Talk:Daredevil season 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review on Hold

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Problems with overusage of quotations and problems with copyright laws in this respect. Check GA Toolbox, the go to Copyvio Detector, uncheck the box for search, and just compare to External links. The result is currently Violation possible. Please trim and/or paraphrase and/or remove quotes to get all of these sources down to under a thirty (30) percent result with this tool. I will recheck this upon reevaluation of this GA candidate when I revisit. Please remove the huge pull-quote in the Writing sect. It's not necessary, strays to copyvio, and it's a reflection that the writing style itself needs to be improved upon to not have to need this type of highlight of such a large blockquote. Accolades - only 3 total win/nominations? There weren't anymore? If that's truly the case, then please convert this to paragraph format and merge it into the top of the Critical response sect, 3 total results is not enough for its own sect, in this particular case for this specific article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD at this point in time. It's not balanced properly, and it should be expanded. This is quite a large article. Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should fully standalone as a summary of the entire article's body contents. I'd expect four paragraphs of at least four to five sentences each.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good job here, no issues with need of further citations.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See GA Toolbox, top right of this subpage. External links tool shows 2 problems.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nicely done here, article relies upon primarily a preponderance of secondary sources, throughout.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Great efforts here, good structural organization over all.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Excellent job here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Concerns with recent edit-war. Concerns that lede intro sect fails to fully summarize the large Reception sect. One sentence is not enough of a fully complete summary of Reception info. Was there any negative criticism? If so, could mention at least from one source, in the lede intro sect.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not stable. Serious concern here. I see quite recent disputes both upon inspection of the talk page and the article edit history. Need to have this fully explained by the parties involved, below the entire GA Review, in explanatory comments. Talk page: I see dispute over the image in the infobox, parties involved include: Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97 and Artmanha. Article edit history: I see very recent dispute, involving parties: Froglich and Adamstom.97 and Artmanha. I'm surprised Stability is not one of the quick-fail criteria at WP:WIAGA, as I was quite tempted to quick-fail based on this criteria. However, if the article is stable within the period of time to completed this GA Review, AND I am satisfied by the explanations of the parties mentioned above, in a comment below this entire GA Review, then I will reevaluate failure of the Stability criteria at that time.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Infobox image is good as far as fair use rationale, but recently disputed on the talk page, please explain, below entire GA Review, how that was worked out and if to amicable resolution to all parties involved. File:Charlie cox.jpg - doubtful this was copyright of uploader, as 26 Kilobyte file, nominated for deletion on Commons. File:Charlie Cox as Daredevil in Marvel's Daredevil.gif - nice image, but please add detailed numbered point-by-point argumentation in Purpose of use in article section on image page, with a numbered list of reasons as to why this is asserted as fair use in this article. Go overboard with rationale, really argue for it, it will increase posterity over the long term.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Per concerns with improvement of image page for File:Charlie Cox as Daredevil in Marvel's Daredevil.gif, above.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is placed as GA on Hold for Seven Days. After Seven Days will recheck and reevaluate, including recheck of copyvio issues with the GA Toolbox Copyvio Detector tool, and the External links tool. — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

For 2b, nothing's wrong with whatever that tool is suggesting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the tool, and it's been cited, to me, in the past at numerous stages of Quality improvement review. Please archive those sources to the Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT fields archivedate and archiveurl, and that should fix it. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the article(s), and I believe that I have covered everything that you brought up above. If I have missed something, or there is anything else you would like me to deal with, just let me know.

As for the stability issues, as far as I am concerned the page is stable now, but there have been at least two incidents in the last 5 months or so involving a user who does not commonly edit here trying to make some changes. The more recent one involved the removal of a note from the episode table that indicated the early premiere of the first two episodes. It was agreed that it was better to just note this in the marketing section, as we have done at some of our other television articles, and to leave the episode table for the original Netflix release, but this conclusion was admittedly not reached in the best way, with edit summaries of reversions used rather than the talk page. Despite that, the issue has been resolved and so should be no problem as far as article stability goes. The other major incident, which was briefly discussed above, concerned which image to use in the infobox, the current one, or a different one released after the season began streaming. Though the discussion was not technically carried through to a proper conclusion, the disagreeing party seems to have left the matter be, and those arguing for the keeping of the current image made note that once the season is released on home media, which usually determines the infobox image, the matter can be revisited. Therefore, I am confident that there is no longer a stability issue, and even if the matter was not resolved properly, it has been decided to revisit it at a more appropriate time.

Hopefully this clears up any issues with the stability of the article. If not, please let me know and I can further clarify anything that needs be.

And thanks for this, we decided to nominate the article quite a while ago and it was feeling like it just might not happen! - adamstom97 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

All links now check out okay with Checklinks tool -- at -- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Daredevil_%28season_1%29
Upon revisiting with https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Daredevil+%28season+1%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- excellent job here, much much better.
Suggest moving Accolades to top of Critical response sect, and remove it as its own sect, just a paragraph at start of that sect.
Please add in-line citations to image captions to back up factual assertions made in the text of the captions.
Much much better rationale at File:Charlie Cox as Daredevil in Marvel's Daredevil.gif - great job here.
Lede intro sect looks much better, great job here.
Did you at least read through and familiarize yourself with the instructions, as suggested at my suggestion number 3, for you to please just consider as a suggestion ?
Article has been stable for last couple days. Article talk page also shows stability last couple days. This is encouraging, combined with stability explanation, above.
Much much better, overall. Great job !!!

Will await responses to reevaluation by GA Reviewer, above. — Cirt (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the in-line citations to the image captions as requested. However, I would argue against the merging of the accolades and the critical response sections, as to me the accolades information doesn't really fit under the critical response banner since the critics don't really decide who gets what awards (except for specific ceremonies such as the critics' choice awards).

And I have looked over the GA review instructions that you linked to, and am looking forward to giving it a go myself soon. I probably wouldn't have decided to do it you hadn't suggested it, so thanks for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. Thanks very much to Adamstom.97 for such polite responsiveness to my GA Reviewer recommendations, above. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]