Talk:Black Panther (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Setting up the review for this film may take a day or two. Could you mention in the meantime why you believe that it is not too soon to nominate this article for review given that the film was only released this year and it is less than six months since its opening. Are you sure that all the international markets have had their openings along with their DVD releases or are any still pending? JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason we have been pushing to nominate this so quickly is that this film falls within Wikipedia:Featured topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe films, and the criteria for maintaining that topic is that we need to nominate each film article within a month of the film's home media release. Honestly, we don't usually get a response to the nomination straight away as you have done here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Expanding on Adam's response, that is the main reason, but there are no other releases pending. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to wonder if that Featured Topic should be reconsidered, since very few of the articles are actually "stable": they contain serious and obvious problems, and attempts to correct them are often met with auto-reverts and a brick wall of "not broke don't fix" on the talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Start full review

0 Lead section

Writing is fairly good in the lead section. In the last paragraph here it may be worth coming straight out and naming the #1 top grossing film for comparison. Also in the Box office section below if its not yet done there. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

1 Plot

Nice and concise plot summary. My comment would be to trim the mid-credits and after credits mini-segment at the very end here, which is not really adding anything particularly useful to the well written plot summary. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel these are sufficiently suffice in the overall plot summary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The last two short sentences in the plot section dealing with credits should be dropped as not being part of the plot of the film but more related to the marketing of the film. Once the credits start to roll, the optional inclusion of voice-overs for the credits, promotional materials, and gag-reels are normally excluded from the discussion of the film itself. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we both disagree with you on that, they are not marketing material at all. If either of those scenes was before the credits, they would be included in the plot summary, and being placed during or after the credits should not affect whether a scene is included or not. Also, they are discussed in the production section and it is ideal to mention plot stuff that is discussed in production first in the plot summary to give context to that later info. And if you are specifically worried about the post-credits scene being set up for Infinity War, we have it sourced that Marvel did not ask Coogler to put that scene in, so it was never intended as only marketing for a different film even if some of us feel like it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

2 Cast

Interesting and well-documented character details. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

3 Production

There should not be any problem making some mention of Snipes extensive issues with the courts, something short to indicate that it is common knowledge. I am not sure that your "In June 2006, Snipes said he hoped to have a director for the project soon" quite covers it all, and this seems your last word on Snipes. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Snipes' personal life, at least in this context, doesn't need to be highlighted in this article. His issues with the courts weren't because of this film, and I don't think there was any correlation between those issues and him never being a part of this incarnation of the film. It has never been indicated that Marvel was ever truly considering Snipes for some role, nor waiting to start active development on the film until he was released from prison. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Without your stating simply that he was in court, readers will not for the most part remember if his highly publicized government disputes came before or after or during his interest in this film. If this happened either before or after the film then you might be correct to exclude it, but since it came during development then it should receive a short simple statement of his concurrent disputes. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on this. I don't think it absolutely has to be added, but I wouldn't be against a short line that perhaps gave context to why we stopped discussing him. I would just be concerned about adding something from a source that does not mention the film, which could be getting close to a SYNTH issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That is partially my concern to, that we would be approaching WP:SYNTH, because just because the tax evasion occurred while Snipes was planning development of the film, we don't know that the conviction was reasoning behind Marvel Studios not involving him anymore. The most we can add I feel, is what I've done with this edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

My own inclination is to Adam on this one; a short one-liner is all that is needed. If Snipes is incarcerated for 3 years during the film's development then he is not doing anything else, period. A one sentence account of the following would do the trick and usefully inform readers without forcing them to look up the years of Snipes being forced away from participation: "Snipes reported to federal prison on December 9, 2010 to begin his three-year sentence, and was held at McKean Federal Correctional Institution, a federal prison in Pennsylvania. On June 6, 2011, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear Snipes's appeal. Snipes was released from federal prison on April 2, 2013, finishing his period of house arrest on July 19, 2013." JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That is still too much detail that isn't really in the WP:SCOPE of the article. I have added a very small sentence about this, that should be satisfactory. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your one sentence version is all that's needed here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

3.1 Development

See Production comments above on Snipes. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Also important for the various sections in the Development section is that they are getting a little on the long side and the wording could likely be tightened somewhat for the benefit of readers. The material itself is fully researched and from reliable sources though tighter rendering of the narrative would be nicer for readers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? A lot of work has got into cutting these down and making them concise, so a little more direction on this would help. I don't think we should be removing good content simply because the sections are getting a little longer than some other articles that readers may be used to. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Adam here, that we shouldn't be reducing the content simply because it is lengthier than some other articles. That would be a detriment to the readers, because we've found some good information here to give a great overview of the film in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Both of you have written a nice section with good references but a 250Kb article is going to put a strain on some readers available time to get through the whole article in a reasonable amount of time. Let me simplify this to state that I do not think you need that long quote at the end of the opening Development section here. It states that they don't see eye-to-eye so why not just state it that way without including that long quote. That would shorten the section. The other section breaks you have added to this section, for example "Costumes", is well thought out and useful. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reduced the DuVernay quote. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Much better. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

3.2 Pre-production

Article does not single out a section for Writing or for the process of Casting (process of selecting the cast as opposed to listing descriptions of the characters depicted as portrayed on the screen). Nice Design section here. Costume design and Set design are usually separated when discussed in books, which you have not done, but which books dealing with films in general accomplish. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added a writing subsection. Regarding a casting one, casting occurs throughout the entire production process, so in this preference of formatting it is better to exclude such a subsection. In addition, this is a similar style of formatting implemented across all of the MCU film articles. I'm not quite sure if you are stating anything in the last sentence of your comment, but I feel the general "Design" heading is sufficient, without need for further subdivision. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sections within the development section are a little on the long side. Readers singling out one section at a time being read in isolation from each other are likely not to notice, but readers trying to do a top-to-bottom reading of the entire article will notice the length of some of these long sections in Development as a whole. Try to shorten the narrative a little. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've subdivided the Design section, but see mine and Adam's response above to your 3.1 comment regarding shortening. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You have doubly over-quoted sections tripping over each other here, a blockquote near the top of the section and an Infobox quote off to the right side in this section. The blockquote to me looks a little overdone and one a sentence summary is all that is needed at most to shorten it and replace it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Reduced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

3.3 Filming

Should it simply state that all filming was digital in so many words. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Digital filming is such commonplace in the industry today that it doesn't need to be noted. We do discuss the format, camera, and lenses used by the DP. If there was a special way of filming (ie Infinity War in the IMAX format, or Christopher Nolan on actual film), then that would be something to note. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

3.4 Post-production

Might be nice to see Editing broken out as a separate section as you have already done with the section for Visual effects, side-by-side. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Given how we have formatted the section, the post-credits info plus editing, and then separate VFX, I don't feel a subsection with a single paragraph for editing is necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

4 Music

Nice trims by you last night to this section, though I am wondering if you could go a little further and get it down to a single paragraph. There is already and fairly nice article for the soundtrack already linked and there is no need for duplication here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Will look into doing this (per my availability, may be a day or two). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I've adjust the section further. Of note, please see a version of the section that existed in this edit back in early June. While it is more concise that what I have currently adjusted the section too, what has been added some more context/info for the reader here that does not go nearly as in depth as the stand alone article does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let you decide which of these you prefer, generally the shorter the better for subjects, such as Soundtrack, that already have their own main page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is probably fine now, still pretty short but includes a few bits of context just to help those who don't want to go read the soundtrack article. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

5 Release

Interesting and well-written here with good citations. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

5.1 Marketing

As amusing as it is, I suggest not adding anything further on the Lexus here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing else was planned to be added, so not sure I understand this comment, as we've made the Lexus info pretty concise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Its fairly certain that the Lexus marketing people will really like this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We are just detailing the marketing that took place. There is not much else you can do with a section called "Marketing". - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's five fairly short sentences in the whole section that are dedicated specifically to the Lexus content, with 2 provided contextual info (for the Super Bowl commercial). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing this amount of detail as needed for the Lexus in this pretty long section. A one sentence version could simply state: "Marvel Studios formed a multi-level partnership with Lexus on the film, with the 2018 Lexus LC being featured in it by doing (a), (b), (c) and (d)." Or, whatever wording you like, but not 5 sentences, since its already a pretty long section without your 5 sentences. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't see this as an issue nor a highlight of Lexus. By adjusting it to one sentence, it would become an unruly run on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because it says a lot about Lexus does not mean we should remove it, this is all noteworthy marketing info that we would not remove if it did not all involve the one company. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This section as a whole is overdone by a least a third. Both of you want to tell me that the success or failure of marketing Black Panther was dependent upon an essential comic book featuring the Lexus vehicle? This is obscure in the extreme. Reduce these five sentences on the Lexus to one sentence. Identify the vehicle and pick your three favorite cites from the ones you already have from all of your five sentences here, and be done with this edit as one normal single sentence in your own words. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with it being overdone. We are also not saying anything remotely close to what you think we are. Simply that we have thoroughly covered all aspects of the film's marketing and its partners, but not so much that it's like a hidden advertisement for any of the partners mentioned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

5.2 Home media

Is Ultra HD the same as '4K version' hi-def here? JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

6 Reception

See individual sections below. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

6.1 Box office

Section should incorporate comparisons to the Infinity Wars blockbuster which followed Panther. Something more than just a passing comment which you have included in your Pre-sale section already. Your comparisons to Age of Ultron were correct when they were done prior to the release of Infinity Wars but need to be updated now that the after Infinity Wars era has dawned, which has become the dominant box office standard now and not Age of Ultron. Similarly, should readers of the article be told what the previous #1 film for black audiences was for comparison and clarification. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. We shouldn't be consistently updating any records Black Panther obtained with other films that come after it, even Infinity War, despite it releasing a couple months after. In Black Panther's space and time, it did make and set these records, even if they have since been broken by today, or a film in 5 years. Regarding the #1 film for black audiences, I know I have not seen what the previous one was, but will investigate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please specify where you are seeing about the #1 film for black audiences? I don't believe I see where were have listed this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My reference was to him as the top grossing black director in Hollywood in history, which is what I meant. Regarding the issue of comparisons with Infinity War, I need to add that I am finding an avalanche of reliable sources which compare these two films by name as being back-to-back blockbusters for Marvel. Here is Fortune [1], here is The Washington Post [2], and here is [3] just off the top of the google search list when you type in the two film names next to each other. This needs some short comment in this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

People are always going to make comparisons like this, but we can't keep updating film articles every time a new film is compared to an old one. I think there may be a balance here, where we could get a small mention in, but I'll leave it up to Favre since he is more comfortable with the "Box office" section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying about meaning the top grossing black director. As far as I've seen, I did not see any mention of what was the previous hold. SassyCollins any chance you might know/have insight to this? Regarding Infinity War, any comparison you are looking for seems better to include at the Infinity War article, because that film was looking to surpass this one. In these sections, I always find it is better to always discuss the film in relation to those that came before it, and obviously anything in the present. If we continually look to comment on the release of future films in relation to this, we'll just be continually chasing our tail. However, the third link you provided might have some useful info to add here, but I think that would be for the Critical response section, not Box office. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 F. Gary Gray, Fate of the Furious, $1.239 billion. SassyCollins (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@SassyCollins: Thanks! I'll look to see if the sources we already have state this, or find one that does (or if you can too Sassy, that'd be great.) Also, I looked at that third source and feel if anything, it would be better for inclusion at Infinity War. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Don't know if this is any good... (http://www.indiewire.com/2017/05/highest-grossing-movies-black-directors-film-box-office-1201815358/) SassyCollins (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, Gray and Coogler are the first and second black directors to reach the billion dollar milestone (WW). SassyCollins (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that would work to cite. I've found this which puts Coogler at second (before he did surpassed Gray) and then this Reddit post confirming it, but no one else seems to have made an article about it as far as I can find. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:How 'bout this? http://www.showbiz411.com/2018/03/11/box-office-firsts-black-directors-have-1-black-panther-and-2-wrinkle-in-time-ryan-coogler-second-black-director-in-billion-dollar-club

I found one! Here - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Just found the same one! Nice. SassyCollins (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

News flash from latest issue of Entertainment Weekly. The very last issue of Entertainment Weekly is now giving numbers for combined domestic and intl receipts for the Marvel universe films and putting BP at the very top ahead of Infinity War for combined receipts. This is on page 40 in the June 22, 2018 issue. It should be updated here and elsewhere. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and SassyCollins: Thanks for that restore. The title of the new EW article is "Are superhero movies really review-proof", and the numbers it is giving for combined receipts are $700M domestic for BP and just under $650M domestic for IW. It still does not link through Google, though I have a copy on my desk. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not have access to a physical copy of the issue, but if/when it comes online, I can add it in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I do have the physical copy if needed. As long as you cover somewhere in the article that BP outpaces IW for domestic receipts by over $50M at this time then its ok to use whatever online cite you have. Confirm to me where you place BP as #1 for domestic receipts in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If I can get access to the article in question, I will add it in, because nothing stating this is online. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Your are telling me that you do not have a single source that tells you that the current domestic receipts for BP is at $700M and the current domestic receipts for IW is at $640M. Is that what you are telling me? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood with your wording. As stated earlier, the info on any records or numbers should be compared to films released before Black Panther. So it shouldn't be noted it outpaces IW, mainly because that film is still in theaters, and very well could ultimately end its run ahead of BP. If IW concludes its run still below BP, then it could be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

6.2 Critical response

It would be nice to see at least something about comparisons of Panther to Infinity Wars which came right after it. A number of reviewers have gone out of their way to compare the two films and it is worth editing some of that in here which would be useful since both films are considered blockbusters even when placed next to each other. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

See my response to the box office comment above. We again should be talking about BP as itself, and not really in relation to subsequent films. Which, if there is any notable info there, is probably better suited at a general MCU article such as Marvel Cinematic Universe or List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you have already historicized the reception of BP by including its comparison to other films in the top ten lists you have included and referenced throughout this article, then some short comment from the very large number of reliable sources citing BP by name on this issue is useful here. Films are part of a historical and industry process which includes more than just the time and place of its original release and distribution. No-one could have fully predicted the back-to-back blockbusters for Marvel in early 2018, and some short comment on the number of reliable sources that have already commented on this issue is useful for this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this is similar to the "Box office" section. I wouldn't want to encourage adding sections to film articles that list different films that reviewers thought were better or worse. I think this is even less noteworthy than a mention in the "Box office" section. Also, just because a lot of comparisons are coming up now doesn't mean it is going to be a significant comparison moving forward. This may be something better to revisit down the track once we have a better idea of how all these films set together in the public conscience. Perhaps if we are ever pushing for FA in the future? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

6.3 Community response

Very useful section, and readers I think would be well-informed if some of the positive black community response to the film would be further added here. It would be useful to readers of this article to understand the importance of the film to the black community and minorities in general throughout the world. Since your Analysis section is already fully developed you might be able to add a little more here as a framing for the Analysis section which comes next in the reading of this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Will look into this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added a couple additional sources, but the big points (the GoFundMe campaigns, representation on-screen comments) have been covered in this section in terms of the community's response. I feel what you are asking for is a lot of what we do cover in Analysis. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added a bit more about responses in other countries to try and show the global scope and relevance a bit better. If there is anything specific that you want us to add then let us know, but I agree with Favre that a lot of the other things that I can think of are probably covered well in the analysis section. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both editors for this. Its very useful material. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

6.4 Analysis

Nice Cultural importance section here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

6.5 Accolades

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

7 Future

There was a cameo of some of the characters here in Infinity War which should probably be mentioned here or at least somewhere in the article. Also should some comment be added that there is or is not a sequel in planning now in the summer of 2018? JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Per formatting of other MCU articles, each "Future/sequel" section discusses direct sequels, not subsequent MCU appearances (which in this case Infinity War would be). All info on the status of a sequel is in this section currently, which, as of Feige's March 2018 comments, nothing specific about the sequel to reveal, but it is being planned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a quote could be added from The Washington Post's "What's next" article which I have linked above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are going for here, but we do want to avoid this sort of thing. It is just very problematic to have mentions for future appearances like this in every future section - imagine if Iron Man (2008 film) dedicated a whole section to every MCU film that Tony Stark appeared in. An alternative that I can suggest, which could be a good change for all the MCU film articles, would be to include a see also or further info link at the top of the future section pointing to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films where readers can learn more about other appearances by these characters in addition to the info on specific sequels that we have here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Its too early for anything resembling a legacy section here but with BP now being listed by Entertainment Weekly as outpacing Infinity War in combined receipts something should be said at least about its industry impact, both economically and culturally. The Infinity War people got this fact correct and went out of their way to make the BP landscape one of the battlefields in Infinity War. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a section along the lines of "Cinematic impact" would be good. Once we start to hear about future projects being inspired by this one I would be happy to put that together (similar to the one I made for Deadpool (film)). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. I think at this moment in time, specifically for this review, we simply do not have enough info to add info like this. But in a few month (say the end of the year), or even in a year or so's time, I definitely think there will be info we can add then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok to not include a Cinematic impact section at this time, but I would like to see a small section of the Industry impact of the film at this time, especially after the super performance at the MTV movie awards last night. There are two strong reasons for including such a short section for Industry impact at this time. First, is the immensely successful showing as the #1 film for domestic receipts for Marvel films in history which strongly changes the way Hollywood looks at predominantly black cast films as being 'A' class options for big budget productions. Second, the film has been a cultural blockbuster to black communities for taking cultural pride in what minorities can accomplish on the screen as summarized in the striking acceptance speech by Winston Duke at the MTV awards last night here [4]: “Thank you all for not just investing in not just a beautiful story, but investing in a continued conversation for what this industry and what this culture can achieve, and what we all can aspire to be.” It deserves a short section at this time for Industry impact. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I still believe anything such as this can fit in any of the subsection we have currently under "Reception" without any new subsection needed. And I believe all that we have added there, give a very good overview of the film. I have going to see if Adamstom.97 has any additional thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I also believe this is a long term thing. We can keep it in mind and work on it when there is good info available, but at the moment there has been more talk about it potentially making an impact than it actually making one, and we already cover that talking in the other reception sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

There are just too many articles that are telling us that the back-to-back blockbusters for Marvel with BP and IW have re-established the industry expectation for what success means in future Marvel releases. Already we know that BP2 and IW2 will be measured against the success of these two films. I have already given you three cites for this; do you need me to provide 3 more cites for this in order for you to include it? Will a total of 6 cites be sufficient for you to include this topic at this time. Separately, BP2 has started casting and preliminary writing of new cast members for BP2 according to multiple reliable sources during the last month which should be mentioned here and you can see: [5], [6], and [7]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is something better to examine in the future, just not today. And as I stated before, a lot of this is more general MCU release perspective, not specifically to this film. Also, the sequel has not started casting nor writing for it, as none of the links you provided say any of that. Additionally, we don't include "wishful" thinking for actors wishing to return in similar situation as Jordan where their character died. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

8 See also

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That should get things started for now. More later, and the reference section looks especially strong and fully formatted at this time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I've replied to your initial comments above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I'll need to see the added material you state needing some extra time for adding to this article citing your comments for sections 4, 6.1, and 6.3 above, prior to my making further comments. Ping me when you are ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I was able to get to those three sections sooner than I thought. Replied to each of those again above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Nice of you to make those good additions promptly. My follow-up comments are above. Your strong reference section is useful to readers of this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I've added some replies to your comments above, but I haven't made any changes to the article until Favre has some time to have a look at what has been said here and give some input as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I've also responded some after Adam's comments. There is one thing I'm going to look at more to my comment in 6.1 - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: The new receipts data in the latest Entertainment Weekly I think needs to be included as I cited it above outpacing Infinity War. See my other comments above. New sections on Development look nice but keep in mind that the article is at 250Kb. Let me know when you have a look at my comments above and the new article in Entertainment Weekly on combined receipts in the 6-22-2018 issue. (There was just a large edit conflict on a large edit I have made and I may have lost 1 or 2 edits of your useful edits, please bring them back as needed.) JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice restore on those edit conflicts and ping me when you are ready with the other edits for the other comments I have made above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I've responded to all of your outstanding comments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: My comments are above. Ping me when you are ready after your edits. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: replied. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: It would be nice to see Marketing trimmed by as much as a third. The principle here should be essential marketing deployment which contributed significantly to the Box Office receipts of the film, and not an enumeration of every aspect of promotion which may have been marginally associated with the release and marketing of the film, such as comic books about the Lexus. Ping my account when you are ready regarding the other issue I have commented upon in the above sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: responded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Checklist as of 21 June

• After checking on several other GA film articles, I am finding that this candidate article appears to be excessively long and dealing excessively with details in the film past normal expectations for even thorough Wikipedia articles. At 275Kb it is much larger than Gone With the Wind at about 110Kb, much larger than Deadpool at about 175Kb, and much larger than 2001: A Space Odyssey at about 130 Kb. The article needs to be cut back either by tightening the text and abridging excess detail, or you may consider creating sibling articles for special interest issues to which the main editors of this page appear to have become overly attached. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion of the Lexus appears to be very close to what would otherwise look like paid promotion, and paid promotion is against Wikipedia policy. Five sentences on this one topic which even tell readers about comic book version featuring the Lexus is detail which seems inordinately minute and easily abridged: "A Lexus was used in some of the action sequences of the film", with your three favorite cites, or whatever one sentence version you prefer is all that's required. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• The various Infobox quotations, about 3-4 of them which appear throughout the article, appear to lack particular usefulness and seem non-contextual. The article already has more quotes in its written text than is necessary for a peer reviewed article. These Infoboxes of Snipes, the director, and the professor, should all be deleted or possibly replaced by useful images. There are far too many quotes already in this article.

• The principle applied by the main editors in this article of creating a sort of plastic bubble around the historical reception of this film as limited to only those films which appeared before or at the same time as Black Panther appears arbitrary and not useful. Films in general appear within historical contexts which sometimes have significant influences upon future film-makers. Many useful reliable sources have spoken extensively about the relation of this film to Infinity War but the main editors of this page appear committed to the creation of this artificial plastic historical bubble which they have placed around this film, which does not exist in real world of film criticism and is contradicted by multiple reliable sources which I have provided above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• There is more than ample evidence from reliable sources that a sequel is in the works when they report that actors are being contacted concerning new roles being planned for the sequel which were not featured in the original. That is what the reliable sources are using following the premise that the writing of a new script has, as among its first stages, the settling of the question of who its main characters will be and then writing a script for what they will be doing. The main editors appear to wish to not pay attention to these reliable sources as I have linked them above. If you have a citation which calls these reliable sources speculative then you can link it here. Otherwise these reliable sources should be included in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• It is significant that the article as a whole go through a significant re-editing and abridgment of un-necessarily detailed material. A 275Kb article for this film appears much too long. These revisions should shorten several of the longer section by a least thirty percent. My hardcopy printout of this file has gone over 24 pages in normal font size which is excessive as a burden placed on readers of this article. Abridgment of many of the sections by a third is needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: Multiple links to many of the reliable sources I have already provided in the sections of this review above. Ping my account when you are ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: Any progress over the week-end? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been distracted with a few things over the last couple of days. My biggest concern here is your insisting that the article is too big, which it is not. I am not saying that there aren't a few places where it could be cut down a bit, but the fact is that there is only 86kB of readable prose and WP:SIZESPLIT says that "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time" for that size. I believe that the added reading time there is mostly coming from the reception section, which is all pretty valuable stuff. Perhaps the box office section is a bit much, but that isn't really my area of expertise. As for your other concerns:

• There is nothing unusual about how we are treating the Lexus information, and we should not be deleting information from the article because one editor doesn't like it.
• The box quotes help break up the large amount of text in the article, just as images would, and there are no other quotes anywhere the same size as them.
• We can't predict what will happen in the future. Once we know for sure what the relationship between this film and Infinity War is and how they are compared in the long term then we can add discussion on that. For now, it is just too early. I know you have found some sources comparing them, but those sources are all rushing to conclusions. Give it a bit of time, and the whole thing will clear itself up. You can't expect the article to be perfect, even at GA we will need to be updating and improving it moving forward.
• There is no new information on the sequel, otherwise we would have added it.

We don't mean to be difficult here, and again I want to emphasise that I'm not saying the article is perfect or anything. But I disagree with these demands being necessary to get the page to GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I also have been away the past couple of days. I also have thoughts on your comments JohnWickTwo, and will hope to add those shortly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts from John's comments:

• Regarding the size of the article, as Adam stated above me, we should be looking at the readable prose size for the article which sits at 86kB. Comparing to the other articles you noted, Gone with the Wind and Deadpool are at 51kB, with 2001 at 60kb. I also sampled Avatar, which was 60kb. So I definitely think we can look at some "prose" reduction, without losing content. As Adam said too, the reception section has a lot of prose there (I scanned that separately, and it's 34kB), so I can look into that (mainly the box office section). Also on the topic of size, I've never heard of using a print out page count in judging an article, so I think we should avoid doing that.
• I am still in agreement with Adam regarding the Lexus info and the box quotes.
• To your third point, Adam and I both understand what you are saying, and are not looking at this film in a bubble. As I previously mentioned, at least in regards to records and rankings, the Film project has determined it is best to state and maintain the highest peak positions for them, and disregard future films over taking that position. If this wasn't followed, it would be a constant need to continually update every weekend as a new film comes out (especially with a modern film like this). I also agree with the comment Adam made above regarding this and Infinity War. Additionally, many of the articles you linked are not really speaking "historically" to these two films, only really that they have narrative connections, something we note in the article. I've not yet come across such an article I feel you are looking for to add.
• Regarding the potential sequel, we have to remember it is still just that, potential. We have no official (or reliable-source reported) confirmation of anyone returning to write or direct the film (otherwise we would include that). We also have no actors stating they are definitely returning for this potential film, only desires and hope. We are not a news reporter or rumor mill.

These are my thoughts. I will try my best to address reducing some of the reception section (namely the Box office section) as soon as I can in the coming days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: Since you are both in agreement about the need for abridging prose, it is going to be important that both of you do a thorough run through and abridgement of all of the sections and I will review the abridged article when both of you finish abridging the full text of the article. The general rule at Wikipedia needs to follow WP:TMI, that is, that the article reading time should be at about thirty minutes or less, and not take much more than that to read which is excessive for the average reader. Target this abridgement of prose to reduce the size of this full article by one third of the text, and let me know when you are ready. Regarding the Lexus in this film, I did research this over the week-end since both of you are for it and the GA for Goldfinger has had a similar issue with the Austin Martin which I think is dealt with in a peer review quality manner there in that article's "Effects" section. If you can formulate something like that here on BP and get it out of the Marketing section, then I will try to keep an open mind if you do it in comparable fashion to the GA for Goldfinger. The article size at the current 275Kb is too much detail. Let me know when you are ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Article really should mention that the film is targeted at young audiences

• Comment I find it somewhat problematic that one of the principal editors of this article, and others in a closely linked "series", gets "triggered" when other editors mention the fact that these films are targeted primarily at younger audiences on talk pages. I'm not entirely sure where such a reference would fit in this article, but it seems like a near-certainty that if it was added in a way that offended these sensibilities it would be reverted, which violates the stability criterion for GA. Basically almost all of the reliable sources assume that this film is targeted at children and teenagers, but the only way such content can be included in the article as is in the context of charities raising money to send specific groups of young people to see the film, or in opinions attributed inline to people like Loverd; all the reliable sources assume this film is targeted at children and young adult, and these statements which are in our article make no sense without that assumption, and yet our article has been deliberately structured not to make that statement, because at least one of its primary authors vehemently denies the statement, based apparently on nothing but personal opinion (since, again, all the reliable sources either take it as a given or state it outright).[8] Just my two cents on something that should be in the article but isn't, and its not being there makes a bunch of the article make no sense -- take it or leave it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about Hijiri? You have just made up a problem, assumed your solution will be reverted, and come to the GA review to complain about that. MPAA ratings are irrelevant and unencylopaedic, and regardless of that there is no "child rating" or "adult rating", you just made that up. And it is nonsense to say that reliable sources are insisting that this film is only for children. The only thing that maybe gets close to that is the stuff about wanting black kids to see the film, which is very obviously because this is an important film for all members of those communities and they want to get underprivileged children to the theatres. As per usual, your input is confusing, ill-informed, and frustrating in its blatant attempts to create a problem that does not exist based on your dislike for us and these articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ratings shouldn't be mention per WP:FILMRATING, and I don't know how mentioning how a film targets an audience is relevant, at least in this case. For a film like Deadpool (which is R-rated and not your typical action/superhero film), sure. But what makes this film unique out of the hundreds of other PG-13 action films? You've also not provided any sources to back up what you're talking about for others who have no clue what you are even trying to reference (like myself) to view and consider. Also, as point of order, this discussion should have probably been on the normal talk, and not the GA review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm... no, I didn't say anything about MPAA, BBFC, An Bórd Scannáin or any other film ratings. I was talking about how the films are marketed to children. Completely different. At least one of this article's principal authors threw a hissy fit the last time I mentioned this on a talk page, which is a serious concern for how neutral these articles are, since they seem to be written to push the (fringe) view that the films are super-cereal works meant exclusively for mature audiences. I'm not saying there's anything "unique" about this film; this is just the first GAN of one of these articles that has happened since the problem came to my attention a few days after the theatrical release of Infinity War. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... why don't you have a quick look at the heading you created for this discussion...

Nobody is saying that this film is "exclusively for mature audiences", and nobody should be saying that it is intended only for children as well. Both of those are obviously stupid things to say. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't add that subsection -- I don't know who did, but whoever it was probably owes me an apology. (I should also note that I didn't even notice it had been added until I saw your edit summary just now.) You called the fact that these films are marketed to children an "opinion", and said you wouldn't take children to these films because of their mature content.[9] And you flipped your shit at me immediately before that for making an off-handed comment that a number of critics pointed out that Infinity War made children cry. (And you'd better believe that I will oppose that article's getting promoted to GA without that fact's inclusion, since literally every spoiler review I read/watched made the same point.) Anyway, pointing out that the film (and to an even greater extent the tie-in merchandise) is marketed primarily to children seems relevant and encyclopedic to me; otherwise, the references to black children having a superhero who looks like them, and to charities taking children to see the film for that reason, would make no sense, and the article would not reflect the overwhelming number of sources that point that out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Please refrain from refactoring or recontextualizing other editors' comments without either their consent or, at the very least, leaving a notification that it was you and not them who made the change. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be adding a new topic comment into a section called "Checklist as of 21 June", which at the moment is not supported by any other editor. I am placing the section title of your edit as "Younger audiences", your words, so that it is not confused with a previous discussion of the Checklist by other editors. If you need to modify the title of this section to suit your topic then you can adjust it, but please do not disrupt the previous discussion of other editors with new topics unrelated and unformatted with respect to the previous discussion already in progress. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not add it to any section. I added it to the bottom of the GAN as it was when I noticed it, which is how these are normally supposed to work. And it doesn't matter if my position is "not supported by any other editor", since it has also not been opposed by any other editor -- you decontextualized it, causing two editors to argue against something I didn't say. (Yes, I know Adam disagrees with me, based on his personal issues with calling these films entertainments for children, since apparently some adults don't like to admit that the media they enjoy are primarily meant for children; I personally have no such issues -- I liked this film, and yet see no reason to deny what it is.) Anyway, if the article is not stable, it can't be a GA; them's the rules, and you have to abide by them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I’m late to the discussion, but I’m not following. I don’t see any active edit wars or significant day-to-day changes so I don’t see how the article is not stable. Are you basing this on what you perceive may happen if someone were to add this particular content? If so, bold edits get reverted all the time even in good articles. It’s a product of the collaborative editing process. The issue arises after the initial revert is made and how editors respond to that revert. I don’t even see any discussions of this topic on the article’s talk page. If you have a concern about a this topic not being addressed in the article, I suggest you start a discussion about it there, not in GA. The article seems quite stable and this doesn’t appear to be a main aspect of the subject, whose omission would prevent it from passing.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see any active edit wars or significant day-to-day changes so I don’t see how the article is not stable. Not having an active edit war just means it doesn't immediately fail (Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Immediate failures), while the actual criteria for promotion require it to be stable with no ongoing edit-warring or content disputes (Wikipedia:Good article criteria#The six good article criteria). This means that if there is a content dispute that was raised but left unresolved because of edit-warring or IDHT on the talk page (or both), the article is not stable and should not be promoted. Are you basing this on what you perceive may happen if someone were to add this particular content? Well, maybe. I can say for certain that the nominator, the editor who wrote the above-linked comments about these films not being targeted at (or even appropriate viewing for) children, and you have all engaged in both edit-warring and talk page IDHT whenever I raise content issues like this on any of these pages. The issue arises after the initial revert is made and how editors respond to that revert. I don’t even see any discussions of this topic on the article’s talk page. Technically, even if I were raising the particular content dispute here on the GAN for the first time (and I amn't -- there's also this other unresolved issue, FWIW) that would still make the article unstable if my concerns were not addressed, especially when I've stated a number of times that I'm frankly terrified to directly edit these articles (except when either my edits are really minor or the film just came out and so is highly visible so any edit-warring will be noticed and acted upon) because I know I'll be edit-warred at. If so, bold edits get reverted all the time even in good articles. Yeah, but normally discussion can take place and editors arguing based purely on their own feelings in spite of the sources are not able to force the article to conform to said feelings. This doesn't take place on MCU articles, and becomes even more difficult after the articles are promoted to GA status. The article seems quite stable and this doesn’t appear to be a main aspect of the subject, whose omission would prevent it from passing. It's mentioned in so frickin' many of the sources, though, including in the titles of the sources currently numbered 267~270, and some of the stuff in our article doesn't make sense unless one assumes that not only this film but the dozens of major superhero films with white protagonists were targeted at children. If you have a concern about a this topic not being addressed in the article, I suggest you start a discussion about it there, not in GA. As pretty clearly demonstrated on Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, when I raise issues on the talk page during a GA review my comments go completely ignored, and like I said above when I raise them at any other time I get hit with a wall of IDHT, which is even worse after the article is promoted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreement with @TriiipleThreat: on this. Since this article has been put on page protection weeks ago, the article has been stable with no edit warring or serial reversions. If you are aware of any ANI concerning this article then it should be linked here for immediate consideration of this significant issue of edit warring. Please link the relevant ANI reports which you are discussing for Black Panther and identify the editors by name involved in that ANI for each intervention you are indicating. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: What on earth are you talking about? ANI? If you don't understand the concept of article stability and its relationship to content disputes, regardless of how many reverts have been made within any particular 24-, 168-, 720- or 744-hour period, I have to question your ability to perform any GA reviews, let alone the eight reviews you've apparently performed in the last three weeks -- you should, for example, have autofailed this for the outstanding maintenance templates, not waited for the nominator to voluntarily withdraw their nomination. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but an editor with scarcely 400 edits to their name, almost all in a three-week period and a fairly narrow topic area (I love Kurosawa, and Ran is probably my second or third favourite of his films, but there's more to Wikipedia than those two articles), probably should not have been performing GA reviews. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been asked to provide the links for any disruptive editing or ANI on Black Panther to support your argument about content disputes but you have presented none. You have been asked by Triiiple to either try to make your bold edit in the article or to move your discussion to the article's Talk page to make consensus there, and you have ignored Triiiple. Both Adam and Favre have told you that this is a Disney film with a PG-13 rating and you appear to be ignoring them. You appear to have no support for your position. In the meantime I have conducted a 6-month search of the edit history and the only instance I could locate of serial reverts was last November when @Oshwah: was trying to control a disruptive editor here [10]. Possibly you could consult with another editor to help make your case since you appear to have no support for your position. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I gave you a link of a previous content dispute on the talk page, which was abandoned because several of the article's "shepherds" hit me with IDHT and some weird political stuff. I also brought up another, significant, content problem that should be dealt with before the page is promoted, and if it cannot because the article's shepherds don't want to then the article is unstable as it is subject to not one but two ongoing content disputes. If your interpretation of TT's comment, that he was asking me to make a bold edit that I knew would be reverted in order to knowingly provoke an edit war, then the comment was highly disruptive, and he should retract it. Provoking an edit war in order to undermine a GAN would be highly disruptive behaviour on my part; saying that unless I am willing to do so then my multiple content concerns are invalid is nearly as disruptive. Do you seriously not understand that the GA "stability" criterion applies not only to edit-warring but to ongoing content disputes? If you do not understand this, then you should voluntarily withdraw from performing GA reviews until you do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There are no current content disputes. We are saying that you are free to bring one up at the talk page. Regardless, I'm still confused why this "children" thing is an issue. Firstly, do you seriously want to change the lead to something like Black Panther is a 2018 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, targeted at children? Because that is what I would call trolling. Second, this all appears to have stemmed from a big misunderstanding on your part; people weren't taking kids to see this film because it is a good film for kids to see, they were taking black kids to see this film because it is a good film for black people to see and these kids may not have been able to see it otherwise. I find it highly suspect that you read through these sources and decided that their being children was the most notable part of the situation, not the blatant race issues that everyone else is focusing on. If this is the whole problem that you are attempting to address, then I am still strongly against this move.

By the way, I do find it funny that my pretty civil statement of "A few of the things you listed I had not come across as common criticisms myself, and the parenthetical about the target audience was pretty pointed. It just didn't come across as objective when I saw it" is apparently me 'flipping my shit'. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm including a link with an article from Mark Hughes (Forbes) on Ant-Man and the Wasp. 27th paragraph. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/07/04/review-ant-man-and-the-wasp-is-great-big-crowd-pleasing-summer-fun/#52c126594f57 SassyCollins (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Checklist as of 29 June

@JohnWickTwo: Just wanted to update you. Adam has done another copy-edit reduction pass on the article, but we are both working towards reducing the box office section (which he didn't do in the recent edits), which will cut down the size a good amount. With this, we are determining that it would be beneficial to subsequently split off the majority of the info to a separate list. We are both working on this, and give our availability through the weekend to work on here, we'll probably be able to implement this the beginning of next week and to have you comment further. But I just wanted you to know where this stands and that we're working on it, in case you were curious. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Week-end or start of next week sounds fine. Let me know when you are ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Thank you for your patience. The article's "readable prose size" has been reduced from 86kB to 68kB, in part by splitting off much of the box office section to List of box office records set by Black Panther. This new page size is much more in the range of the other films you mentioned previously. Please let us know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad faith reverts

WTH is the point of this edit? Are people this craptastic about using a less vague term than "overall" and deliberately revert to a blatantly factually inaccurate version? Nergaal (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me like this article fails wp:GA? 1.a.

"it became the highest-grossing [...] film overall"

" the film's largest markets were China UK, SK. It became the fifth-highest-grossing [...] in other territories"

It is blatantly obvious to anybody with basic knowledge of English that these two sentences are at least confusing. However, three times the edits have been disregarded. Furthermore, the edits still list the movie as #3 when it has been surpassed since by AIW, again, because 3 different editors insist on reverting it. And these are just issues I came across in the BO section.

The reviewer should consider a quick-fail for this GAN, since regular contributors to this article don't look interested in bringing it up to GA standards, and would rather undo any edits from other editors than to accept any sort of tweaks. Nergaal (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nergaal said it, not me. But yeah, articles that are subject to edit wars because the GA nominators are prone to OWN behaviour and auto-reverting should almost always be auto-failed at GAN; if this is not done, the reviewer should be made to seriously consider whether GAN is their forte. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't show up to an article under GA review and start an edit war just to stop it from passing. I don't know where you have come from Nergaal, but this is highly suspect. As has been explained multiple times already we go off the peak position, not the latest numbers. That is a pretty basic one. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't show up to an article under GA review and start an edit war just to stop it from passing. Dude, I was literallyessentially told to do that two sections up (Are you basing this on what you perceive may happen if someone were to add this particular content? If so, bold edits get reverted all the time even in good articles.), and the only thing that stopped me from doing so was my own good sense. If the only thing that keeps the article stable is the fact that no one can bear to put up with the article's owners'edit-warring and talk-page IDHT, the article is not truly stable, and cannot be a GA; the fact that another closely related article's already being a GA has been the cause of edit-warring and talk-page IDHT in the recent past is just a happy extra, but the principle would be the same even if it were purely hypothetical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (edited 00:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC) )

You may find this beneficial. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I was pretty sure one of JWT's comments was an explicit invitation to provoke an edit war rather than just "assume" you, TT, F1F93 or ATW would auto-revert and say the article was unstable on that basis, and wrote the above comment, including the word "literally", on that basis, but unfortunately when I went back to find the exact quote I couldn't find it within a reasonable length of time to leave the edit window open. I'm not convinced I just imagined it, but I really can't be bothered reading back over that whole exchange; I settled for the closest/first quote I could find, even if it was not "literal" (I left the word in essentially by accident). Your responding by sarcastically insinuating that I, an English teacher with experience working as a translator and proof reader, do not know what the word "literally" means is ... well, it's almost certainly a policy violation, and one for which you should apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't insinuating that you didn't know what it means, I was just pointing out that you made a big claim there and it was not correct (yes, I did so in a sarcastic way but I don't think I can be blamed for being a little over all this nonsense). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think now that I've withdrawn the claim, the burden should be on you to demonstrate that it was incorrect, if you are going to keep bringing it back up. I actually don't think it was incorrect; I just don't want to read through all the harassing messages I received above to find the proof, which is the only reason I withtracted (withdrew + retracted) it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No one told you to start an edit war Hijiri. And even if someone did, it doesn't matter. The point is, there is no stability issues here, only a couple editors who are apparently against this article being promoted to GA for reasons that have nothing to do with its quality. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

So you are saying we should pass a GA that DOESN'T CLEARLY EXPLAIN what it is saying? Only self-arbsorbed people editing these kind of articles would know the jargon you guys use. Even AGF, this article IS NOT UP TO DATE, since it completely ignores the fact that the peak position has been surpassed. But you can't AGF a bunch of people who thing "in other territories" is a legitimate term for a GA. Nergaal (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We avoid current positions for the very fact you just mentioned - doing so, the article would never be up to date. By using the peak position, it will forever have held that, even if surpassed. This is pretty standard practice with the Film project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The current phrasing blatantly implies it is CURRENTLY #3. Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Not it doesn't. Here's the sentence: During its theatrical run, it became the highest-grossing solo superhero film, the third-highest-grossing film of the MCU and superhero film overall, the ninth-highest-grossing film of all time, and the highest grossing film by a black director. Let's take out the non-relevant info: During its theatrical run, it became... the third-highest-grossing film of the MCU and superhero film overall... It became ≠ it currently is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Imply ≠ =. It is a perfect example of vague, weak phrasing which is repeatedly used in this article. As I've said, it doesn't pass 1.a and any attempt to rectify that has been brutally reverted. That single edit I did took care of 3 problems with the article, and since has been reverted 3 times. But after I have spent 30 mins just typing here, "in other territories" is still present in the article and apparently none of the 3+ reverters has yet any idea why that is a terrible phrasing. At this rate I'll have to do it myself. Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

"it became" is hardly the same as "it is", and this is the standard wording to avoid the problematic practice of constantly updating box office numbers. This is what is done for all film articles that follow MOS:FILM, so if you have an issue with it you should take this discussion over there and propose a widespread change rather than be difficult here for no good reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Dude, did you even read anything from the wall of text I typed here? Because at this point it's next to impossible to wp:AGF seening how much energy I put in into 3 edits you still ignore. Nergaal (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Alex Shih: In trying to visit the Talk page of Hiriji to leave a message to request that he stop his personal attacks against User:Favre and User:Adam on this assessment page, I noticed that both of you were contacting him regarding his interaction with another editor on another page at the same time. As I am the reviewing editor of this assessment page, I am supposed to be neutral and am limited in what I can say, however, both Favre and Adam have been making good faith edits to improve the article here, and Hiriji has made multiple allegations against each of them in this subsection and elsewhere. Is there something I can offer to do, while remaining neutral, which can try to limit the repeated allegations which are being made against Favre and Adam on this review page for several days by Hiriji. His block log here [11] appears to indicate a long history of personal attacks. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Checklist as of 5 July

Thank you for your patience. The article's "readable prose size" has been reduced from 86kB to 68kB, in part by splitting off much of the box office section to List of box office records set by Black Panther. This new page size is much more in the range of the other films you mentioned previously. Please let us know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: That's a useful new article creation you have made. In looking at the Production section, it would be nice to see your good Writing section moved up in the outline above the section it is currently in and after Pre-production. I noticed that the other sections Production have randomly covered bits-and-pieces of Writing which should all be brought together and integrated into this one section on Writing. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

John, could you clarify exactly what you mean in terms of moving the section? All of this writing information that is in the current section was naturally/chronologically where it is now. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Writing section after Development and before Pre-production is what I meant as a new placement. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Writing was part of the "pre-production" process, hence it being a subheader of that section. Could you point to some of the "randomly covered bits-and-pieces of Writing" you mentioned? I felt we had grabbed all major ones and moved them to the writing section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is one of several sentences currently in the Development section which should appear in Writing only: "In January 2011, Marvel Studios hired documentary filmmaker Mark Bailey to write a script for Black Panther, to be produced by Feige." Also, when you move "Writing" to be above the Pre-production section, then the Writing section appears in the main outline of the article at the top of the article which is an improvement. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Stating this a different way, "writing" covers the actual script written by the actual writers of the film. So from a chronological perspective, keeping the info on Bailey separate, is correct, because that was just developmental writing. That's also a secondary reason why writing is a subsection of "pre-production", because it pertains to the script process that produced the film audiences saw. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's an accurate statement of what you did, though I'm saying that the article needs an integrated Writing section to make the article stronger and have a better outline. Include the Pre-production Writing section in the integrated version of the larger Writing section which should appear directly before the Pre-production section with all the "bits-and-pieces" from the various subsections collected into this one new section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of where the section is, the writing section should not cover the hiring of writers as that is development information not about the actual writing process. As for moving it up in the heirarchy, we follow the four phases of filmmaking per MOS:FILM for our production section structure. This is not a requirement in general, but it is what we do for all the MCU film articles for consistency within the Good Topic which is important. Since writing is not one of the four phases, it is not one of the main sections of the production, but we do have it as a subsection where the writing process took place - I don't think it makes sense to have the writing info before pre-production here anyway, since the pre-production section starts with Coogler's hiring and then goes on to talk about him starting work as a co-writer, so the actual writing of the script that they used for the film has to have happened after that. Also, I just double-checked and did not see any actual writing info that we missed which should be moved to the writing section. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: The complex structure of this article is inadequately represented in the article's Table of contents at the top of the page, largely due to the extensive level of detailed information you are both carrying in the many subheader sections. The approach used in other peer reviewed film articles such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Prometheus from 2012 is a much improved approach. Also, the new Writing section should conform as well to the approach taken in the other sci-fi peer review articles for '2001' and 'Promethueus' which I mentioned above. Here is one of many, many sentences currently in the Development section which should appear in Writing only: "In January 2011, Marvel Studios hired documentary filmmaker Mark Bailey to write a script for Black Panther, to be produced by Feige." JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, development information does not belong in the writing section. If your concern is what is displayed in the table of contents, then that can be changed as we have control over what level of subheaders is shown in it. Adding one more level you get this version which you can compare to the current version. We generally find the simpler version to be beneficial, but there will always be exceptions to that. Does the expanded table of contents solve these issues? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

When you just did that in the article it did not help you since you expanded it and deleted the expansion immediately. I am trying to make better use of you strong effort at shortening the article from this week-end. You and Favre would be much better served by re-factoring the article using this outline:

3 Production

3.1 Development

3.2 Writing

3.3 Pre-production

3.4 Filming

3.5 Post-production (Editing)

3.6 Music

4 Design

4.1 'Historic Opportunity' (your current Design section)

4.2 Costume design (your current Costumes section)

4.3 Set design (your current Sets section)

4.4 Visual effects

Please re-factor this so that I can do a final read through this week-end with a final assessment up or down. I have tried to use your own section titles for this re-factoring to simplify it. The outline also works well as an improved Table of Contents for the article as a whole. You may optionally leave the Music section were it is now or include it in the Production section as outlined above at your option. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the others, I don’t refractoring is needed. Design is an integral part of production. The page like most film articles are fractured according to the stages of filmmaking. Writing is typically a part of Development, costumes a part of pre-production, visual effects a part of post production, etc.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The article for Filmmaking is written for films with dedicated filmscripts and not adapted filmscripts which are more complex. Since BP is an adaptation which was preceded by the graphic novels then the current Writing section is mistitled and should be more accurately titled as "Filmscript writing". The refactored version of the outline works much better in such cases and should be used here. It takes less than 10 minutes to fully refactor this article and the article is then brought much closer to such current peer-reviewed film articles such as "2001" and "Prometheus". JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m not basing this on the article but how films are made in the real-world. Films based on adapted screenplays for the most follow the same pattern. What you are proposing just doesn’t follow the logical flow of how the film came to be. If I want to read about post-production, it doesn’t make sense that I have to skip to another section to find the visual effects process. Or if I’m reading about pre-production, I have to look elsewhere to read about costumes and sets. As for your examples, there are many other good and featured film articles that follow this format.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Triiiple. John, these concerns are starting to get a bit random. I made my change in the article to show what it could look like, but I didn't make it permanent because there is no consensus to make that change from the group. If you look at the expanded version and think it is better, and everyone else agrees, then it can be restored.

What will not be happening is this random restructuring that you are suggesting. Again, this page is part of a Good Topic that we are keeping reasonably consistent: each production section is chronological, split into development, pre-production, filming, and post-production per the guideline at MOS:FILM. If there is enough information within one of those sections to justify a full subsection then that is made, so in this case in the pre-production section we have a lot of information on the writing of the film and even more on its design, so those have been created.

Even if that were not the case, the re-factoring that you have suggested does not make much sense. It jumbles up all the production information and implies that some of it was not part of the production of the film. Frankly, while I respect you and all the effort that you are putting into reviewing this article and helping us improve it, you can't tell us to completely change the structure of the page. So, if you prefer the more expanded version of the table of contents as can be seen in this test edit, then we can make the change to that. Otherwise, I don't think we are going to be able to satisfy you with this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If neither of you tries this new version of the outline (it takes less than 10 minutes to do in the edit preview box), then you will not be able to see that in doing it you would be able to remove a good deal of redundancy in the article. This would shorten the article further which remains at over 250Kb. Also, this version of the TOC looks much more accessible than the current 3-4 layered TOC in the current article even when it is expanded as demonstrated by Adam yesterday. The other option, without the new TOC, is to continue to abridge 2 or 3 of the longer sections of the article to trim the size of the article a little further which should be brought to somewhere under 250Mb. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Article length

@Yintan: On 26 June you had template tagged the article as having too much detail, and the nominating editors have trimmed the article by about ten percent. The current article is about 250Kb in length. Could you make a short comment on the level of detail in the article now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: While waiting to see if Yintan has a follow-up, it is possible to continue the discussion of the article length and its level of detail as still being over 250Kb in length. The discussion should focus on the length of the first two paragraphs discussing Snipes which starts over 10 years ago and goes on for 2 full paragraphs in the Development section. This film is Coogler's film, and Coogler should be the start and end of this Development section. Even though I presented some of the Snipes material for this section, the current Snipes material is almost at the level of being a pre-history for Coogler's project. My suggestion is to trim the Snipes material which currently take up 2 full paragraphs into a single sentence or so, and to get into the Coogler material as quickly as possible. Two paragraphs on the Snipes pre-history is just too much detail. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It became Coogler’s film but it didn’t start that way. How it became Coogler’s film is very relevant including Snipes involvement.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Just so you know I just split the accolades section into its own article, which should help reduce the overall size.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

John, can you please state how you are looking at the article's size? Per the Page size script, this is the current output:

• File size: 718 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 130 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 26 kB
• Wiki text: 243 kB
• Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11349 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1903 B

I'm not seeing anything near 250 kb, except "Wiki text" which isn't a parameter to judge in this case. We should be looking mostly at the "readable prose size" (which I've bolded) to judge the size of the article. That is only 69 kB, which per WP:SIZESPLIT, still within the "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" class (but much closer to it than when you first brought up the point). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The TOC index should be unlimited in the article in order for everyone to see the full nesting of sections which you are using in the current version of the article. The size of the artile is listed in the edit history fields as you can read them here:

(cur | prev) 16:09, 6 July 2018‎ TriiipleThreat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,774 bytes) (-6,374)‎ . . (→‎Accolades: moving to main article, has over 40 noms and should help reduce overall byte size)

(cur | prev) 23:46, 5 July 2018‎ Adamstom.97 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (255,148 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Adamstom.97 (talk) to last version by Favre1fan93) (Tag: Rollback)

That reads as 255Kb before Triiiple's edit and 248Kb right after his edit. The main issue is the excessive read time for the article which is currently well over thirty minutes which is Wikipedia's guideline for excessive burdens on readers of articles. Adam's edits and your recent edits from last week abridged the size by ten percent, which shaves only 3-4 minutes off the total read time. Just too much detail, even after Triiple's useful split. Please remove the TOC index limit in order to fully display the full outline in the article TOC box. Please condense the excessive detail on Snipes in the Development section. Its Coogler's film and his involvement should be the start and end of this Development section, with one sentence indicating he inherited some preliminary pre-history from Snipes. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, that is all useful information on how the project came to be. Its omission would be far worse than the couple of minutes of added read time, which would still only correspond to a drop-in-the-bucket.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

First to the size. The page size script I linked to is a very accurate tool for reading what the actual "reading size" is, so that is what we should be basing the "size" on. Looking as you did in the edit summary, looks at the whole article, which is all wikitext and formatting. I would expect that number to be quite large, given the reference section alone where we are very thorough in crafting them (unlike many other articles). To the content, I agree with Triiiiple. Also, this is in contradiction to your very earliest comments, where you want us to add a sentence about Snipes not working on it, and gave no indication then you felt the info was too in depth. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Instead of cutting useful information, another option (although I'm not terribly fond of the idea myself) maybe to split the community reaction and analysis sections into a separate article like Themes in Avatar.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Adam has already offered to remove the TOC index limit, and since he's not online at this moment, I am requesting that one of you remove it. I will respond to the two other issues you just raised when you remove the TOC index limit in the article as already offered by Adam. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Expanded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned that you appear to be changing your mind from earlier in the review John, and are also not using the actual page size calculator when demanding we increase the page (especially note that your measurements have been taking into account wiki formatting and references which should not be taken into consideration). If the article length really is still an issue for you when using the proper calculator, then we could look at Triiiple's suggestion. If we split off the community response and analysis stuff then we would be below 60kB. If we wanted to make this decision based on 10kB less vs. having these sections here in the main article where I think they are more useful to readers, then we could look to get some outside opinions specifically for that question. Hopefully with some extra input on that debate, we may be able to get this review wrapped up. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No change of mind here and I have consistently been stating that the article appears to have too much detail which needs to be addressed. Triiiple seems to have the best idea right now, and since both Adam and Favre are supporting Triiiple on this, then it should be done as a page split. I have already pinged Yintan for any added views he may have but he has not signed on since 4 July, and he should be given another day or two. Ping my account when Triiiple's page split is accomplished. Separately, could Adam and Favre have a look at the last entry on my own Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I would still like some more input on whether making the split is what is best for the article, perhaps with a request for second opinions at WP:GAN? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93: At this moment, if Favre and Triiiple can see this as a positive move forward then I am supporting them to go ahead with the split. I have already pinged Yintan for another viewpoint which he should be able to answer in another day or two. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I have no concerns over the article’s length and think a single slightly larger article is better than one good article and one subpar article. However, this maybe the only way to move forward beyond this obsessive concern for article size.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The policy for WP:TMI has been there for many years. It is not my policy but Wikipedia policy. Your idea for the split is a useful idea. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As Favre stated, I don’t we’ve crossed that point yet, where such drastic steps are needed. If for some reason the article continues to expanded, I would not be opposed to re-evaluating this situation but we aren’t there yet.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you be opposed to asking for a second opinion @JohnWickTwo? Or for us posting a notice somewhere asking for more editors to chime in before a decision is made here? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Would be nice to hear from Farve and Yintan on this to move forward possibly over this week-end. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I am still in agreement with Adam and Triiiple that I do not see the issue as it currently is (after splitting off the box office and awards table) being a size issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Options on the table

Thanks for Favre's last note. There are 4 options on the table at present to fix the excessively high length issues of this 250Kb article which currently under WP:TMI fails to meet the criteria of reasonable reading length for new readers of the article. Another editor tried to tag the article accurately as failing this criteria and was reverted by Favre as I recall, though I agree with that editor as to the excessive level of detail. There are four options of the table which can potentially adequately resolve this issue.

Option I: Triiiple's option of another split was placed on the table by him, and then it was apparently withdrawn by all 3 nominating editors (Triiiple, Adam and Favre), even though Avatar uses this approach to its benefit. Its up to you three if you want to withdraw this idea though it was Triiiple who put it on the table and it actually looked like a reasonable option to me.

Option II: The full outline as now appearing in the article's TOC is nested three level deep and is unnecessarily deeply nested from the standpoint of a new reader of the article. That is not to say that all three of are not fully in love with the article's TOC as you have written and nursed it for over a year. The current TOC looks over-developed and unnecessarily deeply nested to a new reader of the article. The alternate outline I presented above in full detail is far simpler and follows the fine example set by such peer reviewed films as the GA for 2001: A Space Odyssey and the FA for Prometheus (2012). It is odd to my reading that one of you stated that you did not see how such a newly outlined Design section could not contain subheaders for Set design and Costume design. If you reconsider on this Option II, you will be strongly on your way to allowing me to complete this GA assessment. Please consider this option again since it takes only 5-10 minutes to cut-and-paste this new TOC version in your edit preview screen to complete (that is how long it took me to do this in my edit preview screen with excellent results with a much simpler TOC with simplified nesting).

Option III: The pre-history of Snipes in Development is antiquated for the purposes of a Wikipedia article on Coogler's film. Snipes was not part of any of the awards ceremonies or awards reception parties or anything else after Coogler took over. If you are in love with your two large paragraphs and large quotebox of Snipes then move it to his biography page. If Snipes had stayed with the project it might have made sense to keep this information. Now that Snipes is divorced from all the awards ceremonies and reception of the film, then he is antiquated history and minimizing reference to him here to one sentence is a better option. If you are in love with your 2 paragraphs of material on Snipes which you have written here, then you should move it to the Snipes biography page and not leave it here on the page for Coogler's film in its current 2 paragraph form.

Option IV (last on list): The current Writing section is misnamed by your account and should be re-titled as Filmscript since you are excluding the pre-Filmscript writing evaluation which led up to it by your own accounts to me when I asked previously about this issue. Academy Awards are now based on the firm and non-debatable distinction that films written as adaptations are separate and distinct from original dedicated filmscripts in films for over 10 years now. They receive separate Academy Awards depending on whether you produced your film on the basis of the one approach or the other approach. My previous request listed as Option IV here is that you reconsider placing an integrated Writing section before the section where you have presently placed it and pull in all the comments you make in the article about the adaptation of the filmscript from previously written graphic novels. By pulling all the bits-and-pieces together, you will have a better article and will be able to remove some of the redundancy and make this material more concise and shorter.

These are the four options on the table. The three of you should get together either on-page here or off-page on your own Talk pages to decide carefully which Option or Options from the above list are best for you. In the past, you have made much here of the fact that all three of you are willing to chime-in in support of each other automatically. I urge you, as an alternative in your interest, to select together which Option or Options in the above list look best for you in order for me to move directly towards completing this assessment before the end of this week if possible. Even if you select only one or two of them, it would be I think in the interest of readers of the article for you to do this. I again urge you not to state that all four options are feckless since Option I at least was introduced and originally tacitly endorsed by all three of you. These are the four Options for your evaluation to make your best selections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: What is Option 2? Just removing the {{TOC limit}}? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

For Option II, see my edit of July 6 above as started here: [12]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't believe any of these options are necessary. You are continuing to point to the 250kB size of the article when myself and the others have stated this is not a number you should be referencing. Looking at that number, that counts every-single character included in the article. So if I were to edit and put in an extra whitespace somewhere, that's +1 kB. Hence, I could go into the article and reformat the entire wiki text with whitespaces and carriage returns, while not changing anything with how the article is actually viewed/read, and the number you are looking at would jump enormously. As continually stated, we need to be looking at the "readable prose size" provided by the user script, which is 68kB and well within article size limits. Now to each of the options. For 1, though Triiiple suggested a further split, I don't feel the content he suggested is expansive enough to have in a separately split off article. As they said, and I agree, at this point it would be better to have a slightly larger article (this), and a good sized article (this) along with an additional subpar one (the proposed split of community info). For 2, I don't see any issue with the current layout. It is following the basic parts of filmmaking (Development, pre-production, filming, post-production), with subdivision as needed. Also, this article is part of the Good Topic of MCU films, which per its criteria, should have generally the same structure of each article. The other articles of the topic are formatted like this (with subdivision as needed), and I don't see any reason this has to change either. For 3, the development done by Snipes very much led to the eventual film we have today. Just because Snipes wasn't involved with the film, means we should truncate the work done by them in the article, providing historical context. I don't see the need to have this greatly reduced. For 4, I feel I've stated my opinion on this above, that the content as is is placed correctly. If that means it may be beneficial to gain a second reviewer's opinion on the matter, then I suggest we pursue that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There is already a second opinion of the level of detail in the article as being excessive. The read time is well over thirty minutes which is against WP:TMI. While the other 2 co-nominators are contemplating their responses, and I hope at least one of them will mediate your response that all four option are feckless, here is the outline I previously presented as a possible enhancement based on the FA for Prometheus and the GA for 2001, both of which are peer reviewed articles, here:

3 Production

3.1 Development

3.2 Writing

3.3 Pre-production

3.4 Filming

3.5 Post-production (Editing)

3.6 Music

4 Design

4.1 'Historic Opportunity' (your current Design section)

4.2 Costume design (your current Costumes section)

4.3 Set design (your current Sets section)

4.4 Visual effects

This outline is based on the existing peer reviews articles mentioned above and appears to look better than the one you are currently using with 3 levels of nesting. I urge the editors to try to mediate with Favre on rejecting all four options as feckless. Reading time of article is excessive due to excess level of detail as previously tagged by another editor. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

John, the three of us seem to be in agreement that there is no significant size concern here, and I don't think we are going to change our minds. If you still insist that this is an issue then could you please ask for a second opinion? I think it would really help. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And by second opinion, we mean another user who can act as a reviewer of the Good Article nomination, not a user who has a total of 2 edits to the article, and the one in question (the "overly detailed" tag) was not given a reason for why it was added. That is what we are asking for by requesting the second opinion (which in turn notifies users visiting the GA nom page for this). Also, circling back the size point. This edit is exactly what I was trying to convey. Absolutely nothing changed in the article, yet we lost nearly 950 bytes by removing extra whitespace in refs. Hence why the 250 kB is give a false illusion of size. Also, please note that WP:TMI is an essay, where WP:SIZERULE (the same as WP:SIZESPLIT) is a guideline, so we shouldn't be looking too much to WP:TMI, when it doesn't give us anything to measure the content against (where SIZERULE does). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: Both of you ought to have some sense by now that I have been assuming good faith in the edits you have been making. There still is no follow-up from Yintan or Triiiple which somewhat leaves things on the fence for the moment in terms of waiting for second and third opinions. If however, both of you can decide on at least one option from the 4 placed above and implement it, then it might be possible to see that as sufficiently constructive to move forward to a final read-through in this assessment. Choose one of the options, your choice between the two of you, implement it and let me know when you are ready for a final read-through. It is the cumulative read time of the full article which remains an issue, it takes too long over thirty minutes to read in the form that the article is currently presented in. Implementing any one of the 4 options, any one of your choice, would allow a final read-through to take place at this time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, like Adam and Favre I don't think size here is as major of a concern as its being made out to be. According to Favre, the readable prose size is well within the "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" category and I am of the opinion that the topic does justify the added reading time. That said, I've been thinking about where we can cut some detail since it seems this is John's only path forward. I know I originally suggested Option I but like Favre, I don't the content here would make for a viable article. So instead, how about Option V: I think we can drastically reduce the "Community response" section and then merge whats left into the "Cultural importance" section. The vast majority of the "Community response" section deals with a single campaign to fund screenings for minority youth. This could be reduced to a couple of sentences by removing a lot of the details from the involvement of individual participants. I think this cut would be a lot more useful than cutting the production information before Coogler's involvement without which we wouldn't know how it got into his hands in the first place.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I still believe that is useful content, and maintain my position that the slightly larger size is justified (also, a lot of the content was added per this review...). I really must insist that we get some more opinions on this as we have already reduced the size of the page significantly and worked with the reviewer to improve an many aspects until this point. Having one last issue that we disagree on seems like the perfect time to get some more thoughts on it, and requesting second opinions at the GAN page is not difficult. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Triiiple's suggestion looks constructive, and there is no reason that he should be discouraged from effectively moving the material he indicates to the article for African-American culture which is in need of a Films section. Triiiple would be doing a significant service to the article for African-American culture as well as making a contribution to making the article on BP more accessible and more reader-friendly. A short summary as Triiiple suggests fits the needs. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For reference, that cut brought it down to 245,326 bytes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Closing assessment

This is a giant article listed as only low importance for the Africa studies Wikigroup on the article's Talk page. The article was approaching 300KB originally which suggests that it was being considered as being at the level of importance of a U.S. President's biography. The three nominating editors have taken this into account, however, and have been able to trim the article to under 250Kb. I find the article now to be comparable in size to the peer reviewed FA film article for Prometheus (2012) in its scope. It is of importance that the three nominating editors make some note to themselves that they are bringing some personal edit history with other disgruntled editors based on their old interactions with them to nominations like this one. They should address this disruptive editing issue more closely with an experienced editor like Cullen in order for this situation not to repeat on future peer reviews for nominated articles by the three co-nominating editors here. The current article has a very good reference section and all the citations are fully formatted. The images in the article check-out and are useful and informative to readers. The last abridgement to the article made today is useful and makes the article more reader accessible and more reader friendly, and the article is passed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)