Talk:Captain Marvel (film)/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: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 05:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This review is fundamentally going to come down to whether the article does or does not have a copyright problem. I will provide an evaluation of the article in terms of all six of the good article criteria (you may have to wait for a day or two for this). However, it is already my opinion, and needs to be clear from the outset, that the only likely reason for not passing the article would be the existence of a copyright problem - or some kind of major dispute or conflict at the article, whether or not related to accusations about copyright issues and plagiarism. If there is a copyright problem or a large degree of inter-editor conflict and disagreement, I can't pass the article. Otherwise very likely it will pass. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

1. The first good article criterion is that the article be well-written. I think the article meets that criterion; however, I have the following minor criticisms.

The article states, "Feige explained that Danvers is the first superhero that Fury has come across, which sets him on a path to where the character is in the modern MCU films." I think I would have written something slightly different in place of "modern" - for example, "more recent" would seem better. This is just a suggestion.

"This was changed since Star Wars is a contemporary franchise and not specific to Danvers, unlike the pilot-themed Top Gun" - in place of "this", I would have used something more specific, eg, "Its name".

"Lola looked at several of Jackson's films as a reference for his de-aging including Pulp Fiction (1994), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Jurassic Park (1993), Loaded Weapon 1 (1993), and One Eight Seven (1997." I would have written that instead as, "Lola looked at several of Jackson's films, including Pulp Fiction (1994), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Jurassic Park (1993), Loaded Weapon 1 (1993), and One Eight Seven (1997, as a reference for his de-aging."

"Trixster did initial development on the look of Danver's Binary powers, and contributed the majority of visual effects for Goose the Cat including movements that were impossible for real-life cats to act." I would have added a comma after "Goose the Cat."

"Richard Brody of The New Yorkercompared the film to a political commercial that "packs a worthy message [but] hardly counts as an aesthetic experience. The message of the film is conveyed less through the story than through its casting." There is a typographical error there. An additional space is required to separate "The New Yorker" from the next word, "compared". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

More soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done —TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, however, Adamstom.97 was the one who nominated the article, so he is going to have to review what you've done. He is free to modify it further if he wishes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

2. The second good article criterion is that the article be "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing "no copyright violations nor plagiarism." It would help if Adamstom.97 and other editors interested in the article could give me their views of whether the article contains copyright violations and/or plagiarism. I will of course also review the matter myself and come to my own conclusions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Not an editor on this review, but I think I know of a tool you can use to check if there are any copyvios in the article: just pop the article link into Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Let me know if this was any help to you. Cheers! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it. It isn't 100% reliable. Whether it can detect copyright violation or not depends on the circumstances and the type of material concerned. It can also produce false positive results in some cases. In this case, it produced a result of "Violation Possible 45.1%". So possibly rewrites are needed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Freeknowledgecreator, and thanks for the help TriiipleThreat -- those changes all look good. as for copyvio, I am comfortable with the level of paraphrasing that I have done (several re-writes) with the article that it is no longer too close to any of the sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Violation Possible 45.1% confidence" is unfortunately a relatively strong suggestion of copyright violation (the strongest result, I see, was for the Nicole Perlman interview in Wired). It is important to avoid both actual copyright violation and the perception or appearance of it, and that being the case, it would be appropriate to bring the "45.1% confidence" result down through article rewrites (other editors are also free to contribute to this if they wish, and again, it would help to hear a range of views). You don't have to feel pressured to rewrite the article in a rush. The review can take a while or even be put on hold, if necessary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

3. The third good article criterion is that the article be "Broad in its coverage". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

4. The fourth good article criterion is that the article be "Neutral". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

5. The fifth good article criterion is that the article be "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I have reviewed the recent history of the article, and the talk page disputes, so I am well aware the article has been the focus of some disagreement. The level of conflict, however, does not appear severe enough to fail the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

6. The sixth good article criterion is that the article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". The article meets this criterion, being well-illustrated. The copyright status of the images doesn't appear to present a problem. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Overall, the article clearly meets most of the good article criteria, except that 2 poses a potential problem, as noted above. Again, it's important to avoid both actual copyright violation and the appearance or suggestion of it, so I would like to see rewrites to bring the "45.1% confidence" result down. Even if Adamstom.97 does not wish to do this, other editors are free to. Shortening the quotation from Perlman that begins, "We've been talking a lot about..." is an example of the kind of thing that could be done. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to take a look at the problem areas raised with the copyvio tool, but I can't get to it right away. If you put the review on hold then myself or another helpful editor will be able to look into this and then hopefully we can get the review wrapped up this week. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said, there's no rush. We can get things worked out gradually. I've put the review on hold as per your suggestion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: I have cut down on a couple larger quotes in the article and the copyvio detector is now at violation unlikely. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. It's currently at "Violation Unlikely 37.9%", which is significantly better than the previous result. I will pass the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that disappoint me about the article and I hope they can be improved before declaring this article good (therefore making it even harder to convince the average editor that the article does need further improvement):

1. ) Pixelated picture. I get that people like to include pictures because they are available (and also the paranoia about not including an potentially copyrighted material in commons) but a picture that is largely pixelated out, and otherwise only includes the backs of heads and people far in the distance, does not seem like an improvement to the article. I felt disappointed to click on an the image and find so little of any interest in the full sized version. I suggest removing the image File:Anna_Boden_and_Ryan_Fleck_at_the_Pentagon_4.jpg from the article. When I read "well illustrated" it take that to quality images of particular relevance.

The picture is included and was decided to be kept because it conveys a sense of the atmosphere around the screenings during the film’s press tour and is thus still useful. The pixelation of the film poster (which is unpixalted in the infobox) doesn’t detract from that.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that picture (the one captioned "Boden and Fleck screening the film in Washington, D.C. in March 2019") and thought it was a little odd - but it didn't strike me as important. I do not particularly care whether it is included or not. TriiipleThreat's comment about the picture is not unreasonable. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

1. ) Critical response coverage is severely limited. The trolls were out and the natural reaction was to include lots of praise for Larson, but the article has not been developed further and still includes nothing about Sam Jackson's performance and wonderful rapport with Larson for example ("the origin stories of both Carol Danvers and Nick Fury"). The article has until recently been in lockdown, but maybe it really is stable and maybe most people don't think it needs more work.

The sources lead us where they may. We do not search for particular pieces of criticism to tailor the article to match our own opinions. We find the most reputable sources first and see what they have to say about the film. That said if one of these does mention what you are suggesting, feel free to add it.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with TriiipleThreat here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

In response the above point that suggested replacing "modern" with "more recent" I have the same problems with the revised phrasing as the editor seemed to have with the previous version. An encyclopedia should try to avoid vague time references WP:RELTIME so the phrase "more recent" is again not specific, and needs further rephrasing, or dropping the time entirely and instead say something like "who he will become". I do think the article is generally good, I just feel that when an article is labelled GOOD or a list is FEATURED editors become much more reluctant to change anything. -- 109.77.229.26 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The phrase is as specific as it needs to be, in my view. If other editors want to change it to something else, nothing is stopping them in principle. Editors can work these things out among themselves as they usually do - it's not a crucial point for the review. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:54, 7 December 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.