Talk:Generations (Marvel Comics)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take me a couple days to get through every item on this list. I've reviewed your work before, but I want to reiterate that if you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them. I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"features a different team-up of a classic Marvel superhero with their modern-day counterpart." - suggest "features a different classic Marvel superhero teaming up with a newer counterpart". I think this flows more smoothly and avoids a recentism issue with "modern day".
I wanted to directly link to "team-up" to emphasize its use as a comic book troupe. Also "different team-up" suggest that each pair is different, not just the classic hero. How does "contemporary" sound? Or even "Modern Age counterpart"?
I think "contemporary" is an excellent option.
I think I'll go with "Modern Age counterpart" per your below comments.

"follows the events of the "Secret Empire" storyline in which a number of young heroes are sent through time on a journey of self-discovery." - this makes it sound like Secret Empire was the time-travelling story. The sentence needs to be rewritten to clarify.
Well the initial time-travel did occur in "Secret Empire" as noted in the background section.
In that case, what about "...the "Secret Empire" storyline which concludes with a number of young heroes being sent..."?
Done

"the goal of the series is to examine" - past tense now?
Done

I'm not sure "middling" is the best way to describe the sales since no baseline is established within the prose. Some of them needed multiple printings, so it would seem there was actually unexpectedly high demand...
Only two issues broke the top ten in their debut, one was as far down as #51. Do you have a better suggestion?
Did any of the review sites do an analysis of the series sales? Comics Beat usually does a sales roundup with commentary, and you've already sourced the Mayo reports. Do either of them have a good descriptor you could use?
Based on the comicsbeat source you listed, I think "underwhelming" would work ("These are not the kind of numbers you expect for a Marvel event, especially not when there’s a #1 on those specials").

Publication history
See notes below in 3a

The first two sentences could be combined for easier reading. Is there a better phrase than "modern-day counterparts"?
Done How about "Modern Age counterpart"?
Excellent choice.
Done

Is there a good reason to quote the whole synopsis? I think paraphrasing would help this a lot. Something like "The following month, Amazon listed the upcoming hardcover collection with a synopsis that revealed classic heroes would be uniting with their replacements."
Done

"The series consists of a ten issue anthology featuring..." - this reads clunky. Why not just say it is a ten-issue anthology?
Done

"is scheduled to run from" - update tense
Done

The quote from Alonso either needs more context (he was addressing questions at the time of announcement that aren't all that important post-publication) OR should just be removed entirely.
Added a bit more context, but I think the point that this series is canon and does effect the ongoing continuity needs to be addressed especially since we are dealing with dead / past characters. Even post publication, questions about its implications may still come up.

I think the last paragraph would benefit from some paraphrasing. Keeping in mind that the article should be clear to every reader and not just fans, it might help to say something like "Many writers involved were excited to explore the different ways their characters could connect. For instance, GWW used a mentor-like relationship in the Ms Marvel title but BMB emphasized the "spiritual connection" between the Spider-Men."
I paraphrased the longer quote, but for the most part all the quotes here are pretty brief and don't think that they can be stated any better.

Background
As brief as this is, I would combine this section with the next one. Maybe a level two "Plot" section with a level three "Background" and "Issues"? I don't think this particular point is worth expanding on.

This needs to be rewritten for a non-fan audience. Maybe "Following the Secret Empire event, several Marvel heroes are temporarily transported through time for individual journeys of self-discovery."
I just moved to the issues section, I don't think we need third level headers here. Also this sentence explains events that happened in, not following "Secret Empire". Some brief detail might be warranted.
Some detail yes, but I think the current sentence goes a bit too technical. Since neither Cap's doppelgänger nor Kobik are important enough to be mentioned in any of the issue summaries, I think the basic setup can be described without them. On the other hand, you could provide a bit more detail on Kobik's motivation for the time travel. I haven't read Generations or Secret Empire, so I can't be too specific here.
Done

Issues
I'm going to say this section is ok as is. The table has a great layout and the descriptions are well-written and brief. Some of it is a little hard to follow (teenaged Jean Grey travels back in time and encounters herself as an adult), but that's just comics. It's beyond the scope of this article to make these stories crystal clear to someone unfamiliar with the cast.

Collected editions
Surely there's more to be said about this than just the ISBN and release date? Sales? Bonus content? If you can't find much, it might be worth moving this to the bottom of the publication history as a line of prose. The ISBN is already in the infobox.
Done I just got rid of it.

Reception
Should "Amazing Spider-Man: Learning to Crawl" be italicized?
No, its a story-arc so it should use quotation marks but since it is already being used in a direct quote, I added single quatations.

Some of the reviewers called the issues by alternate names - for example, the Spider-Man book is called "Generations: The Spiders", "Generations: Spider-Man", and "Generations: Miles Morales and Peter Parker". Are all of these legit? From variant covers? I suggest either paraphrasing the quotes to remove the unofficial titles, using brackets to replace them with the real one, or addressing the discrepancy in the prose.
Done

This won't sink the GA nom and doesn't bother me personally, but the reception section is very formulaic. You may want to read through Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for some tips on variation. That's come up at some of my FACs before.

The sales data is presented directly without any commentary. Since the prose is reiterating the table with chart position, would it make sense to add the rank to the table and drop the prose?
Not really. I actually included the chart support the prose since its so mechanical and make it easier to interpret. Also the prose alleviates any WP:ACCESSIBILTY concerns of the chart. Besides, I added some sourced commentary per your suggestion above.

I think it's worth noting the numbers are estimates for copies sold to Direct Market retailers and not customers.
Done

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
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:
I formatted a few references for capitalization. Otherwise, all good here.

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:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig came back with some pretty strong results due to extended quotes. They're properly cited and attributed, but I'd be more comfortable if some of the quotes in the review section were paraphrased.
This appears to be a false positive. 3 out of 4 of the results that tested positive for moderate levels of possible copyvio are from comicbookroundup, which is itself a collection of quotes from other sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The collected edition section is pretty sparse. Did the trade include any extras? Are the sales figures out for it?
The section has been removed.

Does this short box warrant a mention? It seems like an interesting part of the publication. I believe there was a poster as well.
I don't think so, not without any sourced commentary anyway. I don't think that the mere fact that it exits is worth mentioning.
Fair enough.

It seems odd not to mention that Marvel had seen a wave of criticism for some of their diverse characters prior to announcing this series. I found a few sources that connect the two. There may be better ones out there.
Done

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Some recent vandalism was reverted within 20 minutes. Otherwise quite stable.
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:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The infobox image needs alt text.
Done
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Nice work! Argento Surfer (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]