This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gravity (2013 film) 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
Gravity (2013 film) 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 December 11, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 2013 film Gravity won seven Oscars, more than any other film at the 86th Academy Awards ceremony? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
It would be intellectually dishonest for this article to not mention the Tess Gerritsen lawsuit.
https://crimereads.com/suing-hollywood/
Suggestions as to how? DS (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. But I couldn't find any guidance in our policies. So I asked about the general issue over at WT:NOTE. Now, this specific case has come up, so I'm linking the discussion (ongoing): Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability and due weight of failed lawsuits CapnZapp (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The opening scene, in my recollection, does not have the ISS in it, just the shuttle and the MMU. The Cinematography section of this article is conflicted: within the text it states the ISS was in the opening scene, but the accompanying image caption states it has the fictional shuttle Explorer. Likewise the cited sources are in conflict: the Hollywood Reporter article states "shuttle" while the Time Magazine article states "ISS". I tried to change the text to 'shuttle' but then undid it when I discovered that I had incorrectly assumed the Time article stated "shuttle" as well. I'm just going to add a Dubious flag. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) @RainbowLover334148, Jpgordon, Favonian, and Jirka.h23:Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
While the ISS does play a role in the movie, it is the shuttle that plays a prominent role here. The TIME article itself contains a video of the sequence: making this clear. I rewrote the paragraph. CapnZapp (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
This regards the paragraph starting with "Former astronaut Chris Hadfield was critical of Gravity's portrayal of astronauts..." that has seen some editor activity.
Are we sure about featuring this aspect here (in Scientific Accuracy)? We give Hadfield the only voice, giving the impression this is the main way to look at the character of Dr Stone (Bullock). A cursory googling gives many more voices: negative as well as positive.
I do understand that assuming we are to have this discussion here, in Scientific Accuracy, letting non-technical non-experts speak is off topic, which I guess is the reason Hadfield is given the room all by himself.
But is this really DUE?
I suggest we find another voice (with sufficient technical credentials to be "allowed" to speak in this section) to nuance the impression our article gives the reader, or perhaps move Hadfield's opinion to a more general part of the article where he no longer remains unquestioned.
Thoughts?
N.B. I am not opposing Hadfield's inclusion. I'm asking: is it DUE to let him speak unopposed, and phrase his criticism so definitively? CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
no mention that this is partially plagiarized from the Tess Gerritsen book of the same name? 198.49.6.225 (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
References
I have three times tried to revert the recent attempt at humor, always with the following error message:
[789bc110-1ac8-4e13-a2f0-76743ba38545] 2023-12-04 11:57:26: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"
Hope someone else can fix. CapnZapp (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Cambalachero. Thank you for adding to the Scientific Accuracy section. However, it is not clear this content belongs here - the source needs to specifically discuss in the context of the movie; it cannot, for example, just discuss the threat of space debris in general. (You are an experienced editor; I won't need to explain why) Since I couldn't access the source (which in itself is not an issue) I'm asking you: does Bennett bring up Gravity the movie in that page 40 discussion? Could you (or someone else with the book, of course) perhaps edit the paragraph to more explicitly link the content to the movie? Notice how every other paragraph in this section are clearly discussions that involve the movie. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Since you have so graciously provided the original source, I can make an observation: Your edit can be interpreted to mean the inaccuracy in question is that the debris would actually spread out so much that it would be unlikely to hit anything, much less shred the space shuttle. But given his remarks elsewhere ("Universe in the classroom", no 85, fall 2013 www.astrosociety.org/uitc) it becomes clear the real reason he's saying the risk is low is because of the different orbital parameters between satellites like the one hit by the Russian missile and the HST (and ISS). This is the exact same inaccuracy already discussed (the final bullet point as well as the graphic).
To integrate Cambalachero's addition I have edited the section, creating a subsection for "Technical observations" (the ones Dissolve found "absurd" :). I have tried my best to accurately summarize the complaints, but I am not an expert, so please feel free to review and approve, y'all. CapnZapp (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)