Talk:Avengers: Endgame/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	I don't see any issues with the prose.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The plot is just short of 700 words so that passes.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The sentence "Downey was one of the few actors to read the entire screenplay for the film" seems dishonest. The source cited says he was the only "Avengers star" to "receive" the entire screenplay, probably because his character is in almost every scene from beginning to end.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citation 2 (BFI) actually doesn't say this was an American movie but cite 1 (bbfc) does, so I'd cut BFI or use for something else. Collider (cite 9) doesn't actually confirm Chris Evans in this film but NYT (cite 6) does, so fix it. Neither Daily Beast (cite 25) nor Screen Rant (cite 26) say anything about this film, so I'd remove them. Honestly, some of this fails WP:REFBOMB. You've no source for Benedict Wong, so I recommend adding this from ScreenRant. Hollywood Reporter says nothing about Tom Holland. Dave Bautista's tweet is not allowable for his role as Drax, per WP:SPS. Radio Times says nothing about Ebony Maw; it should be the following Screenrant cite. Screenrant (cite 65) says nothing about F.R.I.D.A.Y.; that should be the Tipperary piece. Comicbook.com says nothing about seven minutes of footage or what's in it but IGN does, so I'd move that Comicbook cite to the end of the paragraph. The claim of "substantial cultural impact" isn't covered by SyFy Wire so please remove. I don't see evidence in Deadline that this was fastest to make $1B. Regarding widest release ever, I see no evidence about Despicable Me. I also see no evidence for fastest to pass $600M. Cites don't support the $29.3 and Avatar claim. Please remove IMDb as a citation!	Pass
(c) (original research)	Some of the assertions about sales (noted above) seem like OR, but generally this passes.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	COPYVIO detector says it's fine	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)		Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
I see no POV issue here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit war or content dispute in evidence	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	every image passes for permissions, thanks largely to Gage Skidmore	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	meh	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	I need to see fixes made.

Discussion

• @Chris troutman: Issues have been fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• @Chris troutman: Another current reference issues above are fixed. Chompy Ace 22:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Chris troutman: All new issues have been fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Some Dude From North Carolina: The source you added about cultural impact is about the entire MCU, not just this movie. The citation mentions that this movie and its other half created impact not seen since the first Avenger movie. The claim needs to go and the sentence about the statue belongs in the section about Iron Man. Regarding Avatar, the citation says that Endgame's $770.8M was what beat Avatar, not the $29.4M three-day. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Chris troutman: removed cultural impact with reference and removed Avatar and $29.4M sentence. Chompy Ace 11:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Chris troutman: Another current reference issues have been fixed, is there more reference issues in this article to fix? Chompy Ace 04:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Chompy Ace: Cite 2 is IMDb and is not permitted per WP:SPS. Replace it with something else. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not IMDb, it's Box Office Mojo, a reliable source that is owned by IMDb. El Millo (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @Chris troutman: Give me an another shot for this. Cite 2 no longer mentions IMDb. Chompy Ace 06:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Reverted. The mention of IMDb is irrelevant. The source is BOM and it is reliable, IMDb is the owner of the website cited. El Millo (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
          • From what I've read at RSN, Box Office Mojo is not widely considered as reliable, and I'm not promoting this until that cite is gone. Partisans in this debate would do well to stand clear. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
            • @Chris troutman: I think you mistook Box Office Mojo for IMDb right there. Let me explain it better because I'm not being clear. Box Office Mojo is one of our most reliable sources for box office numbers, we use it on virtually every film article there is. Box Office Mojo was bought by IMDb in 2008. After this discussion about italicizing Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo, it was established as consensus that we can use {{cite BOM}} for references to Box Office Mojo, in order to not italicize it (its use is in fact encouraged at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Article italics). IMDb, as the owner of Box Office Mojo, is automatically included as part of the text in {{cite BOM}}. Furthermore, the IMDb website itself is unreliable per WP:RS/IMDB, but not the websites that the IMDb company owns, otherwise we wouldn't use Box Office Mojo. El Millo (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
              • @Facu-el Millo: Yes, at first I hung up on IMDb but, after reading about the issues with the reliability of Box Office Mojo (like the double counting), I'm not sold that it's reliable. Further, you are one of the few voices at WT:FILM that seem to think BOM is fine and I take a broader view of consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

BOM is by far the standard for box office grosses, and the vast majority of the Film project agrees with this, given it is listed as such at MOS:FILM#Box office as being a source to use for such information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Fans of a particular subject would say that. I don't see that same consensus at RSN. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I'm not speaking as "a fan". I'm speaking as an editor who actively works on film articles and participates in the Film project and related discussions. I have no active knowledge of discussions you're claiming at RSN that states BOM is unreliable. As well, I've done a quick search of RSN to see, and I see no recent discussions to support that. Yes, there has been some instances of BOM double counting which WP:BOXOFFICE is working on, but this film is not one of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking for a second opinion; we'll see what another reviewer says. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but look at any modern film article that is a GA - all use Box Office Mojo. I will also notify the film project to your request. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:FILM notice here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo is absolutely the most reliable source for box office results. It is used on every film article. Rusted AutoParts 15:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Chris troutman, Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, particularly per WP:USEBYOTHERS. For example, The New York Times has referenced BOM repeatedly in the past year as seen here. Can you point to the WP:RSN discussions that contest Box Office Mojo? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I'm inexperienced in editing film articles. With that out of the way, I find it particularly compelling that MOS:Film#Box Office specifically mentions Box Office Mojo, as User:Favre1fan93 pointed out. And as far as I can tell from a brief look at its revision history, MOS:FILM has mentioned Box Office Mojo as a permissible source to use since the page's creation 14 years ago. Perhaps people have brought up legitimate concerns about Box Office Mojo at WP:RSN, but unresolved discussions shouldn't supersede longstanding consensus reflected in Wikipedia guidelines when deciding whether or not to pass an article for GA review. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Chris troutman: I really didn't want this "discussion" to continue, so I have swapped the "Box Mojo / IMDb" reference, with one from The Numbers, which someone could call a "more credible" source. For the budget, I have also added a reference, from Deadline Hollywood, where the budget can be found in the article's chart. I hope this addresses some of the problems and issues, and can help this article become a good one quicker, later on. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Chris troutman: Surprise! Chompy Ace 00:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Chompy Ace: Thanks! This article is now a GA. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)