Talk:Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 22:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In progress Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Overall, the article is a solid start, however I think there are some major concerns that need to be addressed for GA quality.

• General/coverage:
  • I'm not really sure why the "tie-in" stuff is put before the development of the actual crossover event itself.
  • Likewise, it's weird that the production info starts with a bunch of forward-facing announcements instead of talking about the development and writing.
  • Isn't the Aftermath stuff tie-ins to the show as well? Why is it listed at the very end of the article?
• Prose:
  • The article is not very accessible to someone who doesn't know anything beyond the basics about the Arrowverse. The plot is dense and largely impenetrable without context. The plot section starts with "To prepare for the coming crisis" without any explanation of what that crisis is, for example.
  • The article has severe issues with repetitious phrasing of the "On X date, Y" especially early on in the production section.
  • There's also way too many uses of quotes. At the extreme end it's a potential copyright issue, but on a more pragmatic level it just makes the prose tougher to read. It's hard to get through two sentences without a quote in it; in the fifth paragraph of writing, there's literally a quote almost every single sentence.
    • Also a problem is the over-use of individual critics when you reach the reception sections; a single reviewer should not be given 250 word paragraphs solely on their own opinion, for instance.
• Media:
  • There's not a really compelling fair use rationale for File:Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) second poster.jpeg, especially since there's already a poster being used for the purposes of identification.
  • Likewise you can't really just hotlink non-free media in the prose like the title comparison as you do (the entire digression of the character appearing in the logo appears UNDUE as well.)
• References:
  • What makes Cinema Blend a reliable source? I note WP:VG has specifically called it out as as unreliable.
  • There's a lot of content here that is inappropriately referenced to primary sources, for example the statements that certain actors do not appear in credited episodes.
  • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 2, 4, 5, 13, 19, 20, 28, 60, 73, 78, 100, 103, 119, 136, 147, 156, 162, 173, 182, 198, 200, and 212.
    • Ref 2 doesn't discuss Oliver Queen being sent to gather items to stop the event.
    • Ref 13 doesn't specifically say all the universes mentioned were destroyed.
    • Ref 28 gives the voice for the Monitor, not the Anti-Monitor.
    • Ref 162 says a full trailer was released, but the source still calls it a teaser.

Given that the issues with the organization and prose are pretty systemic, I'm failing the article. When the nominator feels it meets criteria it can be relisted at WP:GAN. If you have any further questions, you can reach my at my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Thank you for your comments. However, I must disagree that these issues couldn't have been something I could have addressed with you and worked through, instead of you outright failing the article without my ability to address them. I hope you will reconsider your outright failing of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether to hold or fail outright is within the discretion of the reviewer. When every aspect of an article needs some level of improvement, that's not something that can generally be done or done well within a hold period. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)