Talk:Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Heartfox (talk · contribs) 00:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Review coming soon. I'm sorry you've had to wait since April. Heartfox (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: No worries, thank you for reviewing! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting was announced in mid-2019, including actors who: Casting was announced in mid-2019 and included actors who
    •  Done
  • portrayed DC characters: link "DC" to DC Comics
    •  Done
  • season-high ratings: link "ratings" to Nielsen ratings
    •  Done
  • The poster image appears to be nominated for deletion, but it hasn't been yet and no discussion has taken place since July 17. Honestly I appreciate most of the NFCC that Wikipedia has but I feel a lot of times it just doesn't align with common sense. It's not like it's a single copy of a rare artwork that could be easily reproduced if uploaded to wiki... it's released specifically for promotional purposes so that other people will reuse it (I wish it could be uploaded in a higher quality). And one or the other could be used in the marketing section anyways if it's deleted so this doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
    • As you probably saw, I participated in the nomination discussion and stated my piece. I am awaiting for closure regarding how to proceed. I am hoping the image remains as is, but am ready to use the current left image for the infobox and to move the current right image to marketing, as you suggested yourself, should that be the outcome.
  • which part of MOS:TVPLOT are you interpreting to justify the plot's 840-word length? It says "Individual season articles should use either episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode (such as Smallville (season 1)), or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both." I'm interpreting this article like an individual season.
    • This part about episode article: Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words. As we are dealing with 5 episodes total, 840 is well within the plot limit.
  • 2019–20 television season: include "United States" for clarity
    • Do you mean 2018–19 television season in the "Development" section? Regardless, I don't think the United States is necessary.
  • Guggenheim said: "For Barry and Oliver, there is an emotional denouement that is reminiscent of Endgame ... Endgame is an exclamation point. 'Crisis' is a semicolon." This isn't a full sentence, so I think the "for" should be in lowercase and the quotation mark at the end should go within the period per MOS:LQUOTE. Also check other quotes (if it's not a full sentence then it shouldn't end with a quote mark).
    • Let me look at this particular example and the other quotes.
    • I believe I've made all the proper adjustments.
  • I think you forgot to link Screen Rant in the references
    •  Done
  • the writing section feels a bit overwhelming, perhaps some stuff could be put under a subheader. I think a goal could be to trim the article from its present 53kb to under 50kb?
    • I can look into subsections and would be open to suggestions. I don't necessarily see the article being 53kb as a bad thing or necessary to trim.
    • @Heartfox: I thought a bit on subsections, and thought given the current layout of content, the following breakdown could work: The second-fourth paragraphs could be sectioned under something like "Creation" or "Conception", paragraphs 5-9 talk about what happens in the episodes, so that could be a section (not sure on a name for it), and then the final tenth paragraph could be "Planned appearances" or the like. Thoughts on doing this, and perhaps any of your own naming suggestions? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: more to come, just a bit busy atm. Heartfox (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I've responded to your points above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93: some more points below. I support you're ideas/titles for dividing the writing section. Heartfox (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedowitz announced at the Television Critics Association add "press tour"
    •  Done
  • the image captions could probably use periods as they're all full sentences
    •  Partly done I did not add one to Guggenheim's because that is just a fragment
  • all of The Futon Critic references should be cite press release and add via=The Futon Critic as they're not created by the website, but by the network/company
    •  Done
  • each[26] missing a period
    •  Done
  • DCEU this acronym should be defined in a previous mention
    •  Done and also took care of some overlinks while fixing this
  • "Crisis on Infinite Earths" began with Supergirl on December 8, 2019, continuing with Batwoman on December 9 and The Flash on December 10. suggest rephrase to ""Crisis on Infinite Earths" began with Supergirl on December 8, 2019, and continued with Batwoman and The Flash on December 9 and 10, respectively.
    •  Done
  • will be available are available
    •  Done
  • TV Line article is TVLine
    •  Done
  • TV by the Numbers refs could be changed to url-status=unfit or something as I don't see a point in providing a link that is redirected
    • All four are already tagged as dead, taking the archived urls over the original url. The archives are working and show the intended content
@Heartfox: I've completed the above. Do you have a suggestion for what the second proposed section in Writing could be named? I was thinking "Episode content" (as that more or less covers what is there as I mentioned), but I don't really like that as an option. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Do you have any additional comments, as well any response to mine above about the Writing section subtitles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: Sorry, just a bit busy with school right now. I'll try and finish this on the weekend. Heartfox (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Just checking in again. Also, the file discussion closed as delete, so I've uploaded the posters individually. The first is in the infobox, and the second is in Marketing, with a bunch more commentary added there for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93: Unfortunately, I still have to disagree with regards to MOS:TVPLOT. As this covers multiple episodes, I believe it should be treated as a season article. Therefore, it should have no more than a 500 word prose summary overall, unless you want to move them to an episode list which has summaries of no more than 200 words per episode. Episode articles refers to an article about a single episode. As this article deals with five, I don't think that applies.
  • The ratings table needs a few corrections if you wish to make it 100% correct:
    • Episode 1: source says it's a Live+7 rating of 1.04, meaning it should be rounded to 1.0, not 1.1.
    • Also, Nielsen makes slight adjustments to the final live+SD ratings when DVR is released, so the DVR references can be used for the whole table instead of TVBTN and the shares can be removed by using the noshare=y parameter. For example, episode 3 was a 0.6 in live+sd, but changed slightly to a 0.65 when DVR was released, meaning it should be listed as 0.7 and and the DVR is a 1.1.
      • I've made some of these adjustments, but I don't feel we should remove the initial live final references, even if the DVR has a slight discrepancy for them.
  • get[ing] the chance get[ting]
    • Fixed
  • are the external images from the publisher's website? I don't think we can link to possible copyvios. Maybe link to website url instead of the actual jpg?
    • They are from Comic Book Resources. I can see if Guggenheim posted the images at all, but I don't think the direct links to them at CBR is a copyvio.
  • refs 172 and 173 appear to be undefined
    • Fixed the issue.
  • /Film -- rename or edit redirect?
    • The page was moved away from /Film, without discussion. I've since moved it back to "/Film".

I've responded above. As to the plot point, I have to disagree with that assessment. Yes, these are five episodes, but we shouldn't treat this as a season article because it isn't that, since we are only dealing with 5 episodes, not 13-22 that a season does. The episodes are the following word counts: ep 1 is 204, ep 2 is 151, ep 3 is 202, ep 4 is 175, and ep 5 is 108, all well under the 400 limit for episode articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking a second opinion on this GA review. Heartfox (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok. I want to ping as well @Brojam, Alex 21, and Kailash29792:, who are top contributors to Arrowverse-related articles, if they would like to join the discussion to add anything to your comments, and for whenever a second GA reviewer takes a look. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all. Are you just looking for a second opinion on the plot? AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. I am a believer that less is usually more. In saying that I do not get overly concerned about hard word limits and am more interested in what is written and whether it would make sense to someone not familiar with the subject matter. In this case I have never seen an Arrowverse or Arrow episode so am in some position to make a comment on that. First off there is no context to the synopsis. The article starts (i.e. the first wording in the body) To prepare for the coming crisis, but it makes no mention of what the crisis is. It feels like I have started in the middle of a book. A sentence or two of background is needed. Reading the rest I am completely lost. An antimatter wave is involved, there are a lot of characters doing stuff but it is not very cohesive, there are a lot of links but many lead to sections in articles that are not very informative. I think worrying about word count at the moment is a bit technical, it really needs to be tighter, more focused and easier for a lay person to follow. I need to know the key players, the villains from the heroes (or at least simple motivations if it is more complex than that), what the crisis is and a bit more about the multiverse. I wouldn't mention characters or minor arcs unless they are absolutely necessary as it turns "game of throney" very quickly and is hard to follow. AIRcorn (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand what you're saying Aircorn, but given these are all serialized television shows, the individual plots shouldn't be expected to recap what's happened in past episodes. Especially since this is a crossover between 5 of those shows, that's why the "prelude" section is there to give some of the general background to help lead in to these episodes. I have gone ahead and added a hat note to that section directing to the last crossover's plot, as that also give some set up for this one. As I'm responding to Adam below, plot sections are not my strong suit, but I will attempt to adjust it some, and I'll see if I can address some of the cohesion for the plot itself. But as I've said, I don't think it is beneficial to add sentences of backstory that are covered by past episodes in each respective series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't mean recap previous plot points, but more to provide context of where these episodes sit. I personally would have a background section (I assumed that is what the prelude is supposed to be), but even a sentence or two would work. Even just changing To prepare for the coming crisis to To prepare for the coming antimatter waves would be better. I would also have some context on what this is (i.e that it is a crossover episode from ......) as the very first thing in the body you read, even if you simply copy the first sentence of the lead here. Outside of the lead (where it gets 9 mentions) I don't think this is mentioned in the body until the development section. The plot itself could be tightened, but it is hard to judge it when the prelude itself is confusing. AIRcorn (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can offer a second opinion as I have not been involved in making this article, though I have previously consulted on it for Favre. In my opinion, this should not be considered equivalent to a season article. The point of having a short summary for single articles is because individual episode articles should cover the full details for each episode so to avoid redundancies the season summary should be concise, and we also don't want 20 episodes worth of plot in a season article. This is not that situation. Here we have several episode articles combined into one so there is no other place that would have full episode summaries. This is the same as for a two-part episode where the plots for both episodes would be summarised in a single article. I could still see the value in suggesting a lower limit for each episode just to avoid the summary getting overly long, but I don't think it would have to be much lower than what is being used at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plot is never my strong suit in editing or creating it, but I will take a look to see if I can make a few reductions, and if there is any clarifications that can be made to Aircorn's points above, while not adding greatly to the existing word count. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying the plots should be deleted. Because this covers five episodes and some shows literally have a season with five episodes, I am treating this as a season article and MOS:TVPLOT says they should be in an episode table, not prose. I can't in good faith promote this when it goes against the "layout" MOS in GA criteria. Placing on hold for seven days otherwise I may have to fail this and you can be free to renominate and/or find a different reviewer. Heartfox (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • But again, this should not be considered a season article because it isn't. It's an episode(s) article, but yes, it is covering more than one. Honestly, we should be looking to WP:FILMPLOT, because the five, 42-minute episodes, are more like two films worth of content, and could consider this as a TV film. FILMPLOT for a feature film says plot should be between 400-700 words. We are at 840 currently. As Aircorn and Adamstom.97 suggested, there's some adjustments that can probably be made to the plot, and I'm going to attempt to reduce it some. But I can't go along with considering this a season article. I'm again going to ping @Alex 21, Brojam, and Kailash29792: to see if they will comment on this matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Heartfox, if it's a season, then what show is it a season of? What one particular show? None, hence, not a season article. Favre is correct that it is more akin to a film; for example, how ZSJL will be a four-episode miniseries that makes up a film. Preparing to fail it because you don't agree with multiple views against you is a bad faith move, and I highly recommend you reconsider. -- /Alex/21 15:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a single "episode" article (it covers five) so the only other alternatives are series or season. Series doesn't make sense so I treated it as a season article with regards to MOS:TVPLOT. As Favre1fan93 did not want to put the plots into an episode table, there was a disagreement on how to proceed. As he has now brought up, perhaps it is more akin to a TV film/miniseries and so MOS:FILMPLOT applies. Therefore I agree that the plot should be trimmed/edited to about 700 words max and other adjustments be made for clarity per others' comments.
Also, I believe the GA criteria should supersede whether there's "multiple views against" someone. Layout is a GA criteria; with regards to MOS:TV, this was not being followed. If there's a 20 episode season, we can't just write 4000 words in prose. That's not what the MOS says. I don't know why five episodes is still being interpreted as one. Heartfox (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my area of expertise, so sorry I can't be of help. Just wish the CW had commissioned Crisis as a single movie (similar to El Camino) rather than five episodes. That way could have helped us. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: I will be working towards reducing the plot by about 100 words (since we are at 804) to get it closer to FILMPLOT's guidelines. Might be a day or so before I get to doing that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, concerning so the only other alternatives are series or season, no, they're not. You've been given a more relevant alternative. Series doesn't make sense, you're correct, but neither does season. It is not a season of any particular show. You can't have a series-less season. I'm glad you agree to conform with FILMPLOT instead, and "GA criteria" should be discussed and a consensus come to, instead of a single reviewer threatening to fail the GA because they personally disagree. You are correct concerning the 20 episode season, but again, this is not a 20 episode season, nor a 5 episode season. -- /Alex/21 22:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. A single reviewer does decide if an article meets the GA criteria. It has always been this way. We can offer advice, make suggestions or point out areas that we think need addressing, but the final decision on whether to pass or fail this sits with Heartfox as the reviewer. If you believe it has been incorrectly failed (or passed) it can be taken to WP:GAR or probably more simply nominated again. If you beleive there is a consistent pattern of poor passes or fails then it can be brought up as a user conduct issue at WT:GAN or WP:ANI. AIRcorn (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alex 21, there is a page for the GA criteria. Conforming to Layout MOS is one of the requirements. Specialized layouts, like for Wikiproject Television, is in the MOS. MOS is a reflection of consensus. This is a television-related article and was nominated under television, not film. Additionally, as "a single reviewer", I have the right to fail it and the nominator has the right to renominate and find a different reviewer. Per WP:GAN/I#N4, "the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer." Heartfox (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation all conform to the MoS. However, it is you arbitrarily determining that this is a season article without any policy, guideline, essay or MoS's to support your position, even going so far as to ignore the question as to what series this apparent "season" belongs to. You have had multiple editors give you their opinions on the article; you've been told that automatically failing the article based on this one unsupported choice will most definitely be considered bad faith, given that it is proof that you refuse to take on any advice, so that's your choice either way. -- /Alex/21 00:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All, we've come to an understanding that we'll look to FILMPLOT for a word count limit, which at least between myself and Heartfox as the reviewer, have agreed upon for me to work towards so they can continue their review. I may not agree with their initial comment about the plot, but I understood they felt there was issue with it hence each of us asking second opinions when we got to our impasse. I feel that ultimately did its job, as we are at our understanding of FILMPLOT and can continue with the review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting here just to keep it clean, but it's more of a general comment. I really don't understand how Heartfox is comparing a crossover article to a season article. Those are completely different types of articles. The MoS does not address these kind of articles (as it fails in so many other areas). As Adam commented above, one of the reasons we limit word count is because an episode article can always be created so there is no need for redundancy. However, in this case, an episode article will never be created, as the crossover is that article. I really don't see how drastically reducing the word count will make the plot even remotely understandable. --Gonnym (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to see if it can be done, conforming to the limit of FILMPLOT, but it may not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93, let's move on from word count. Per the lack of info for crossover articles in MOS:TVPLOT and comments from other editors (some whose tone I very much take issue with), I will treat this as a WP:NOCONSENSUS issue and "retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal" (keep the plot word count as is). Thank you everybody for your input; perhaps a discussion could take place on WT:TV regarding crossover article plot lengths.

Favre1fan93, I would like to continue this review. I will have a few other points to add hopefully in the next few days. Thank you for your hard work and civility. Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Heartfox. For what it's worth, I just attempted to reduce the plot and was able to reduce it from 840 words to 811 (you can see what was adjusted in this diff from my sandbox, along with word count changes per episode summaries). Similarly to what Gonnym mentioned above, if I started removing much more than I did, I think it the plot would not be understandable. But yes, let's move on and I'll address any other comments you bring up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New comments:

  • Despite this, the crossover I don't think "despite this" is necessary
    •  Done
  • I still feel the article is overly long. There are considerable amounts of quotes that could be paraphrased to provide clarity to readers.
  • "A–, calling missing a second quote mark
    •  Done

I am uncomfortable with proceeding with this GA review. I have not watched anything related to this crossover or any of the series. I feel any further comments I give will not be a beneficial use of time for you or I. Good luck with this nomination. Heartfox (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've decided not to continue with the review. Thank you for the comments you made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths_(Arrowverse)/GA1&oldid=984899314"