Talk:The True Cost/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 18:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a look at this, seems interesting. Will provide comments by tonight. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for it :) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Very nice lead, no real issues here. The only possible problem I can see arising are the two refs in the last sentence. As both quotes are reused in the Release section, there's no need for them here.

Context

• In the film, it is stated that in the 1960s American industry produced 95% of the clothes its people wore, while now only 3% percent are produced in the country, with the rest produced in developing countries. When does this occur? At the beginning of the film? If so, say "In the beginning of the film" instead of "In the film". You should also insert a comma after 1960s and rephrase the next part as "the American fashion industry ... while now only 3% are produced in the United States ..."

It's difficult to precise when. It's certainly around the first ten minutes but is it really necessary to say it was in the beginning or in the middle, etc? Anyway, rephrased. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Working in countries such as Bangladesh, India, Cambodia, and China, major brand manufacturers minimize costs and maximize profits by having companies in those countries competing against them. Change working to operating. Also, while I understood the last part of the sentence, I feel it should be rephrased to "by having companies in those countries compete against each other".

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• In addition to having to work in those conditions and live on their low salaries, Bangladeshian workers in Dhaka and Cambodian have a difficult time demanding their rights, being beaten by their employees and shot by police respectively. Remove "their" before low salaries, and remove the n in Cambodian. Also, rephrase the "being beaten part" to "as they may be beaten".

It was not clear. Rephrased and now I hope it is. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The film shows how the demand for cotton in India has led to the planting of genetically modified (GM) cotton,[13] and how the monopoly inherent in its use causes an increase in the price of cotton ... Link monopoly

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The film claims that sometimes the companies that produce the pesticides are the same ones that produce the needed medications ... According to the film, the garment industry is the second-most-polluting industry the world ... I don't like starting two sentences in the same paragraph in very similar styles, so you may want to reword the openings.

Done (?). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• In the documentary, Morgan shows people who defend the low-cost prices ... This is surprisingly the first mention of the word documentary in this section. However, in order to keep in unison with how the rest of this section is written, change documentary to film.

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• In contrast, the film shows a Texas organic cotton farmer, eco fashion activist Livia Firth and her sustainability-focused consulting firm ... What do these people say about the industry? You mentioned what Powell and Ball-Young thought, but not what these guys thought.

Well, their opinions are not exactly stated in the film, though they certainly disagree with Powell and Ball-Young, and I think it's because their actions somehow already show what they think about it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Production

• The documentary's budget of US$500,000 was obtained through individual investors and Kickstarter, collecting US$76,546. This is worded weird. Was the $500,000 collected through both investors and Kickstarter, or did investors give $500,000 and Kickstarter got $76,546? As it stands right now, the sentence states that the budget was collected through investors and Kickstarter, and the $76,546 is just throw in randomly.

Well spotted. Reworded. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Some of the interviews were made possible through the efforts of executive producer Livia Firth, who introduced Morgan to eco-fashion. Eco fashion is spelled with the hyphen in the first section, but in the next section it's spelled without it. Standardize it.

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Firth's involvement was so deep that after conducting several interviews, Morgan showed Firth the final cut and made her an executive producer for the film. I'm not a big fan of "was so deep", seems a bit casual. Personally, I'd go with "Firth became heavily involved with the project, and after completing several interviews, Morgan showed Firth the final cut and made her an executive producer for the film." However, you can leave it as is, since it basically says the same thing that I wrote.

I agree it sounded informal. Rewrote. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• With no knowledge of the fashion industry, Morgan first decided to make a film on the topic after being shocked by the news of the collapse of Rana Plaza. Remove the first that comes before decided, you can't technically decide to do something twice.

Of course. Reworded. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Also a non-connoisseur of fashion, executive producer and eco-activist Lucy Siegle, said that she does not like them as they are usually limited to exploring the aesthetic aspects of the industry. It is The True Cost differential in her opinion; it "goes there and then some‍—‌it unravels the grim, gritty, global supply chain of fast fashion". These sentences are a bit troubling for me. First, the also at the beginning is a bit ugly, since I've never been a big fan of starting a sentence with also. Another problem I have is how important is Lucy Siegle to this film? Yes, she's an executive producer, but what she is saying is more or less pretty much what Morgan said earlier in the paragraph. A third problem I have is the juxtaposition of ideas, with Morgan liking those types of films, followed by Siegle disliking those types of films. It looks and reads awkwardly. While I would say try to reword it, I would like to hear what you have to say about those sentences.

I see your point. I thought it would be a good contrast. I mean, Morgan's assertion that he likes fashion films is justified because it shows a reason to him doing the film. Siegle's commentary is a good way to comment on the difference between such fashion films and The True Cost. I tried to reword but while I think it's fine I don't think its removal will harm the article in any way. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it now, I don't think it's that big of a problem (the rewording really helped by the way, it flows much better). I think you can leave it.

• The director said the film was intended to be more a caution on the "incessant consumption of mediocre stuff" and on the need to "stop looking at shopping as a hobby and make it something we're mindful of". Why not just say Morgan?

I always avoid to repeat a word or a name. Is it not a problem? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned this was because, while reading through this article for the first time, I saw that it was Morgan this and Morgan that. Once I came across this sentence, I kind of caught me off guard, and I thought "wait, wasn't Morgan the director? If not, then who is?" But honestly, this is a rather small issue (and it may only be an issue for me) so I'll let it be.

• Moreover, he commented he was not trying to be "anti-business or this anti-market or anti-trade" but just reaffirming basic human rights and showing the limits of natural resources. My grammar my be off here, but I believe it should be reaffirm and show instead of reaffirming and showing.

Hm, I think it's correct because it's past continous ("was not trying"). Anyway, I think Corinne, who copyedited it, is the best to answer. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just noticing now, but the last two paragraphs in this section kind of go overboard with quotes, with at least 50% of the paragraph being quotes. Could you possibly paraphrase some of them?

Tried to reworded some. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ultimately, he considered his film an introductory one that was able to connect several elements, any one of which would be worth being covered in a film. An "introductory one" is just weird looking. I understand what you trying to say, but can you rephrase it?

I see what you are saying. Reworded. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Release and response

• A week before the official release, the crowd funders received personal links to enable them watch the film. Perhaps "allow them to watch the film" would be better, as enable just sounds weird.

Reworded. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Rotten Tomatoes score and reviews need to be updated

Updated. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• It also received an Environmental Media Awards nomination for Best Documentary Film. This seems like such a strange place to thrown in a mention of an award nomination. Is there a better place to put it? If not, I suppose its current spot is fine.

I'm not sure. Certainly the first paragraph is the best place because the other two are about critics reviews. I couldn't fit it earlier in the paragraph too. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Tamsin Blanchard of the Daily Telegraph called it a work that will "do for the fast fashion business what Food Inc did for fast food". Link Food, Inc.

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• He said the film was "more despair-inducing than instructive", but was optimistic about its possible impact on the fashion culture, citing the effect on fast food of Super Size Me and Fast Food Nation. I recommend rephrasing to "citing the effect that films such as Super Size Me and Fast Food Nation had on the fast food industry.

Rephrased. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Similarly, while saying the film discusses important issues, both Genevieve Koski of The Dissolve and Jennie Kermode said it deals with several themes quickly but does not expand upon any of them. Who is Kermode writing for?

Missed this one. Thanks. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, that about does it. I also checked out a few of the refs, and they all come back positive, so count that as a source review. I must admit, it does feel a bit choppy in certain sections (occasional words in sentences which, while they work perfectly fine, can be left out), I don't think that should be an automatic fail. It may become a problem if you ever plan on taking this to FAC, so if that's the case, I highly recommend you get this article peer reviewed before hand. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Famous Hobo! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool. As you can tell, most of my issues were with occasional prose problems, but overall, this is a very solid article that covers just about every aspect you want in a film article, and without any bias, which is something I try to look for when an article is dealing with delicate subject matter. I made a small copyedit (what I was trying to say in the edit summary before I accidentally misclicked the save page button, was that it's contributing, not contributed). With all that being said, I'll go ahead and pass this article. Nice job! Famous Hobo (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)