Talk:Black Widow (2021 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ayakanaa (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 August 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

• Hello! I plan to review this page. Please note that this is my first review and I would be open to any feedback  あやかなあ?  (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig comes up with a 40.1% similarity with this website but it's for quotes and phrases you can't really change well ("due to the COVID-19 pandemic", "Johansson filed a lawsuit against", "Advocacy organizations Women in Film, ReFrame, and Time's Up", "in theaters and on Disney+", etc.).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Concerns below. resolved.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Cast

• The source for "An Avenger, highly trained former-KGB assassin, and former agent of S.H.I.E.L.D." says that she's a "Russian spy turned super heroine". There's probably a source about the S.H.I.E.L.D. thing.

  I have added another source to support these details. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• The sources for "The Russian super-soldier counterpart to Captain America and a father-figure to Romanoff and Belova" don't mention anything about that, just that Harbour plays the role. Source about the Captain America thing also don't mention the time (1980s). Maybe I'm being too picky, do the sources usually fully fit this kind of stuff for film articles?

  I added an additional ref that should cover everything. -- ZooBlazer^talk

Ok this one is good to go.  あやかなあ?  (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Do Romanoff and Belova have other father-figures? Maybe the a isn't needed.

  Removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• First source for "An ally from Romanoff's S.H.I.E.L.D. past who is romantically interested in her" doesn't quite say that? Maybe it's implied but it just says he's a "private contractor with a romantic history with Natasha". Second source mentions SHIELD for Natasha but not much about his character.

  I have adjusted the wording for this one (and removed an unnecessary source). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Do Romanoff and Belova have other mother-figures? a could be unnecessary.

  Removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Production

Background

• Hayter "never felt comfortable that we had found a place that was willing to take the movie, and the character, seriously". Maybe "Hayter did not feel that they "had found a place that was willing to take the movie, and the character, seriously"." Somehow the original quote feels kind of awkward?
  • Gave a crack at adjusting the quote. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Looks good!  あやかなあ?  (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Is the quote from Whedon necessary in entirety? I think integrating it more might read better.
  • Tried making it less quote, more prose. Let me know if it works better now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Nice work  あやかなあ?  (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Development

• For the San Diego Comic-Con images, the source link in commons leads you to an album, not the picture, for three of them. I found the picture of Shortland, picture of Johansson, and picture of Pugh. Maybe the source link in Commons should be changed? Also, the licenses for the pictures of Johansson and Pugh seem to be different—on flickr, it’s CC2.0, but on Commons it’s CC3.0.

  @Ayakanaa: Hey Ayakanaa, thanks for reviewing this. I'm one of the regular contributors to the article and might be popping in to comment or address some of your concerns. Just wanted to talk about the images. On Commons, all of these were uploaded by their author, Gage Skidmore (User:Calibrador on English Wiki), so I would image they are aware of which CC licenses each should have. I do agree the commons links should probably be updated to the direct images in their Flickr Album, but am not quite sure if I should adjust the CC. Is that something I should formally ping Gage about? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Favre1fan93 I think the CC status should be sorted out by pinging Gage and the links should be updated. Since the images are either CC 2.0 or 3.0, use in the article would be ok either way.  あやかなあ?  (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ayakanaa: I've boldly made the link and CC adjustments on Commons as well as swapping the Johansson image used here to the original non-cropped one. I think the original frames nicer against Pugh's. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not particular about 2.0 vs 3.0 if you need to change it to 3.0 or whichever is fine. Calibrador (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Calibrador: Thank you! The Commons pages had 3.0, while the Flickr posts had 2.0 so I have adjusted the Commons pages to match. Thank you as always for all the photos you take. They are always so good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Reception

• See comments on images for Development.

  I believe this has been resolved per the above comments, let me know if not. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Everything looks good, I'll look over it once more tomorrow to make sure I didn't miss anything before passing it officially  あやかなあ?  (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Looked over it once more (though I did not wait for tomorrow) and the review is finished!  あやかなあ?  (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review! - adamstom97 (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ayakanaa! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)