Talk:Captain America: Civil War/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 22:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll review this one. Please note I tend to just make minor fixes myself instead of mentioning them here. If I make any changes you are unhappy with just revert them and we'll discuss it instead. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay I got called in for unexpected shifts at work, i'll get to this either tonight or tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Lead and infobox
- "Splash panel" isn't a common tern, and what exactly is meant by it isn't clarified in the lead or the body for that matter. Perhaps some clarification would be good. Incidentally ' "splash panel"-inspired ' doesn't look right to me, as in hyphen after inverted commas, but i'm not a copy edit expert by any means so apologies if that is grammatically correct.
- I've removed that altogether from the lead and replaced it with "airport".
- "Splash panel" isn't a common tern, and what exactly is meant by it isn't clarified in the lead or the body for that matter. Perhaps some clarification would be good. Incidentally ' "splash panel"-inspired ' doesn't look right to me, as in hyphen after inverted commas, but i'm not a copy edit expert by any means so apologies if that is grammatically correct.
- Plot
- Why are characters like Clint Barton, Scott Lang and James Rhodes referred to by their 'legal' names instead of the superhero names they are best known for? Considering the wikilinks have to be piped in order to do this why not just refer to them by their common names as per WP:COMMONNAME?
- Formal tone is used in the plots of MCU articles to describe the characters, thus their 'legal' names. Additionally, many are not referred to in-film by the hero/COMMONNAME, hence the reasoning.
- The characters' superhero names are rarely used within the dialogue of the film and WP:SURNAME suggests to use last names anyway. This is consistent with other good articles in the topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Zemo's motivation in the plot isn't given until the very end, and it still isn't made clear. How did his family die in Sokovia? Was it the Avengers fault? Consider clarification and relocating the information to earlier on.
- To be fair, the characters' motivation isn't revealed until the end of the film. The plot summary is written to reflect that, though some clarification could be useful.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think a little clarification would improve it. Freikorp (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think a little clarification would improve it. Freikorp (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why are characters like Clint Barton, Scott Lang and James Rhodes referred to by their 'legal' names instead of the superhero names they are best known for? Considering the wikilinks have to be piped in order to do this why not just refer to them by their common names as per WP:COMMONNAME?
- Cast
- Maybe i'm just being picky, but the abbreviation 'Cap' in the quotes appears without explanation. Perhaps clarify the first mention as Cap[tain America]. Or not, I won't fail you on this.
- I don't see this as an issue.
- "An enhanced brainwashed assassin" - Enhanced how? Physically?
- Mainly physically, but enhanced overall as well.
- I think some clarification in that sentence would be helpful. Freikorp (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think some clarification in that sentence would be helpful. Freikorp (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Don Cheadle's section seems disproportionately small in comparison to the others. Can you expand it at all?
- That's all the info we have for the character. If there was more, it would have been there by the time we nominated for GA :/
- "Damion Poitier, who appeared as Thanos in The Avengers before Josh Brolin was cast in that role" - huh? I had to read that a couple times before I got a gist of what you were saying. Expand it just a little. Perhaps clarify he appeared as Thanos in a post credit scene in The Avengers though Brolin has since played the role role in subsequent productions.
- I added some wording that should help.
- Maybe i'm just being picky, but the abbreviation 'Cap' in the quotes appears without explanation. Perhaps clarify the first mention as Cap[tain America]. Or not, I won't fail you on this.
- Production
- "came as a result of impressive test screenings of that film with Marvel executives" - This comes across as POV, like it's a fact the test screenings were impressive. How about rewording along the lines of "Marvel executives were impressed with the test screenings".
- Adjusted
- I count 9 duplicate links in 'Pre-production', 7 in 'Filming' and 6 in 'Post-production'.
- There were some overlinks, but the ones you are looking at are actor and characters. It is acceptable to have them linked in the plot, cast section, and then first section after that. So all those were fine.
- Most are character names, which is more acceptable, but I also see duplicate links to The Avengers (2012 film), Leipzig/Halle Airport and Post-credits scene. Consider whether that's necessary. Freikorp (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Avengers (2012 film) is first in the cast section, and once after that; Leipzig Airport is first in the plot section, then in a caption and once after that; post-credits scene is first in the plot, and once after. I don't think those are overlinks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Most are character names, which is more acceptable, but I also see duplicate links to The Avengers (2012 film), Leipzig/Halle Airport and Post-credits scene. Consider whether that's necessary. Freikorp (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- 'Madbomb' strikes me as needing to be in inverted commas or italics, but again, i'm not a copyedit expert
- Madbomb is actually an object used storyline in the comics. The storyline that it appears in is "Screamer in the Brain", but that was not mentioned in the sources talking about it, so it is not included.
- "came as a result of impressive test screenings of that film with Marvel executives" - This comes across as POV, like it's a fact the test screenings were impressive. How about rewording along the lines of "Marvel executives were impressed with the test screenings".
- Music
- This section is fine per se, albeit considerably brief in comparison to others (though i'm sure if there was more information out there you would have found and added it). Captain America: Civil War (soundtrack), however, is barely start class. I don't believe that there's enough information to support a full article there. Why not just merge the whole thing into the music section at this article?
- There is more info about the music currently housed at Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Captain America: Civil War that has not had the chance to be copied over to the film article. Doing so will provide the difference and necessity to have a split out article for the soundtrack. Perhaps myself and Adamstom.97 can work this up quickly.
- I have added more information to the music section, and a link to the Music of the MCU article where further details can be found. The soundtrack article itself can and will be expanded at some point, and has enough to exist on its own (barely) as essentially a stub, so I'd rather we leave it as is, so that it can be improved as soon as someone gets around to it. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- This section is fine per se, albeit considerably brief in comparison to others (though i'm sure if there was more information out there you would have found and added it). Captain America: Civil War (soundtrack), however, is barely start class. I don't believe that there's enough information to support a full article there. Why not just merge the whole thing into the music section at this article?
- Release
- Consider adding some brief info on where the 'Dolby Theatre' is. I had to click the link to find out what country it was in, let alone that it was in Hollywood.
- Done
- Is there any particular reason why you specify the date of the UK release? I mean, it was released in 61 countries, why only mention the date of the UK release? No doubt several of the 61 other countries are more populous than the UK (and therefore have a bigger box office contribution).
- WP:FILMRELEASE allows other notable release dates to be mentioned in prose. As it is essentially the second major English film market (since this is a US film, it is first), it is notable to mention.
- "Kellogg's, Pringles, and Keebler products featured virtual reality experiences" - any chance you can elaborate on this at all? I just can't imagine from the prose alone what kind of virtual reality is on offer here.
- Yeah not really.
- Not a fail point, but consider providing reviews of the home media releases. What comments and ratings did DVD/Blu ray review sites give the releases?
- That's generally something not included, at least on other MCU articles part of this good topic, but I can look into it.
- Consider adding some brief info on where the 'Dolby Theatre' is. I had to click the link to find out what country it was in, let alone that it was in Hollywood.
- Reception
- Initially you state "The film debuted at number one in all countries outside of Japan" (incidentally I think "countries except Japan" would be a better choice of words) then later you say "Japan was one of the few markets not to have the film open at number one". Firstly, you seem to be repeating yourself (and the initial mentions serves as a teaser to what film kept it from the top spot - I was going to complain about that until I saw the expanded explanation later on). Secondly, it also seems to contradict itself. Either it was the only one, or it was one of a a few different places to not debut at No. 1. If so, what were the other markets where it didn't debut at No. 1?
- I've changed "outside of" to "except". The wording later of "was one of the few markets" was taken from the source. Here.
- Even if it's taken from the source I think you should remove it, as it conflicts the previous statement. Can you find other evidence of other countries where the film didn't open at No. 1? Have you considered that the source may be in error? Freikorp (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Even if it's taken from the source I think you should remove it, as it conflicts the previous statement. Can you find other evidence of other countries where the film didn't open at No. 1? Have you considered that the source may be in error? Freikorp (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Initially you state "The film debuted at number one in all countries outside of Japan" (incidentally I think "countries except Japan" would be a better choice of words) then later you say "Japan was one of the few markets not to have the film open at number one". Firstly, you seem to be repeating yourself (and the initial mentions serves as a teaser to what film kept it from the top spot - I was going to complain about that until I saw the expanded explanation later on). Secondly, it also seems to contradict itself. Either it was the only one, or it was one of a a few different places to not debut at No. 1. If so, what were the other markets where it didn't debut at No. 1?
- Lead and infobox
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Spot checks finds no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing.
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Only one minor dispute as indicated by talk page and article edit history; nothing to be concerned about.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- All images have appropriate licensing.
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- An excellent selection of relevant pictures with captions are provided. Images in the body could use alts but that isn;t a fail point for GA.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- I've placed responses below comments with a bullet to differentiate. If I haven't given a response, I'm still thinking on or considering the comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I must say I was very impressed with the sheer amount of information provided in this article, and the amount of work that has obviously gone into it. Well done. There are no major issues, i'll leave this open until minor points are addressed but there is no doubt in my mind this will pass shortly. Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Freikorp I've answered everything above. Let me know if the few I questioned need to be addressed in order to pass it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing further needs to be addressed in order for this to be passed, though I have made a four more comments/suggestions above. If I haven't replied to addressed concerns it's because i'm satisfied with their response. I'm passing this now. Congrats. Freikorp (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Responded and fixed most of the outstanding comments you left Freikorp. Thanks for taking the time to review and the pass! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Freikorp I've answered everything above. Let me know if the few I questioned need to be addressed in order to pass it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I must say I was very impressed with the sheer amount of information provided in this article, and the amount of work that has obviously gone into it. Well done. There are no major issues, i'll leave this open until minor points are addressed but there is no doubt in my mind this will pass shortly. Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)