Talk:Civil War II/GA1

GA Review

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

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.

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.
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.
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
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concerns
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.
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]
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]