Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review on Hold

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Significant concerns about lack of writing respecting copyright laws due to extremely excessive quoting. At the top right of this GA Review page, in the "GA toolbox" you can use the "Copyvio detector" to assist with this. There's way too much quotations throughout the entire article. Whole chunks of other news articles are lifted (even with attribution, it's too much) and blockquoted, in this article. This is the major sticking point to GA here. This and failing WP:LEAD, at this point in time, are the most two major concerns, at least right now in the article's present state of quality. Blockquotes need to go. Quotes need to go. Quotes should be trimmed and/or paraphrased in all places as much as possible. The Critical reception sect, indeed, the entire article, is basically a string of quotes from one quote to the next, a big quotefarm. The Cast section is just entirely all quotes basically. Development huge unnecessary blockquote to the side, can be removed, and lots of quotes in paragraph text. Suggestion use CTRL-F and find one quotation-mark. See how many of those are highlighted throughout the entire text of the article. You should be able to trim and/or paraphrase those out so that when the article is ready to revisit -- there are only a handful. Like ten or so tops. This is not impossible to fix, it should not be too hard, but right now, it's the most major problem.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article does indeed seem to conform to the manual of style for film articles, per WP:MOSFILM. However, it currently in its present state fails WP:LEAD. This is quite a big article. I'd expect to see four (4) paragraphs of four or five sentences each. The lede intro sect should be able to function fully as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. There needs to be more about Critical reception in the lede, maybe three positive, one or two negative.
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.	Good attribution to sources, good reliable sources, I'm seeing high quality like The Hollywood Reporter, The Sunday Times, Entertainment Weekly, Reuters, and Variety, after spot-checking several of the citations.
	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).	Very good citation style, great job archiving to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive, and I see you even cite the factual assertions in the Notes sect, outstanding job here!
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article certainly appears to rely upon a preponderance of secondary sources, throughout.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, the article most certainly is broad in scope. It most sufficiently conforms to WP:MOSFILM.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good structural organization and good overall focus and flow to the article. No issues here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Only issue here pertains to the lede intro sect, as it doesn't represent an adequate summary of the article, and thus, not an adequate summary of the Critical response sect, either, so a summary of that sect should be included in the lede, in order to show a few of the (different) points-of-view from critics about the film. Accolades -- anything other than "Teen Choice Awards"? They didn't get nominated for anything else?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article talk page history and archives shows no current ongoing outstanding issues. Inspection of article edit history shows stability going back at least over one month, with one outlier from 8 October 2015 which wasn't too much of a big deal it looks like. No issues here.
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.	Four (4) free-use images, all hosted on Wikimedia Commons, all check out okay upon my image review of their image pages there. Movie poster has very good fair use rationale. However, File:New Avengers Training Facility.jpg could use a better fair use rationale. In the "Purpose of use" field, please add a numbered list of point-by-point argumentation for why this is fair use. Really nail it out as if you're arguing it at a deletion debate or something? Why is it integral to the article? How is it discussed in the article itself? How does the picture make a difference to the average Wikipedia reader?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above re more argumentation at the 2nd fair use image page, please.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'll place this as GA on Hold for Seven Days, and hopefully above will be addressed within Seven Days. Good luck! — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Copyvio detector

Per above note about Copyvio detector = https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Avengers%3A+Age+of+Ultron&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1

Without using search engine, and just ticking the external links cited in the article itself, this says: 71.4% copyvio likely, with over 30% copyvio likely for fourteen (14) other sources.

You should please try to get that down to below thirty-percent for all those sources at that tool.

And basically the way to do that is to trim and/or paraphrase as many quotations as possible.

When I revisit I'll use that tool, again, to reevaluate the amount of quotation versus potential for copyvio.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Hopefully myself, TriiipleThreat or someone else will be able to start to get to these notes shortly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! You've all done outstanding work so far! Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I plan on reviewing these comments as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response by TriiipleThreat

Thank you for taking the time to review this article, and while a I agree with some of your recommendations. I disagree with others. There is a lot of quoting in this article and some of the longer ones could be trimmed back or paraphrased. I disagree with the blanket assertion that "Blockquotes need to go. Quotes need to go." I'll see what I can do where I can, but some quoting is beneficial for perspective and neutrality and not at all out-of-line with Wikipedia policies or guidelines or even WP:GA standards. If you insist on total removal, I think a second opinion would be warranted. Also, I think you are going overboard with the level of detail in the lead. WP:LEAD is general summary of the article's contents, not in-depth specifics. That said, the lead is missing a recap of the general critical consensus. I'll make other comments and update my progress as I go along.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just try not to stray towards copyright violation, and I will check back using this tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Avengers%3A+Age+of+Ultron&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that tool is it is saying that the article is a copyvio of [1] (~71%) when it is mostly quoting an actor on what he said about his character, and then it picks up on the film title a stupid amount of times. Same with the the collider source, one quote and then just the film title. Just saying, the tool doesn't seem too good at spotting copyvio (which mostly applies to unatrributed copying and not quotes). Also the sites don't own nor do they have any claim to what the actors/producers/writers/directors say.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tool is a good tool as a start. GA Reviewer assessment also states there's way too much use of both blockquoting and quoting. It's evidence of poor writing -- the writer is afraid they can't write the article themselves -- and so they string together a bunch of quotes to make an article. — Cirt (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, sorry I didn't get to comment here yesterday... darn RL creeping in. Just to expound somewhat on what Cirt mentioned, and my approach towards quotes vis-a-vis copyright. In general I like to see quotes supporting the prose in the article, and not just supplying new content by themselves. The test I use is: Does the quote provide content or context. Put another way, are we using the quote to back up something we wrote in our own words, or are we using it to supply the information we want the reader to have without writing it ourselves? Providing content as opposed to context treads the line on copyright and transformation (another wonderfully complex yet vague concept which basically tests if the material is serving the same function as the original ("superseding", which is bad), or if you are using that material in a different way such as discussing the quote itself or using it in support/argument for or against some other point (transformative, more acceptable)).
I don't think Cirt is arguing for total removal of quotes, but (imo) they should be used sparingly, when needed to support or emphasize something already written. The quote in the Cast section on the Hulk's lines, for example. That part begins with article prose describing how Ruffalo didn't get his lines until the last minute, then added a quote from the director to support and contextualize that statement. I might trim the length of it some, but that is a good use of a quote. Compare that with the quote in Thor's section: About Thor's place in the film, Hemsworth said, "Well, Thor stayed on Earth from [Thor: The Dark World]. So he's here. He's part of the team. This is his home for the moment. So the initial threat of attack from Ultron is personal. Thor then begins to see a bigger picture about what this threat could potentially be and it begins to tie into all of our films." That quote pretty much just supplies new content that could have been manually re-written and cited to the source.
Just my 2 cents from the copyright trenches. Crow^Caw 16:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts, I'm going through these now but it may take a little while.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, keep us posted here. These are all quite encouraging developments, very pleased, thank you for your Quality improvement efforts !!! — Cirt (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Okay, I have expanded the lead to contain a consensus of the critical opinions, also added some post-production info. (diff). Favre and I trimmed and/or paraphrased a lot of quotes, turning all of the links in the copyvio tool green (under 40%), except for three, even though the tool returns a lot of false-postives; names of films and common phrases ("At the end of", etc.). We also removed all the blockquotes, except for one, which I find to be particularly helpful (diff). I expanded the fair use rationale of File:New Avengers Training Facility.jpg (diff).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by Favre1fan93

I have basically the same stuff to say as Triiiple above. I've gone through and got most of the quotes and content down. Spader's Ultron, some in Pre-production and maybe Marketing can come down some more IMO. Also to the other on hold items, I think they've all been address by Triiiple and others above and/or already rectified. As for Accolades, the Teen Choice Awards are the only that have given the film nominations. Those won't be the only ones in my opinion. We just haven't gotten any other award ceremonies yet to release nominations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good, keep us posted. It sure seems like a small sect to dedicate to one form of awards organization, but I agree with you that it's likely to grow, hopefully. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a huge fan of the film

Just wanted to put it out there that I happen to be a huge fan of this particular film.

The character of Vision (Marvel Comics) was just epic -- and Paul Bettany did a great job of portrayal - you can see some fascinating videos at Creating Vision and Avengers Age of Ultron Vision Interview - Paul Bettany.

Just if it happened to come across that I'm being tough about the copyvio concern or something like that.

I truly do greatly appreciate all the Quality improvement efforts by all editors involved that have gone into improving the page.

I really do feel that the article will look a whole lot better once my above recommendations have been successfully addressed, hopefully.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

Have you taken some time to at least consider suggestion number 3, above, and read the instructions, and then thought about it for yourself, just as an option only, and a suggestion, as a way to help the Wikipedia community clear out our backlogs as a way to pay it forward ?
Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron - looks quite good for results here.
This addition diff, looks nice, thank you.
Article looks much, much improved in quality after these changes, thanks very very much !!!
Now that the one remaining blockquote is left, it draws attention to that particular one and looks quite good in that manner, nicely done here.
Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Avengers%3A+Age+of+Ultron&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - could be a bit better -- but you've come very far here and done an excellent job, to be commended.
File:New Avengers Training Facility.jpg - looks better, thank you.

A few responses to above and perhaps some minor tweaks, and should be all set. :) — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I feel we've made a drastic reduction of quoted material in the article, and don't think the copyvio detector is an issue at this time. As has been pointed out, the detector is flawed, as it is not like we aren't attributing the material to those who said it. And, for example with the first link in the detector, we are using material for various parts of the article from one new source, so that is "adding up" detection, as well as names of films etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All good points, thanks very much, Favre1fan93, and Go Pack Go. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to all parties above for such polite responsiveness to GA Recommendations. Great job on the Quality improvement efforts. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]