Talk:Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article. I do not know anything about the MCU aside from what I've read on WP, so I will try not to screw anything up. Pamzeis (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this! I think it's best for non MCU experts to review these types of articles because it helps to clean up things that might be confusing. -- ZooBlazer^talk 15:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• I can see you've put a lot of great work into this, and can definitely see it becoming a GA in the future. However, I feel like there are still some significant areas that can be improved.

Lead

The lead's flow feels... confusing to me. This is what I feel like it's discussing from reading it:

• Paragraph 1:
  • Their roles in the MCU
  • The inspiration behind their creation
  • What they do/where they live in their films
• Paragraph 2:
  • The first time they appeared in film and their subsequent appearances in film
  • Commercial success of said films
  • The characters within the team
  • Their roles within the MCU
  • Their (critical?) reception
  • Appearances by the Avengers in other universes in television
• Paragraph 3:
  • Critical reception of the characters
  • Their impact in theme parks
  • Future appearances in film

Do you, do you get what I mean? It seems to jump from aspect to aspect with no rhyme or reason as far as I can tell, and flits between in-universe and out-of-universe elements so much that it feels difficult to distinguish between the two.

Outside of that, I feel like the lead focusses too much on the Avengers' appearances in media and other in-universe aspects. Ideally, this should be kept to a minimum, and we should focus on more of the real-life elements like their development and reception per MOS:FICTION. The sentence, Endgame became the highest grossing film of all time in July 2019, passing Avatar (2009), but Avatar took the title back after a re-release in China in March 2021., seems irrelevant to the Avengers characters, and even if it is, it doesn't feel lead-worthy.

In my opinion (and I would like to stress it's mY oPiNiOn), I feel like the lead should be structured more like this:

• Paragraph 1:
  • In-universe aspects and relevant context, including, but not necessarily limited to:
    • Appearances in media
    • Roles within the MCU
    • Members of the team
• Paragraph 2:
  • Conception, casting and any other bits about the creation of the group
• Paragraph 3:
  • Reception, including the critical response, cultural impact, commercial success and any important analysis

Prose

A lot of the prose feels, to me, like it was written for fans of the MCU. Some examples:

• The Avengers' story in the MCU takes place in the Earth-616 universe. — this seems like a rather bizarre sentence to start the article (well, ignoring the lead, that is) with. I know "Earth-616" is linked, but the reader shouldn't have to go hunting to understand the context From the very beginning of the article.
• After losing the Vision as its new body, Ultron tries to cause an extinction event by using Sokovia as a meteor — I'm not sure if this sentence is grammatically correct, but regardless, it feels really, really confusing to me. It's never established that the Vision even has a body, or why or how Ultron is using an entire nation to destroy humanity
• while also coming into conflict with S.W.O.R.D — I don't think it's ever established what S.W.O.R.D. is or does so I'm not sure why Wanda comes into conflict with them
• putting Parker's reputation in jeopardy — Parker's reputation or Spider-Man's reputation, cuz those seem to be two things?

Aside from that, the article tends to shove tons of information into single sentences, making them pretty difficult to comprehend, e.g.:

• Parker returns to school and briefly becomes Stark's chosen successor until he is brought into conflict with a former employee of Stark's Quentin Beck, who reveals Parker's secret identity and frames him as his murderer, putting Parker's reputation in jeopardy and drastically affecting his personal life.

• Stark sells Avengers Tower, and Parker is offered a place on the Avengers roster by Stark who initially thinks Parker isn't ready after he defeats Adrian Toomes.

• In May 2009, Chris Hemsworth was in negotiations to portray the title role after a back-and-forth process in which the 25-year-old actor was refused early on, then given a second chance to read for the part.

• Vision sacrifices himself to provide them with the Mind Stone so that they can use it to find a cure, and Banner stays behind to keep Maximoff at bay, allowing Parker, T'Challa, and Lang to escape to Wakanda where unbeknownst to them, an infected Thanos awaits with the other Infinity Stones.

• While the name "Avengers" and the depiction of Loki as the first antagonist is derived more from the mainstream Marvel Universe, commonly referred to as "Earth-616", other different depictions such as the original formation of the Avengers at the hands of S.H.I.E.L.D. along with the depicted original lineup and the portrayal of the aliens known as Chitauri as main antagonists were portrayed with a similar premise as the Ultimates, a modern re-imagining of the Avengers within the comic book universe within the multiverse that is published by Marvel Comics.

There are a few instances of odd wording that just read very, very awkward:

• the studio's intention was to release individual films for the main characters to establish their identities and familiarize audiences with them before merging the characters together in a crossover film.
• The response of the introduction of the superhero team was the main highlight of The Avengers. — passive voice feels a bit weird. How about Critics praised the team's introduction as the main highlight of The Avengers
• the damage to his personal life due to controversy causes him to seek Strange's help to reverse it with a spell to make his identity secret again — some parts of this sentence don't seem very necessary. We already know why his personal life was damaged and the fact he wants to make his identity secret should already be apparent.

Some other points:

• in which the 25-year-old actor was — I'm unsure of the relevance of Hemsworth's age at that point?
• There seem to be a few instances where contractions are used, which should be avoided where possible
• "We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in The Avengers", stated Feige. — is the quote really necessary? It just repeats information previously stated in the article

Sourcing

For the most part, this article seems to be well-referenced. However, there are some sources which appear to be of questionable reliability, including:

• Medium
• Superhero Hype
• Crave Online
• Game Rant
• Showbiz Cheat Sheet
• Firstshowing.net

The article also seems to overquote Superhero Hype and MTV

Coverage/focus

• The Russo brothers congratulated James Cameron on his film regaining the title with an image of the Avengers' logo and Thanos' armor scarecrow dusting away into the Avatar logo. — good for the Russo brothers and Cameron, but it seems like WP:FANCRUFT
• #Cultural impact seems pretty short for the main characters of one of the biggest franchises of all time. Marvel Cinematic Universe#Cultural impact includes a lot of information that could (possibly) be incorporated into this article
• The "Fate" part of the "Team roster" section feels like fancruft to me. It also repeats information from the previous section.
• I feel like the "Fictional team biography" section doesn't really comply with MOS:FICTION.
  • "Fictional biography" sections in general should be avoided, as those tend to place undue weight on elements like backstory that aren't heavily featured in film/television
  • The events shouldn't be ordered chronologically, but by release order
  • At some points, the section doesn't discuss the team as a whole, but individual characters. This is especially apparent in "Aftermath" subsection, which details what happens to every single one of the Avengers post-disbandment
  • The Alternate versions subsection could be folded into (I'm assuming these are the projects) subsections for What If... and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness
  • This section takes up more than half of the article by my count, with over 3500 words. While the Avengers' story is clearly a very detailed one, this section should ideally be trimmed and more weight should be placed on out-of-universe aspects such as the development and reception
• The "Concept and creation" section seems to end after 2010 (I think). Is there nothing known about the expansions to the team?

Media

• File:Avengers team in The Avengers (2012 film).jpg and File:Avengers Endgame final battle.jpeg don't seem to have sufficient FURs to warrant inclusion. Why does the reader need to see images of the Avengers... doing... something (I don't know what.......) to enhance their understanding of the article?

Overall, it's a decent article, in my eyes, that passes criterion 4 and 5, and nearly passes 2 and 6. My main issues are with criterion 1, where I feel the article could use a copyedit and checked for compliance with MOS:FICTION; and 3, where I feel it includes a few fancrufty elements and doesn't cover certain aspects. However, I feel like it would require substantive edits that would go beyond the scope of the review, so I'm failing the nom at the present. Pamzeis (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.