Jump to content

Talk:Civil War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Titles involved

[edit]

Tangaroa007 (talk · contribs) is insisting on edit warring even after I have tried to explain Wikipedia policies especially in regards to verifiability and original research. The references in the Title involved section must explicitly mention each issue. The Comic Book Resources article does not which issues of "Captain America: Sam Wilson," "Spider-Man," "All-New Wolverine," "Power Man and Iron Fist," "Spider-Woman," "Patsy Walker, A.K.A. Hellcat!," "Deadpool,""Captain Marvel," "Ms. Marvel," "Uncanny Inhumans," "The Ultimates," "Nova," "New Avengers" or "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." are involved. While fans or people with inside knowledge may know, average readers cannot check for themselves by looking at his given citation. I have suggested that he should probably wait until the checklist is released since there is no rush, but he insists on including it now with an incomplete reference. To do this now, probably means that each issue would have to be individually cited but that is not what he is doing. Also for some reason, keeps re-adding full citations for multiple uses of the same reference.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well you will not allow the Previews website to be listed as a reference, so you can't have it both ways. I added the best I could find. But I am more than happy to reference the previews site that shows all of the information. Go look for yourself and tell me that I am wrong!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangaroa007 (talk • contribs)
As I stated on my talk page, if Previews is unreliable then wait for a better one. Wikipedia is not the news. We can wait, there is no deadline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what your problem with Previews is. It is not unreliable. The information they post comes from Diamond. Diamond gets it from Marvel themselves. We played this game last month and was I wrong? The information is correct, but you keep insisting on waiting for a checklist. By doing that you are doing a disservice to people who use Wikipedia to plan their purchases for Marvel products. With this in mind I'm trying to have a more complete list available earlier to help those people. You need to stop being so insistent on things being your way. If you'd allow the Previews reference then there is no issue. So the problem actually does lie with your instance on not allowing that reference. I'm not sore at you, but you need to stop being so quick to be judgmental and you must also remember that the page belongs to the entire Wikipedia community, people who may find other information to improve the references. It's a collaborative effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangaroa007 (talk • contribs)
We are not permitted to link to commercial retailers. Also we are not interested in using Wikipedia to help people "plan their purchases for Marvel products". Wikipedia is not a means of advertising, marketing or public relations. I am glad that you recognize that this is a collaborative effort since you are the one that stated, "I will continue restoring it until you accept that it be left," which sounds like a declaration to edit war. Still that is no excuse to skirt established policies or guidelines. Just be patient.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previews, generally speaking, is unreliable because the content and release schedules are still fluid when they're first announced. Some books are solicited for one release on one day, but are delayed or cancelled. Many of the solicitations are written before the comics they're describing are scripted, which is why you see some writers and artists listed as "TBD". While it's unlikely Marvel (through Previews) would solicit a book as a tie-in when it isn't, it's better to wait for a different source closer to actual publication. There are some occasions when Previews would be acceptable, but this particular instance isn't one. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can only include what we can prove through reliable sources and, checking through some there, the information in the article can't be supported by the source. So that needs to change. People can always ask the staff at their LCS if they were thinking of putting some of the crossover titles on their pull lists.
If we are helping users interested in the event then wikifying the table to link through to characters and creators as some of the titles aren't too obvious to the lay reader - Totally Awesome Hulk stars Amadeus Cho, for example. I know who the Captain Marvel book stars, but don't assume everyone will.
So wind the titles back to what we can prove and work on improving the rest of the article. Emperor (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the full solicits from Newsarama. Creative teams, issue numbers and the text "Civil War II Tie-In!" included for all the titles in question that aren't explicitly stated by the CBR source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Also to the statement that previews/solicits aren't reliable, I believe that they are. From the time of their release to the release of the comic, should anything change, then a new source can be added. You aren't including release dates which are generally the things that change from the original solicits, so I don't see the harm. As with anything on here, if a better source becomes available, you can add it. But I wouldn't call these unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Favre, I have no problem using this in conjunction with ones for other months for the time being. The checklist would be better once its released so we don't have 7 to 8 citations for each series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But as I said, for now, I don't see the issue with using this as a cite. Should the "catch-all" checklist source come out eventually, by all means use that one instead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The publication section mentions the story began developing in "the second volume of The Invincible Iron Man". According to Iron Man#Later volumes, the current series is at least volume 7, maybe more. I'm not 100% certain which page is correct. Could someone familiar with them please fix this? Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by this as well, according to Marvel.com the first volume of Invincible Iron Man ran from 2008 - 2012, and the second volume picked up again in 2015. This is consistent with The Invincible Iron Man and the Marvel Wikia. Despite the cover, Marvel simply refers to the original 1968 series and subsequent four volumes as Iron Man.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

plot summary

[edit]

This part in particular seems clumsy:

"As the verdict is read, Friday, Iron Man's A.I. system, informs Iron Man that she is near completion of Ulysses' analysis.[22] After Hawkeye is acquitted of all charges, Iron Man informs the other heroes of his findings."

I get that the ref is a break between issues, but it's awkward. We say the verdict is read, but not what it is until after we talk about Iron Man. At the same time, we say the analysis is done, but not what the results are. I think this would read smoother if the whole first sentence was removed. Is it really relevant to the plot that Friday was nearly done right before she was done? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I unintentionally restored that. I was mostly trying to abbreviate the IP's edit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I thought that may have been the case. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Civil War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I have made edits to this article and got a second opinion to confirm my contributions were not significant enough to disqualify me from doing this review.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Publication history "According to the official synopsis..." This quick, promotional synopsis seems like an artifact from before publication. I think it can be stricken entirely, and the first two lines about the retreat and Bendis' quote can be combined with the following paragraph. You link Invincible Iron Man, and I know it's the title, but that article doesn't mention anything about a second volume. Neither does Iron Man#Later volumes, actually. I think Iron Man#All-New, All-Different Marvel is closest to what you're looking for? Ideally the other two would be updated, but I can't penalize this article for the failure of others. I'll leave it up to you if/how you want to address this. "Marvel also released a prelude..." The world also was used at the end of the previous sentence, and the wording is a bit clunky. I think "In May 2016, Marvel released additional prelude stories in a FCBD edition by... and a zero issue by..." The quote from Alonso would work nicer higher up, closer to the mention of the retreat. Why mention the May release of FCBD and 0, then jump back to March announcements? The May material should be moved lower. A month should be specified for C2E2 (it was March). You mention a delay for issue 5, but I think the publication schedule should be discussed more. There were 9 total issues released over 8 months, and one of them was late. Was this supposed to be twice-monthly?
    Made all of the suggested edits (See Diff), except for the removal of the premise, which I think adds context and understanding to the rest of section, especially if readers read the PH section before the plot section. The early issues were released bi-monthly, but that soon fell behind. I think that I covered all the delay information that was readably available from reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me.
    Plot The paragraph beginning "Captain Marvel asks Banner..." seems disjointed. I think the first half (ending "immediately arrested.") belongs with the previous paragraph, and the rest belongs with the next paragraph. In the PH section, the character was called "Captain America." In the Plot section, he's called Steve Rogers. Either is fine, but should be the same in both places. The bit about Ulysses' vision of old Wolverine and telling Medusa about it seems extraneous. The events don't actually happen, and the response to them is "in vain". That should be cut. "Cosmic entity" should link to Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics). Was anything from The Oath worth including? It was mentioned as being the epilogue.
    Rearranged paragraphs, made consistent use of Steve Rogers, and wiki-linked "Cosmic Entity" as suggested (See Diff). I left the bit about Ulysses' vision with Wolverine as it seems that plotline is opened ended with the superheroes failing to stop the fight. The consequence of their failure remains to be seen. There wasn't much to The Oath but I left the general premise in the PH section. Also we decided early on to stick to the core issues.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Titles involved Is it worth adding a column for month of release here? I think it would help clarify chronology some since the main series lasted seven months but some tie-ins were only one issue.
    That's kind of difficult to do with the way the table is set up. It is divided per series, not per issue, meaning a single row could include multiple issues. I am not sure but there could be breaks in some of the production schedules and that is still not indicative of in-universe chronology.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Collected editions - as discussed above, tie-in collections should be included if the table is kept. A column should be added to specify HC or TPB. Do you know if the collection will include any bonus content? If so, that should be mentioned as well.
    See below response.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This works.
    Critical response CBR only reviewed two issues? I'm not sure they're worth keeping in the professional review table. Does the sales chart include the second printings? There are sources that discuss the title's performance. Additional context for the sales figures could be included from them. here are a few I found that may have information worth adding. Others can be found through Google.
    It seems the new owner of CBR has stopped producing reviews like they once did. So I reformatted the table to just include the aggregate scores, which in hindsight is probably more representative. I think the sales data is sufficient as is. The chart only includes the issues' first month of release, which the industry uses to gage popular response kind of like opening weekend box office figures. In many cases, the issues are still on sale and probably will be for a very long time so final numbers (including additional printings) are very difficult to report.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Per WP:WHENTABLE, what's the benefit of having the collected edition information in a table? This single line could easily be discussed in prose, perhaps with additional detail on its bonus content and sales numbers once released. If you do add this content, the section should be relocated under the Reception section.
    This is included as suggested by WP:CMOS#LSECTION, but I am not opposed to removing it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that is intended for ongoing series with numerous volumes. Are you planning to expand this section with tie-in collections like Secret Invasion#Collected editions? If so, the table is a good idea. If not - do you think their omission impacts the completeness of the coverage? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I expanded it to include all of the new limited series that tied into the storyline (See Diff). All of the content is listed in the "Materials collected" column and I'm not sure if the format is worth adding, whether its hardcover, paperback or Kindle.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That works.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    CBR, Newsarama, and IGN are WP:OVERLINKed in every citation. They only need to be linked in the first reference (6, 17, and 34). Marvel.com is also overlinked, but NOT linked in its first appearance (2). Cites 5, 15, and 17 have unnecessary ALLCAPS.
    Per WP:REPEATLINK, footnotes are exempt from WP:OVERLINK, as a reader might read the citation inline as opposed to scrolling to bottom and looking at them there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Removed allcaps (see diff).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    all sources are reliable
    C. It contains no original research:
    no concerns
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwing shows some high confidence plagiarism, but this is due to quotes in the reception section and common phrases ("writer Brian Michael Bendis", "Civil War II issue x"). No issues present.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Oliver Coipel is mentioned as the artist in the Reception section and credited in the citation for issue zero, but he is never mentioned anywhere else.
    Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In other media Is there any information on the add-on mission beyond existing? One sentence makes for a rather bare section.
    Done. I know the article was already passed, but I forgot to address this.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    no concerns
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    no concerns
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No ongoing edit wars or vandalism. Inappropriate additions like this are quickly reverted.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Rationale provided
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Caption is fine. Needs WP:ALTTEXT. This image was added January 2016. Now that the series is finished, do you still think this cover best represents the whole series?
    ALTTEXT added. Yes, I do believe it is the best cover to represent the series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Preliminary findings shown. I will complete the review after a thorough read later today. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review complete. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updated based on changes. All issues resolved except for comments under Publication history and Plot. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pass based on changes and explanations. Nice work Argento Surfer (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review this, I wasn't sure when it would get reviewed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Civil War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_War_II&oldid=1242956678"