Talk:Avengers: Infinity War/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See notes below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Will check OR and copyright/plagiarism later

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Aided by having multiple subpages (Production, Soundtrack, List of Box Office records, etc)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Includes both praise and criticism (all sourced, not pure POV)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   A reading of the last 50 edits reveals repeated reversions, despite the article's status as semi-protected. However, if the article remains mostly stable during the course of this GA review, this may not be a disqualifier

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Currently there are only three images, only one of which is directly related to the movie itself (the other two are a photo of a panel containing multiple people related to the movie, and a headshot of a single actor.) The captions are great, but can we add at least one more, to make it more visually appealing? See, eg, the images in The Avengers (2012 film), Avengers: Age of Ultron, or Black Panther (film).

   Per WP:IUP, “The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter.” We do not add images just to have them or make the article more visually appealing. This is especially true with non-free images and free images can be hard to come by. So we must work with what we have available and what works best for the article.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

   @TriiipleThreat: yes, but there are 15 images in the commons category ([1]) that are free to use, and some of which would enhance understanding of the article, such as shots of the filming process. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

   Those are being used in the production article, which goes into more detail about the filming process. The production section here, which is just overview, wouldn’t really support its usuage.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

   Oh, thanks for the explanation. I retract my previous "hold" - this meets the image requirements. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article has passed its GA review.

Notes

• Criteria 1:

  In "home media" - what does the sentence "The physical releases in its first week of sale were the top home media release." mean?

  The entire "box office" section should be rewritten and ideally slightly shorter

  In "box office" - the sentence "In May 2018, two weeks after its release, Deadline Hollywood deduced the film had already broken even, and estimated its net profit would be around $600 million, accounting for production budgets, P&A, talent participations and other costs, with box office grosses and ancillary revenues from home media." is very awkwardly phrased

  the entire "pre-sale ticket records" should be cleaned up (prose-wise)

  The "cast" section is mostly a list

Copyright violations: Earwig's Copyvio Detector:

• article - 95.5% confidence of violation
• pridepublishinggroup - 95.5% confidence of violation
• urban dictionary - 78.8% confidence of violation
• Multiple hits at turn-it-in for revision texts

In short, this article fails this GA review due to these copyright problems. I reviewed the top hits that Earwig's detector found, and accept them as accurate.

Special thanks to User:AlexTheWhovian for pointing out that the content came from wikipedia, not from these sites.

I'm going to reread the entire article over the next few days, but barring any clear issues I think it'll pass! --DannyS712 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you for taking on this review Danny. I am not the nominator, but I am a main contributor here and have gone through each of your requests above. Though there have been many reverts in this article's edit history, there are no actual edit wars or anything underway that could pose an issue to your review. Regarding your first four points under criteria 1, I have done a small copy-edit for the two specific lines you have given us, so let me know what you think about those. It's harder to address the other two points without knowing more about what you think needs to be changed. For the cast section, it is supposed to be a cast list so I'm not sure what your issue with it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: For the pre-sale records section, I have 2 main problems.

• "Fandango reported that Infinity War achieved the largest initial 24-hour ticket pre-sales for a superhero film in just six hours, surpassing the record from Black Panther." is it 24 hours or 6 hours?
• Given that there is an entire separate article for the box office records set by infinity war, is this section even needed/can it be shortened. I don't think we need this much in the main article. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 has better understanding of this box office stuff. Favre, do you have the time to work on this section? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712Adamstom.97 I'm winding down from the Thanksgiving holiday this past week. I will hopefully be able to look at all of this tomorrow (11/25) or on Monday. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712, can you please state your exact issues with the box office section? As it stands, I think it is a well written section, covering what it needs to. I will look into what could be reduced, if any, but I think it is in a good place. Also, I have always been of the mind that the separate list was an unnecessary creation and am hoping it can (and will) ultimately be redirected back to this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

And to your Fandango comment above, the 24-hour presale record was broken by the film in 6 hours. Or another way to state such: Black Panther had X amount of presales in 24 hours. Infinity War broke that X amount record in 6 hours. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: My point was just that, out of the 7029 words of prose in this article, more than 1700 are in the the box office section, which has its own article. I just think that's a lot. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I have strong opinions on the creation of the separate article. I would boldly merge it back, but that would probably cause more discussion than this review will allow for. That said, I will work on reducing it as I can. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have made a small adjustment and I think that is all that can be reduced without loosing some insightful info. I will explain why. Looking at the US and Canada section, the first paragraph is all the opening weekend/week records broken by the film, of which it made a number, plus records at theaters/ticket services. This looks quite large because we are giving a lot of comparative numbers/films for records broken to provide context. The next paragraph covers the remaining weeks in the top 10 of the box office and any records there. Putting these two together, I think this section is not overly long. Looking at the Other territories section, again, the first paragraph covers opening weekend records. Because so many countries broke records, namely the all-time opening weekend ones, I think each of those countries should be listed. I've tried reducing the listing of countries elsewhere that were less important. The second paragraph covers the remaining weeks and country openings and their records. The final paragraph lists the countries with the highest grossing releases ever, which again I think is notable for us to list here. I will see if Adamstom.97 has thoughts about any more reductions, but I think overall, this section is very manageable, considering all the records it did break. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through and done a general copy-edit, but I'm not sure how much it would've helped. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Result

This article fails this GA review. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for feedback

@Ceranthor and Adityavagarwal: - both of you are listed as potential mentors for GA reviews. Would you be willing to give me feedback on this review? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712, it is extremely clear that the apparent "copyright violations" are misinterpreted - the content is clearly copied from Wikipedia to those articles, instead of the other way. Did we really copy the whole article from Urban Dictionary? One only needs to look at an article listed directly to see the identical cast and character list layout. I recommend that you adjust your review accordingly. -- Alex^TW 03:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I probably should have asked for someone to look this over before I failed it. Thanks. How did you know? I didn't see any indication that it came from wikipedia? How can someone know? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That would have been a good idea, yes, especially for a GA review. But the failed appears to be rushed. How I knew was an equal mixture of 1) common sense (Urban Dictionary? Here?), 2) previous experience with identical cases concerning the fact that many "copyright violations" are false positives (where it's copied from Wikipedia, not to Wikipedia, seen a few of those on Doctor Who articles), 3) familiarity with the templates used in the cast list, the format they produce and the identical layout in the linked article, and 4) familiarity with the top contributors of this article over several years and my knowledge that copyright violations are not in their repertoire (which is how I came to be here, seeing the fail on the nominator's talk page). -- Alex^TW 03:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: in that case, could you take a look at my GA review of Ant man and the wasp, specifically my copyvio concern here? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll reply there. -- Alex^TW 03:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey DannyS712, I totally missed it. I was tremendously busy and I wouldnt be able to mentor you for GA review right now. Although I might have really mentored you if I had even a bit of time for Wikipedia! Just know one thing, from the little discussion I have read between you and AlexTheWhovian, I would say that always try to give time to the nominator to fix the issues! After all, there is not rush to complete the review quickly right? That said, always feel free to ask me for any help needed when I start editing on Wikipedia. On the review, there are numerous online sources that are wiki mirrors, those copy content from Wikipedia. So, even if an article may display 100% copyvio but from Wiki mirrors, those shouldnt be a problem, as the original content wouldnt be from those sources right? Also, if quotes or anything in quotes show copyvio, that shouldnt be a problem either, as thats what quotes are meant for right? Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

On another note, that would be awesome and really helpful if Homeostasis07 would be able to guide you on the review. He is a prolific content creator and it would be totally ideal if he could guide you for this review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Adityavagarwal, but I wouldn't be able to handle another article right now. I've just had a quick look, and I don't really know what advice I could give anyway. It seems like a very well written article. Nice flow to the whole thing, and no issues with sourcing. Good luck to the nominator. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• @DannyS712: It's not really a requirement for a being a GA reviewer, but I would have personally preferred if you went back and looked at the GA reviews of similar articles in the past, given that the primary motivation for this article being GANned when it was was to maintain "good topic status" for it and its linked articles. This article has the same problems that caused Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 to fail its initial GAN and would have caused it to fail its second if it weren't for ... other circumstances. I can't be expected to monitor all the articles all the time so as to bring up the same issues in every GAN, and while it is not currently required, it really should be required that nominators do a check on related GANs to see if an issue raised there is being overlooked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: for future reviews I'll be sure to look at past similar examples. Thanks for the suggestion --DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: That is not a requirement, and don't feel you need to do that because you don't. Articles should be reviewed in their context, not against some other article's, hence why no reviewer should need to look to other articles when they tackle a review. Aside from the rushing to fail, you did a good job with you review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks. You did a good job with the article! Happy holidays --DannyS712 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Please do not listen to Favre1fan93 when he tells you not to listen to something I say regarding this and other "Marvel Cinematic Universe" articles. He has a nasty history of doing so despite multiple requests to stop. This article does have a serious problem in the "Cast" section (which issue I will raise on the talk page shortly), and the same problem prevented Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA1 from passing; Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA2 passed because it was snuck through without reference to the previous GAN, and it is inappropriate for the same editors to be ignoring the same issue more than a year later. It's not inappropriate for younot to know about the problem, but now you do, so ... that's good, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: So what should I do now? In the future I'll look at similar reviews, but for this review is there something I should do? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing, really. This review is passed, and I can't help that; I'll keep trying to discuss the page's problems on the talk page, and if I run into the same OWN/TAGTEAM problems often encountered on articles in the "Featured Topic" area in question there's always WP:GAR. That said, I think you misunderstood my initial suggestion: "similar" vs. "related" may not seem like much of a distinction, but I am specifically referring to articles in the Featured Topic in question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Further comment This GA review should have stayed failed. Even if the copyright violations weren't legit violations, the article definitely fails the stability criterion. Pretty much every edit the article's "owners" don't agree with gets auto-reverted, regardless of the quality, and then when the reverted editors attempt to use the talk page they get talked (and sometimes harassed) to death. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.