Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp/GA1

GA Review

This GA review passed. I just wanted to add this archive template --DannyS712 (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Review

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See notes below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
~~Will check copyrights and OR laterSee notes below regarding copyright.~~ I don't believe there is original research here. No copyright problems.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No bias. See specifically the "critical response" section, which includes both praise and criticism
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Lots of reverts, but mostly reversions of pending-changes (the page is pending-changes protected). If there are reverts between autoconfirmed editors during the duration of this review, however, this will be a major problem. PC protection ends July 2019 (see protection log here)
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):
All either cc or fair-use (for part a); part b: only problem I see is the caption: "Paul Rudd (left) and Evangeline Lilly received praise from critics for their performances and chemistry in the film." Labeling one as "(left)" without the other labelled as "(right)" is confusing.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Notes

* Criteria 1

The cast list is an awkward combination of paragraphs and one-liners, and should either be a true "list" or detailed explanations of characters, or be split into the two, but in its present form is unwieldy

~~The plot section has multiple parts with odd phrasing~~

* Criteria 2

~~Having utilized Earwig's Copyvio detector, the only major problem I see is the close similarities of the filming and post-production sections (for example, this comparison)~~

* The future section is 2 sentences. Can we either expand it, or move it another (relevant) section?

As it currently stands, this article seems ready for GA status. I'll give it a couple more days for any last changes, and then read it in its entirety again. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has passed its GA review. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Adamstom.97: I have placed this review on hold. Can you look at the issues I have (explained above)? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712, took a look for you, as requested at the Infinity War GA. Much of what is tagged as a copyright violation are direct quotes from the interviewed supplied in the article, starting off with "We spoke to DNEG VFX Supervisor, Alessandro Ongaro". The biggest of there is Method Studios VFX Supervisor Andrew Hellen, explained, "We did a lot of research into macro and cellular level photography, and played with different ways to visualize quantum mechanics. It has a very magical quality, with a scientific edge. We also used glitching effects and macro lensing to ground the footage, and keep it from feeling too terrestrial." As far as I know, quotes are acceptable, as long as they're in quotation marks and are listed directly, which is what the copyright detector would be noticing. Similar quotes are "re-project the road higher and "raise the floor level" to simulate a tiny sized camera", DNEG VFX Supervisor Alessandro Ongaro noted it required "extensive environment work". Small quotes. Other than those, it looks perfectly fine. Same reasoning as the Infinity War GA here too. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 03:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTheWhovian: thanks so much! I'll be a lot more careful in the future before declaring copyvio. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712, no problems, best of luck! -- Alex^TW 03:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this review Danny, and thanks for sorting out that copy-vio stuff Alex. As for the review comments above: having to revert a lot of changes does not qualify as edit warring, and I would be quite disappointed if that became an issue in this review; I have fixed the image caption; the cast listings without full paragraphs of details are for smaller roles that we didn't get a lot of info on (the important characters have bigger paragraphs), and the overall format is the standard one that we use and which has never been a problem; and can you be more specific about the plot, it has gone through extensive discussion at the talk page and been the source of a few issues, so I don't just want to go playing around with it willy-nilly without a better idea of your concerns. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: here are a couple of the confusing/poorly phrased sentences:

Because he also visited the quantum realm (when?), Lang is now quantumly entangled with Janet (what? how?) and receives an apparent message from her.
Seeing (verb choice?} the message as confirmation that Janet is alive,
Donning the Wasp outfit, Hope fights Burch and his men off until she is attacked by a quantumly unstable masked woman. Lang tries to help fight off this "ghost", but she (who?} escapes with Pym's lab, which has been shrunk down to the size and usefulness of carry-on luggage (this can be useful thought?}.
Burch learns their location from Lang's business partners Luis, Dave, and Kurt, and informs a contact at the FBI. Luis warns Lang, who rushes home before Woo can see him violating his house arrest. This leaves Pym and Hope to be arrested (why?}, allowing Ava to take their lab. (ambiguous pronouns)

Generally, I suggest reading the entire section out loud. I've seen the movie, but even I got confused by this summary at some points. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have given the whole section a copy-edit to try and clean it up and address some of the issues that you had. Note that there are some instances where the film itself does not explain its science, so all we can really do is copy them and add the word "quantum" to things. I think I have made some good improvements though, so let me know what you think. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: - "With only days left of house arrest, Lang contacts Pym about Janet despite the strained relationship they have due to Lang's actions with the Avengers." who does they refer to? Lang and Pym? Lang and Janet? Pym and Janet?

"Lang is able to help Pym and Hope escape custody, and they find the lab." I thought Lang was at home? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think you're being a little silly. Plot summaries do not need to spell every little detail out for the reader, we can assume some basic competency and common sense here. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally two sentences earlier, it says that "Luis warns Lang, who rushes home before Woo can see him violating his house arrest." Could we add "later," (Lang is able...)? It may seem silly, but part of the movie's narrative is about Lang trying to be in two places at once... its not a big deal if you want to leave it, I'm just being pedantic, sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like just having it in the next paragraph gives it enough distance, but I have made a small change to try and clarify for you. And you are more than welcome to be pedantic, it is great to have a thorough review. Just be prepared for some back-and-forth from involved editors like me when you do. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the future section of the article, that has all the details that we have on a possible sequel at the moment, and will be expanded as we learn more. Combining it with any other section would just be putting the info in a weird, incorrect place since it is about a completely different (and, at this pint, non-existent) film while all the other sections are about this film. In fact, it will ultimately end up being about this size again anyway when we follow WP:SUMMARY and split the (likely) sequel page off from this one, which is the standard procedure. I don't see how we could change this in anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try to find just a bit more information. The relevant sections of Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2, (all of which are good articles,) all have more information. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there is more information on those sequels, but there is nothing for this one yet. If there was, we would have added it. We just need to be patient and wait for more info to come. This film did only come out a few months ago and Marvel is already working on other films, so it might be a little while until we here more on this one specifically. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.