Talk:The Defenders (miniseries)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 11:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming for later. JOE BRO 64 11:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's my first set of comments:

"Marvel's The Defenders~~, or simply The Defenders,~~ is..." This is extremely obvious and something the reader can assume on their own. Chopping this would lose no meaning.
"The miniseries is was produced by..."
Is the Premise section all that necessary? I mean, it's only a sentence long, and everything the reader needs to know about the series' storyline is in the Episodes section. I think you could easily chop this without losing anything. You could then add the information about its place in the MCU timeline in the MCU tie-ins subsection.
I don't think all my comments about the Cast section from the previous GAN were addressed. For instance, for the Jessica Jones bio's first sentence, "A private investigator suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder who runs her own agency, Alias Investigations", the cited sources don't verify that she's a private investigator and that her agency is called Alias Investigations. I know you could argue that these character bios are verified by the show itself, but that in and of itself is WP:SYNTH at best and WP:OR at worst because a lot of the time it's based on an individual observation.

More to come. JOE BRO 64 15:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review TheJoebro64. I have updated the lead and added some new sources to support the character bios. For the premise, I do think it helps having the basic idea of the series at the start without needing to read through the summaries, especially since we would usually have it there with the separate season articles having the episode tables so it is somewhat consistent with the other Marvel/Netflix pages. I also think it makes sense to have it for this in particular since the premise (bringing the four characters together) is the whole reason for this show's existence. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. JOE BRO 64 18:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The latter described the completed story as epic." I don't think this is necessary. Of course Loeb is going to say this, he was the one responsible for all the Marvel Netflix shows.
Link to the Olympic Games at "Loeb compared the miniseries to the Olympics"
"... Sigourney Weaver was announced as to be playing the main antagonist ~~of the miniseries~~..."

JOE BRO 64 18:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These three are complete. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 and Favre1fan93: just wanted to let you guys know I'm still working on this. The past few weeks have been extremely busy for me, and I should be freed up by next week so I'll finish the review then. JOE BRO 64 02:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've been pretty busy with real life as well. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot a bit myself... absolutely no worries! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The review should be done by the end of the week. JOE BRO 64 20:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: alright, I've done a final read-through and there's nothing much of significance, given that I've already reviewed these sections before and not much has changed since then. The only significant thing I really have to say relates to the reception section. I think it's passable, but it sort of suffers from the "A said B" structural problem (see WP:RECEPTION for more info on this). It's not a huge issue and you don't really need to do anything about it if you don't want to, but the section is structured as essentially a bullet list of opinions converted to prose. The essay I linked to has advice on how to fix this, which isn't too hard; it mostly boils down to paraphrasing, grouping related opinions, and varying sentence rhythm. If you need an example to look at, the reception/commentary sections for The Child (Star Wars), Ghostbusters II, and Sonic the Hedgehog do a good job at avoiding the "A said B" problem.

There are only two other real comments I have, which also aren't huge problems. First, the article does sort of lean a bit heavy on quotes. For instance, I think that In August 2014, Vincent D'Onofrio, Wilson Fisk in Daredevil, stated that after the "series stuff with Netflix", Marvel has "a bigger plan to branch out" could be simplified to something like In August 2014, Vincent D'Onofrio, Wilson Fisk in Daredevil, stated that Marvel planned to expand the MCU after the Netflix series (probably not the best example, just a basic idea). Second, throughout the production section, there's a number of mentions of "Marvel announced" or something similar without mentioning which branch (Marvel TV, Marvel Studios, Marvel Comics) you're specifying.

That's it, and once these are resolved/responded to I plan on passing this article. Sorry it took so long—exams got in the way! JOE BRO 64 21:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a stab at adjusting all the points you brought up shortly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I went through and removed some quoted material and adjusted the Marvel instances. Regarding the reception section, I know that personally is not an area I feel strongly in my ability to restructure from "A said B". I'll give it a go with how it is now to see if I can do it, but perhaps Adamstom.97 might be able to help me here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue with the "A said B" style when it comes to full analysis sections, but for critical response sections I am hesitant to do the same reorganizing as requested. When we are just recapping a bunch of different reviews with different opinions, I find it makes more sense to keep each person's thoughts all together rather than come back to them many different times based on different recurring issues. That's just my personal preference though. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Is there anything else you'd like us to address? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93, I'll read through the article again tomorrow. I don't think so, but I'll let you know. JOE BRO 64 00:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstom.97, sorry this took so long. Passeroony. JOE BRO 64 19:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]