Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Only real major significant problem with the article aside from Stability concerns, as noted, below. Copyvio Detector tool, as seen in GA Toolbox at top right of this GA Review subpage, shows major copyvio concerns. Copyvio Detector result is: "Violation Suspected 80.5% confidence". Unfortunately, that is the single highest result I have seen for any GA candidate among those I've reviewed lately. Blockquotes need to go, they are quite obtrusive and huge. Quotations should be trimmed, removed, and/or paraphrased as much as possible. There are six (6) sources in the Copyvio Detector tool with a confidence rating over 30 percent. These all need to get below 30 percent, please. I've had a good discussion with copyvio experts Moonriddengirl and Crow, and both gave me some great input and advice. The significant amount of quotations is a serious concern -- and yet, easily fixed ! Do not fret, but please give it your best shot to paraphrase quotes, remove quotes, trim quotes, and remove the big blockquotes. I will revist and reevaluate this GA candidate later and assess, again, with Copyvio Detector tool. However, that being said, you've done a great job so far, and thanks very much for this most impressive Quality improvement effort !!!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede intro sect is quite good. I like the overall layout and structural organization and article presentation. Great job on keeping the sects under the Reception two level sect as short and concise, and yet a great succinct presentation of information using tables, and citing review aggregators. I like it.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Duly cited throughout, with in-line citations. No issues here -- that is, except the six (6) links that need to be archived, as noted, below.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Checklinks tool shows six (6) problem links. These are any links found with Checklinks tool that don't have a value of either "0" or "200". At least for these six, please archive the links to the Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive using WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate. That should fix the issue. Strongly suggest archiving all hyperlinks in this manner, but at the very least, do it for those six, please.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article relies predominantly on secondary sources, no issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is indeed quite broad in scope, Automated Peer Review tool says too broad, but I disagree, I think the article is quite good as far as layout and overall structural organization.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, the Automated Peer Review tool says the article is too in-depth, but I disagree, as it is the main article on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Multiple review aggregators as cited in the article note the high percentage overall reception, so this is represented quite well here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Recent reverts and edit-warring in article edit history, between Adamstom.97 and Favre1fan93, from 11 October 2015. Edit-warring between Calidum and Adamstom.97 on 5 October 2015. Several undone edits of Rtkat3 by Adamstom.97 and by Ditto51. Most recent revert on the page is by Adamstom.97 reverting edit by Zythe on 16 October 2015. Tempted, (MOST unfortunately) to quick-fail the article on serious stability concerns. Will place it as GA on Hold and hope article becomes more stable. Please, editors, explain what was going on with these??? Is semi-protection needed? Is WP:Dispute resolution needed in some form, between multiple parties? Please explain, below entire review.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Free-use image checks out okay upon my Image review on Wikimedia Commons. Fair use image is File:Agents of SHIELD logo.jpg with good fair use rationale on image page, very nice. Good job on that fair use rationale !
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are indeed relevant to the topic. No issues here. Good job. :)
	7. Overall assessment.	Placed as GA on Hold for Seven Days. — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability Issues

Just to answer some of the concerns you raised on this, Rtkat3's edits are normally adding an unnecessary amount of In-Universe detail to the plot section despite the indivdual season articles. Adamstom.97's revert of Zythe was reverting to a version of the sentence that was better written. I wouldn't really call Calidum's and Adamstom.97's small conflict an edit war, if anything that was more of a misunderstanding on what the term "moniker" means. Adam's and Favre1fan93's conflict was settled here with it being agreed that it was still an accolade despite not being an actual award.

Semi-protection won't help with the issues you provided as all of the involved editors are autoconfirmed. WP:Dispute resolution already happens when needed as it is either sorted through edit summaries, and if that isn't enough then we take it to the talk page.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. Would like to hear from the other parties about this that were previously involved in the disputes. — Cirt (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ping them all as I didn't get a message when the {{u}} template was used. @Rtkat3, Adamstom.97, Zythe, Calidum, and Favre1fan93: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditto51 (talk • contribs)

Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto gave a pretty good summary of what has been happening, and I would just add that we don't want to try and block editors such as Rtkat3 because they can come up with something that is better than what we have or is missing from our version, so as long as editors like myself or Favre are there to clean up after them and remove anything that is just too in-universy, I don't really think there is a problem. Also, we do tend to have short discussions through edit summaries rather than on the talk page, which is a practice that I am not defending, leading to the appearance of edit wars that we ourselves wouldn't really consider. Overall, I feel like there aren't any major stability issues to worry about, hopefully these points from myself and Ditto can prove that. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Adamstom.97, much appreciated. I would, however, strongly recommend using the talk page instead of edit summaries in that manner. — Cirt (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, we are well aware that we should be doing it, and do try to, it is just an unfortunate habit that we fall into from time to time, and I am admittedly one of the worst culprits. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I think there is a big difference between quoting what the actors or producers say as opposed to just copying an article. Like with the Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/GA2 where the biggest issues are a single quote that is already being quoted during an interview of some kind. For example, we use this source to quote the costume designer, we haven't copied anything the actual writer of the article has said, only what was spoken by the costume designer (ignoring the bits of text that can't be avoided, like "Costume Designer Ann Foley"). I feel like you are attacking quotes used in the article as opposed to actual copyright issues which the tool seems to be geared towards.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree here. Excessive quoting is both a copyvio concern and a reflection of poor writing and lazy -- the article writer simply cut/pastes quotes instead of paraphrasing in a more concise and succinct fashion. I've consulted with Moonriddengirl and Crow and they agree with me on this issue. Good luck with the quote trimming and/or paraphrasing ! — Cirt (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been working on, and can continue to work on, cutting out the quotes in general, but I do think that in some cases blockquotes are useful and would like to keep some of them in. I hope that if we get all the copyvio alerts down to just ones for the blockquotes, some consensus can be formed on whether that would be agreeable or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking over some of the blockquote (Not really the content, just what they look like in terms of the article), I feel like they give context and/or content that we can't nessisarily fit in the main prose itself while also breaking up the text in the same way an image does as it no longer looks like just one huge chunck of text, instead there is something on the right that makes the main text look less daunting to look through. Also nice work on the cutting down Adam.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Adamstom.97, much appreciated !!! Ditto51, I agree that a small quote box of maybe one sentence can be used to break up the text, sparingly, like an image can. But not a huge blockquote of more than one sentence -- and certainly not whole paragraphs. Will reevaluate and revisit, so Adamstom.97 please let me know when you feel you're done addressing above issues. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do, and I will give some arguments for each of the blockquotes I think should be kept as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi all, sorry I didn't get to comment here yesterday... darn RL creeping in. Just to expound somewhat on what Cirt mentioned, and my approach towards quotes vis-a-vis copyright. In general I like to see quotes supporting the prose in the article, and not just supplying new content by themselves. The test I use is: Does the quote provide content or context. Put another way, are we using the quote to back up something we wrote in our own words, or are we using it to supply the information we want the reader to have without writing it ourselves? Providing content as opposed to context treads the line on copyright and transformation (another wonderfully complex yet vague concept which basically tests if the material is serving the same function as the original ("superseding", which is bad), or if you are using that material in a different way such as discussing the quote itself or using it in support/argument for or against some other point (transformative, more acceptable)).
• As an example, I look at the quote in the Clark Gregg cast section: After Coulson was promoted to Director of S.H.I.E.L.D., Gregg said "He kind of got his dream job that I don’t even think he would have ever dreamed he would be given. ... The main thing is doing this job the way he can do it best seems like it’s going to require him to move a little bit in the direction of a more pragmatic figure like Nick Fury". That quote is clearly providing content, to wit, how Gregg approached the attitude of his character in the role. Nowhere else is that approach discussed, so the quote is not contextualizing anything written in the article, nor is the quote itself analyzed. That could be re-written to be mostly article prose describing the same thing, cited to the source with the quote, and with maybe 1 line thrown in for an extra zinger if needed. Something like Gregg said that he approached Coulson's promotion to Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. as being his dream job, which at the same time forced the character to adopt a more sensible and level-headed attitude, such as that of Nick Fury. I don't claim to be the best writer, but you get the sort of thing I mean.
• Just my 2 cents from the copyright trenches. Crow ^Caw 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have now got the article so that the only problems in the copyvio tool are the two blockquotes that I think we should keep, which I have also trimmed a bit to be shorter and a bit more to the point. The reason I think we should keep these two in particular, is that they give a good overview of the the themes of the series and the process of the series existing in the MCU, respectively, that I feel work better as asides than as part of the main prose. While the writing section talks about the writing process, influence, budget considerations, etc. the overall idea of the section, as far as Joss Whedon is concerned, is the underlying theme of the everyman rather than the big, faceless organisation (which is why I feel Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is a more appropriate title than just S.H.I.E.L.D., though that is not necessarily why the title was changed). And for the tie-ins sections, we focus more on the series, their plans, and what has happened, but a good aside I feel is how the more technical aspects of the relationship work, which I think Bell expresses well in the quote that we have (and I removed some stuff from that quote that was not really necessary, so it is more relevant now. I don't know what others think of this, but I do feel myself that these two blockquotes should be kept, despite the copyvio tool's assessment. Other than that, I believe everything that Cirt brought up has been addressed now. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Much, much better !!! I think those blockquotes are a bit too big. The blockquote idea is okay to remain in the article, but you should be able to get them each to about one-sentence each or less. The rest of the article body text should be able to explain the info content itself, with use of the blockquote as just a form of highlighting a key aspect. You're quite close, almost there. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've cut them down a bit more, and it's getting to the point where I think we could lose what they are trying to say if we take much more out. But, the copyvio tool's warnings are gone now, so even though we aren't below 30%, I was hoping that would be enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed down a couple blockquotes and they still have the same meaning left behind, but are more powerful as being more succinct and concise, at DIFF. What do you think? — Cirt (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

They're fine. They have lost some of what they originally said, but what they say now still serves a similar purpose, and everything is below 30% with the copyvio tool. I think we're good. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of the show

Just wanted to put it out there that I happen to be a huge fan of this particular television show.

The last episode I've watched to date was S.O.S. (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) and I haven't seen anything from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) yet -- but I totally don't mind spoilers ! :)

Just if it happened to come across that I'm being tough about the copyvio concern or something like that.

I truly do greatly appreciate all the Quality improvement efforts by all editors involved that have gone into improving the page.

I really do feel that the article will look a whole lot better once my above recommendations have been successfully addressed, hopefully.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

I think the article looks much, much better now.

Passed as GA.

My thanks to Adamstom.97 for digging in and politely and successfully addressing recommendations by GA Reviewer, above. :) — Cirt (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)