourced article only listed as a "Start" class? 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking of listing it for peer review after this Main Page turn (and after the news dies down; unless Disney decides to take legal action which of course would change things). Then I would nominate it for GA, which would change the assessment if it passes. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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:
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)
I quoted Sciretta on the one issue he raised that Wu didn't. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
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. | |
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). | |
![]() |
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 |
The plot summary for this movie is wrong. Unless there are multiple versions of this movie where the scenes are moved around or something, this very badly needs to be fixed. However, since this is currently a good rated article, I'm reluctant to make the changes. Kat Cheez 01:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
And don't let the rating on the article stop you from making a change if you feel it's an improvement. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says "The film cuts to another unnoticed scene involving the young Jim from the opening as he tortures a stray cat in the middle of a field somewhere outside New York City, revealing that he has transversed across the US. Then cuts to a different sequence with his childhood friend Tom, getting drunk in an abandoned junkyard outside an Oklahoma suburb, which is now vandalized. The two scenes end as the boys take a ride on their bikes into a bleak and vast landscape. One of them discuss about his first-time trip to Disney World with his father and another one who is now discussing about his morbid fantasy of murdering his abusive and alcoholic stepfather. The film ends with young Jim and Tom destroying everything in the same junkyard, from the eariler scene with a drunk Tom, in the rain." I just finished watching the movie on Netflix, and none of those scenes were in it. Was the film edited down? Metamatic ( talk) 02:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Case ( talk) thinks that he is a "consensus" and that man-child Tony Goldmark - a Disney fan boy with almost no YouTube subscribers and a huge conflict of interest - is as important as the LA Times and the New York Post. Bravo, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.224.162 ( talk) 11:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I claim consensus for including Goldmark's review based on myself and TMobias's observation at your talk page that Goldmark wrote his review for a notable site—therefore it can be in this article. Instead of discussing this, you have just tried to impose your will on this page, and insulted willy-nilly like a little child when you didn't get your way. I'm not bothering to leave the page unprotected for you to reply because I've lost all faith in you; thus it would serve no purpose. Don't let the door hit you anywhere on your way out. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Goldmark's "review" was first posted by ( User:174.125.147.22) a sock puppet of TMobias - who hasn't used his wiki account for any other other purpose than to defend his original post. So to claim a consensus based on that is just... retarded. TMobias is also a "friend" of Goldmark's - how do we know this? Because he notified him within hours of the post being edited and brought him out of the woodwork to post a response on HIS talk page - ( TMobias|talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.224.162 ( talk) 13:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I know that this subject had come up in the past, but I thought I might bring this up anyway. I've made some edits to this page before, and I never thought too much one way or the other about the inclusion of Goldmark's review (I've even made some edits to improve the description of it.) But I've been thinking about it for a while, and I don't think it should be included;
First off, in his three-part review, Goldmark isn't playing himself, he is playing a character (called the "jerk") In the finale of part three, the actor that Goldmark is speaking with even addresses him as "jerk" and reference is made to the story-arc that got him to review the film in the first place. During the review Goldmark is pretty much in-character the whole time. His characters' opinions may be based on his real ones, but they are still exaggerated.
Second, Wikipedia movie articles don't usually include YouTube comedy reviews from " Channel Awesome" (or any YouTube review in general). Goldmark has also produced a three-part comical review of The Haunted Mansion for instance, but it is not included in that film's Wikipedia article. So why is his Escape from Tomorrow review so important that it needs to be noted in the reception section of this article? On top of that, there have been several reviews of this film on YouTube (and millions of film reviews in general). YouTube reviews (especially satirical reviews from "Channel Awesome") are generally not necessary or important enough to be included in Wikipedia film articles.
Three, when Goldmark's review was first added to the page (I don't recall which editor it was), the article text initially included an external link to the website "Some Jerk With a Camera" which is rather inappropriate and unnecessary to include within the article text. Which makes me question if an editor just wanted to give a shout-out and advertise the website within the article.
In the interest of full disclosure, I actually agree with Goldmark's review. But whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. I believe that it is not appropriate to include notes from a "Channel Awesome" review in this article. If nothing else, I don't think that Goldmark's review needs to have so much space dedicated to it. Any thoughts? Wikicontributor12 ( talk) 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't actually add this review myself when I created the article ... someone else did later on. Maybe it was Goldmark or some sock of his; at this point I don't know and don't care. Since I wasn't familiar with the site but noted that it was notable enough for an article to have been started and kept on, I felt a review posted there could stay.
Since it is responding directly to another review we quoted here, I also thought it relevant as well.
I do agree, however, that maybe I quoted too much ... I've noticed that at GAN the trend has been towards more paraphrasing and less direct quoting, I don't know why, probably because one nominator too many was submitting articles that were largely quote salad, and they wanted encourage more writing and less copyright-troublesome collaging.
Also, the disclosure that Goldmark's review may be as much a performance as an actual review has led me to reconsider it some more. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@ SummerPhDv2.0: Thank you for providing your thoughts here. I've seen your edits on various articles that I have also given attention to, so I was familiar with the fact that you know a lot about policy, and I knew that your feedback would add some value. After seeing the back and forth in this article's edit history, I felt it would be a good idea to stimulate discussion again. Personally, I am ultimately fine with any outcome to this subject. In answer to the recent question though, I personally have never seen blurbs from Golmark's reviews used to promote a film. Wikicontributor12 ( talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTCt
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Escape from Tomorrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/sundance_review_escape_from_tomorrowWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Escape from Tomorrow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Escape from Tomorrow has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 29, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Escape from Tomorrow was
covertly filmed on location at
Disneyland and
Walt Disney World without Disney's permission or knowledge, using
iPhones to store scripts and schedules and record sound? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not involved in any of the noted WikiProjects, but how is such a comprehensive, well organized, well-sourced article only listed as a "Start" class? 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking of listing it for peer review after this Main Page turn (and after the news dies down; unless Disney decides to take legal action which of course would change things). Then I would nominate it for GA, which would change the assessment if it passes. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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:
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)
I quoted Sciretta on the one issue he raised that Wu didn't. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
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. | |
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). | |
![]() |
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 |
The plot summary for this movie is wrong. Unless there are multiple versions of this movie where the scenes are moved around or something, this very badly needs to be fixed. However, since this is currently a good rated article, I'm reluctant to make the changes. Kat Cheez 01:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
And don't let the rating on the article stop you from making a change if you feel it's an improvement. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says "The film cuts to another unnoticed scene involving the young Jim from the opening as he tortures a stray cat in the middle of a field somewhere outside New York City, revealing that he has transversed across the US. Then cuts to a different sequence with his childhood friend Tom, getting drunk in an abandoned junkyard outside an Oklahoma suburb, which is now vandalized. The two scenes end as the boys take a ride on their bikes into a bleak and vast landscape. One of them discuss about his first-time trip to Disney World with his father and another one who is now discussing about his morbid fantasy of murdering his abusive and alcoholic stepfather. The film ends with young Jim and Tom destroying everything in the same junkyard, from the eariler scene with a drunk Tom, in the rain." I just finished watching the movie on Netflix, and none of those scenes were in it. Was the film edited down? Metamatic ( talk) 02:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Case ( talk) thinks that he is a "consensus" and that man-child Tony Goldmark - a Disney fan boy with almost no YouTube subscribers and a huge conflict of interest - is as important as the LA Times and the New York Post. Bravo, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.224.162 ( talk) 11:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I claim consensus for including Goldmark's review based on myself and TMobias's observation at your talk page that Goldmark wrote his review for a notable site—therefore it can be in this article. Instead of discussing this, you have just tried to impose your will on this page, and insulted willy-nilly like a little child when you didn't get your way. I'm not bothering to leave the page unprotected for you to reply because I've lost all faith in you; thus it would serve no purpose. Don't let the door hit you anywhere on your way out. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Goldmark's "review" was first posted by ( User:174.125.147.22) a sock puppet of TMobias - who hasn't used his wiki account for any other other purpose than to defend his original post. So to claim a consensus based on that is just... retarded. TMobias is also a "friend" of Goldmark's - how do we know this? Because he notified him within hours of the post being edited and brought him out of the woodwork to post a response on HIS talk page - ( TMobias|talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.224.162 ( talk) 13:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I know that this subject had come up in the past, but I thought I might bring this up anyway. I've made some edits to this page before, and I never thought too much one way or the other about the inclusion of Goldmark's review (I've even made some edits to improve the description of it.) But I've been thinking about it for a while, and I don't think it should be included;
First off, in his three-part review, Goldmark isn't playing himself, he is playing a character (called the "jerk") In the finale of part three, the actor that Goldmark is speaking with even addresses him as "jerk" and reference is made to the story-arc that got him to review the film in the first place. During the review Goldmark is pretty much in-character the whole time. His characters' opinions may be based on his real ones, but they are still exaggerated.
Second, Wikipedia movie articles don't usually include YouTube comedy reviews from " Channel Awesome" (or any YouTube review in general). Goldmark has also produced a three-part comical review of The Haunted Mansion for instance, but it is not included in that film's Wikipedia article. So why is his Escape from Tomorrow review so important that it needs to be noted in the reception section of this article? On top of that, there have been several reviews of this film on YouTube (and millions of film reviews in general). YouTube reviews (especially satirical reviews from "Channel Awesome") are generally not necessary or important enough to be included in Wikipedia film articles.
Three, when Goldmark's review was first added to the page (I don't recall which editor it was), the article text initially included an external link to the website "Some Jerk With a Camera" which is rather inappropriate and unnecessary to include within the article text. Which makes me question if an editor just wanted to give a shout-out and advertise the website within the article.
In the interest of full disclosure, I actually agree with Goldmark's review. But whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. I believe that it is not appropriate to include notes from a "Channel Awesome" review in this article. If nothing else, I don't think that Goldmark's review needs to have so much space dedicated to it. Any thoughts? Wikicontributor12 ( talk) 00:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't actually add this review myself when I created the article ... someone else did later on. Maybe it was Goldmark or some sock of his; at this point I don't know and don't care. Since I wasn't familiar with the site but noted that it was notable enough for an article to have been started and kept on, I felt a review posted there could stay.
Since it is responding directly to another review we quoted here, I also thought it relevant as well.
I do agree, however, that maybe I quoted too much ... I've noticed that at GAN the trend has been towards more paraphrasing and less direct quoting, I don't know why, probably because one nominator too many was submitting articles that were largely quote salad, and they wanted encourage more writing and less copyright-troublesome collaging.
Also, the disclosure that Goldmark's review may be as much a performance as an actual review has led me to reconsider it some more. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@ SummerPhDv2.0: Thank you for providing your thoughts here. I've seen your edits on various articles that I have also given attention to, so I was familiar with the fact that you know a lot about policy, and I knew that your feedback would add some value. After seeing the back and forth in this article's edit history, I felt it would be a good idea to stimulate discussion again. Personally, I am ultimately fine with any outcome to this subject. In answer to the recent question though, I personally have never seen blurbs from Golmark's reviews used to promote a film. Wikicontributor12 ( talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTCt
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Escape from Tomorrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/sundance_review_escape_from_tomorrowWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)