Jump to content

Talk:Inhumans premiere/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: AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) 03:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Favre, I saw the episodes but haven't edited the article and I've got a bit of spare time, so I'm going to review this one for you. -- AlexTW 03:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks! Really appreciate it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93: Thanks for waiting. Here's my first sweep over the article. -- AlexTW 04:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • The first sentence could do with rewording. Perhaps "are the first and second episodes of the American television series Inhumans, as well as serving as the series' two-part premiere".
     Done
  • Reword of the rest of the lead onwards too. From the second sentence onwards, it goes: "Marvel info, episodes info, Marvel info, episodes info." Perhaps "Based on the Marvel Comics race of the same name and set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), the episodes share continuity with the films and other television series of the franchise. The episodes were written by Scott Buck and directed by Roel Reiné, the episodes were initially released together as an IMAX film, with series regulars ..."
     Done
  • I'm confused on The IMAX presentation of the episodes premiered then It debuted in IMAX theaters with two different dates, both related to the IMAX release of the episodes. I'm assuming that it a premiere at a single theatre then a release to the general public? Perhaps just a small fix required there.
    I altered it a bit. Let me know if that helps.

Plot

[edit]
  • are exposed to Terrigen Mist to reveal their abilities Maybe just an extra sentence to explain the "abilities", what they are and the fact that Inhumans have them.
    Not sure what you'd like me to add, since the following sentence is this After the process, Iridia receives the ability of flight, while Bronaja does not believe he has received powers.
  • Bronaja does not believe he has received powers "powers" should be "abilities" for conformity.
     Done
  • When Black Bolt's brother Maximus, who does not have abilities then how is he an Inhuman? Why doesn't he have abilities? "who does not have abilities due to ...".
    Let me know if my change helps.
  • I feel that the Terrigen entering Earth's water supply linked text is an WP:EASTEREGG link, but I'm not sure how it should be dealt with.
    Made a note as is done with similar situations on MCU film articles.
  • she attacks Maximus with her prehensile hair, which Maximus realizes is the vision the Bronaja saw. The plot never describes Bronaja telling Maximus about his vision.
    It does in the second paragraph: Bronaja has a vision of Maximus pinned against a wall with snakes attacking him
  • and continues to use Bronaja's visions to predict the future What other visions has he had?
    I honestly don't remember from the episodes, but I don't think they need explanation, just that Maximus is using his ability to predict the future.
  • The summary for the second episode could do with a good deal of expansion; it currently sits at 179, whereas the summary for "Behold... The Inhumans" is almost double that at 338 words long. MOS:TVPLOT allows up to 500 words, so expansion on either of them could be done, but work on the second episode's summary would be beneficial.
    Honestly, that's about it for the episode. I feel any more would get in to unnecessary detail and minutia. We did have this version for a bit that was a bit longer, and this initial one where both plots were

Production

[edit]
  • Why did IMAX decide to fund and release the first two episodes of Inhumans? The Development section only goes on to detail how they did do it, but not why. Why was this a special case?
    We have some more detail regarding that on the main article for the series. The info here, in order to avoid duplication, was kept a bit sparser.
  • In Casting, Nicola Peltz has her name listed, but not her character, in contrast t
    You didn't finish your thought. But (assuming what you meant) there was never any official/reliable material stating what her character name was. Some sources are saying its "Jane" but I could never even find where that may have originated to see if it could be used.
  • Jenna Bleu Forti as the lovely Inhuman server Is this precisely how she was credited?
    Yes.
  • Filming details A new, wider lens was crafted for the cameras specifically for use on Inhumans, then goes on to detail how filming took a lot of [...] different lenses. Was the new lens used the entire time, or only for specific shots? Also, who said that quote?
    Potentially for certain shots, I don't believe we had a complete breakdown of which lenses were used when, only that at least one of them was specifically crafted for filming. Reine said the quote. I've put his name at the start of that sentence.
  • Marvel and ABC also preferred Reiné's version The "also" can be removed.
     Done
  • A majority of the additional content in the broadcast versions was a subplot for Louise as she investigates the missing rover on the Moon. Was there a specific reason why this wasn't included in the IMAX version?
    I never found anything specifically, but I would presume it was for time length and/or to keep something exclusive for ABC. Why it was this subplot, not sure.

Release

[edit]
  • though, as with all IMAX releases, each theater "determine[s] showtimes on a week-to-week basis", so Inhumans did not remain on IMAX screens at some theaters for the stated two weeks. I get what this is saying, but I think it could do with a reword to read smoother, and minus the quote.
    I've adjusted. See if that helps.
  • the theatrical run of the episodes was between the releases of Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok The release dates for the two movies would be beneficial, for comparison between these episodes and the two films.
    Happy to add, but the dates are not in either of the sources we use for the sentence. Do you think I should get a third or fourth source for the dates, or would it be okay just to add them?
  • CTV aired the episodes in Canada. When? Same day, same week, at a later time?
    Same date. Ref added
  • with reactions praising the visuals for Lockjaw What was the reaction on the rest of the trailer? I feel this is necessary, especially as this details positive reactions, but then goes on to talk about the negative reactions from the public.
    No other reliable source really reported on the Upfront reaction. And Comicbook's embedded Tweets only refer to Lockjaw (sans one, which I don't think is enough to draw additional conclusions).

Reception

[edit]
  • The first paragraph should be in its own subsection.
    What do you suggest?
  • The hope was regular IMAX customers Reword with "was that regular".
     Done
  • Jeff Bock of Exhibitor Relations called the opening weekend earnings "ho-hum" What does "ho-hum" mean? Appreantly it means "used to express boredom or resignation", but I've never heard of it before today, I'm not sure it's the best example to use a direct quote.
    It means boring, nothing spectacular. I think it is a good descriptor of the results, and have linked the word to the Wikitionary entry.
  • In the Ratings section, just detail that they're talking about the television release on ABC. "In the United States, for the televised broadcast on ABC, ..."
     Done
  • Typo: scalling -> calling
     Done
  • Awarding the episodes a 1 out of 5 That doesn't feel like much of an award to me. Different word, perhaps? Same for Awarding the episodes a "C-", Darren Franich of Entertainment Weekly felt and Collider's Allison Keene awarded the episodes 1 star out of 5.
    Changed to "giving"/"gave"
  • Was there a single positive review, or were they all negative? If there were any positive reviews, even one would be a good inclusion.
    Nope. All were negative, and any of the positives from Rotten Tomatoes are not from reliable sources.

Discussion

[edit]

Article title

[edit]

Thanks for doing this Alex. I don't think I'll have the time to get to all of this straight away, but we will get it all sorted ASAP. For now, I just wanted to ask what your thoughts were about the article's title and the suggested alternative of Inhumans: The First Chapter. The IMAX release was marketed as the latter, and apparently that title appeared onscreen during the IMAX release. I had wanted to come back to this discussion after there everyone involved at the talk page had appeared to move on, but decided to just leave until the GA review to try get some more opinions. As our neutral, third-party reviewer, do you feel like we should look into maybe changing to the other title? Just want to know if you have any feelings on the issue really. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I'm in no rush. As for the title... I'm on mixed feelings on it. It was in the back of my mind the entire time that I was reading through the article earlier, and since the episodes aren't actually titled "Episode 1" and "Episode 2", I felt that it should be moved, but Behold... The Inhumans/Those Who Would Destroy Us (using the actual episode titles) would be too... unwieldy. I looked up other similar cases, such as Gorilla City (The Flash), where "Gorilla City" is the name of the overall arc for the two episodes, and the titles for the episodes are "Attack on Gorilla City" and "Attack on Central City", so they're different to the article title too. This could be the case with this article; however, if it were to be moved to Inhumans: The First Chapter, the article would need to make a lot more reference to this, primarily (but not limited to) in the lead and Release section, with a rewording of the lead to introduce it as The First Chapter. If such changes were made, I would support such a move. -- AlexTW 12:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer an "and" instead of a "/" if that title is chosen as I feel it makes it more understandable that they are 2 different titles (while MOS:SLASH doesn't talk about titles, I think it still applies here). Out of the 3 optional titles in this discussion, the current one is the one I feel is the worst option. --Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restarting this conversation Adam. I think my hesitation to "Inhumans: The First Chapter", is just the lack of third party references confirming this (hence why we had the discussion in the first place, because we weren't too certain and articles weren't really mentioning it.) Though it would be unwieldy, if we are to change I'd go with Gonnym's suggestion of "Behold... The Inhumans" and "Those Who Would Destroy Us". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamstom.97, AlexTheWhovian, and Gonnym: I've thought of a potential other title. How about Inhumans IMAX presentation? That's less unwieldy than using both episode titles, avoids "The First Chapter" since we don't have the sources to back it up completely, and is still an accurate representation of the article content. I don't think any part of the proposed title should be disambiguated (ie Inhumans (IMAX) or Inhumans (IMAX presentation)) because that doesn't fit with naming conventions for either TV episodes or films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the sources we have (marketing and at least one review) would be enough if there was consensus behind the decision as well. If we want to think of an alternative that is less unwieldy than the current title then would "Inhumans premiere" suffice? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would back "Inhumans premiere", as the article doesn't focus on just the IMAX presentation, but both that and the ABC presentation on TV. -- AlexTW 03:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support "Inhumans premiere". Also, should NCTV be notified of this, to maybe get some more opinions? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message there directing users to this page if they are interested. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody from NCTV has made an appearance in the past two days, so if the consensus is on "Inhumans premiere", then the move should be acceptable, and since all edits are in order, the GA review will be able to pass. -- AlexTW 17:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I say let's give it a week's time since Adam made the post to see if there are other comments. If not, I'll make the article move before we pass the article. Also, there is one comment from Gonnym below I'm still waiting on a response for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, give it few more days. But if we don't get anything then I think "Inhumans premiere" is a pretty good option. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. -- AlexTW 02:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. My apologies, I was away for the weekend. I've gone ahead and moved the article (and am currently working on fixing links across the site). Let us know AlexTheWhovian if you think there is anything else that needs to be addressed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, the bolded part of the lead should be the articles title. Just need to rework the lead to introduce the article as the "Inhumans premiere", then state the episode titles. After that, it'll be good for a GA pass. -- AlexTW 00:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a bit awkward to introduce it as "The Inhumans premiere is the premiere of the American television series Inhumans", so I think we can have no bolding like we would do at a season page. I have still done a c/e to say "Inhumans premiere" first. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Good job, fellas. -- AlexTW 06:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

@AlexTheWhovian: I've responded to your comments above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look though the updating edits for the GA review, and have just a few replies to the responses.
  • I'd still recommend an expansion of the second episode, but if you and the other major editors of the article are happy with how it sits, then so am I.
    • I feel okay with it. Adamstom.97 what are your thoughts on this?
  • I think it looks worse than it is because we have split them up as we have. If they were combined into a single summary, we would be less concerned because all the important stuff is covered. So, I'm happy if you guys are basically. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In concern to my question as to what other visions Bronaja had in the quote continues to use Bronaja's visions to predict the future, perhaps just reword this to "Bronaja's further visions", then.
    •  Done
  • I see the information in the parent article about why these episodes were released in IMAX, but I do still believe it'd be beneficial to have more information regarding it in this episode, as it applies more to these particular episodes than the series as a whole.
    • Let me know if the sentence I added is enough.
  • I realize I didn't finish my thought on Nicola Peltz's character; my bad. If there's no sources on it, then all good.
  • Adding the dates to the films should be alright without a source.
    • Added
  • The first Reception paragraph being in its own subsection... The text is all about the initial predictions, use that?
    • I went with "Expectations".
Good job on the updates. Just the several dot-points above and a consensus on the episode title, and it'll be good for a GA pass; the article meets the six good article criteria. -- AlexTW 06:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: Responses added. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
Seems all good to me. -- AlexTW 17:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the article for GA. -- AlexTW 06:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTheWhovian: Thanks. I just want to let you know, that I did not get a Legobot update regarding this. However, when I moved the actual article, I got posts from the bot saying that "Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans)" failed and also that "Inhumans premiere" was now on hold. But nothing has triggered to say it has passed for me yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, trying it again. Had to update all the original GA links from the original title to the new one, then re-pass it as GA. -- AlexTW 14:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: It still seems like it hasn't been pinged to run Legobot. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think we should have passed it for GA then moved. The move seems to have messed everything up concerning the links and Legobot's edits. -- AlexTW 03:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Maybe remove the "GAList/check" template above, save, then readd? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we are still having issues with this, you can post about it at WT:GAN. I have done that before for technical issues and gotten a pretty quick response. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just reinstated the Good Article post on the talk page, the article in the GA list, and the GA icon. Seems to be fine now. -- AlexTW 02:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inhumans_premiere/GA1&oldid=862842343"