Talk:New World Order (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier)/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Dcdiehardfan (talk · contribs) 22:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 03:02, 22 October 2024 (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

I'll take this one for the drive. Lazman321 (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

• "...his five year absence." to "...his five-year absence."
• "...showing what they are each doing after Endgame." to "...showing their lives after Endgame."
• "...at Marvel Studios, to ensure it would..." to "...at Marvel Studios to ensure it would..."
• "...'some unknown white guy', and added that..." to "...'some unknown white guy' and added that..."
• "...James 'Rhodey' Rhodes who is the hero War Machine from the MCU films." to "...James 'Rhodey' Rhodes / War Machine."
• "...having a quiet moment together, and said there is an..." to "...having a quiet moment together and said there is an..."
• "...his friend Tony Stark / Iron Man and he is wondering why..." to "...his friend Tony Stark / Iron Man and is wondering why..."
• "...Skogland directing, and P.J. Dillon serving..." to "...Skogland directing and P.J. Dillon serving..."
• "...on unusual angles, with a wide lens." to "...on unusual angles with a wide lens."
• "...Pocket Cinema Camera 6K cameras which were small..." to "...Pocket Cinema Camera 6K cameras, which were small..."
• "...closer to the terrain which took advantage..." to "...closer to the terrain, taking advantage..."

Above are my notes for the prose. Lazman321 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

• MOS:LEAD - The lead appears to properly summarize the rest of the article. No action needed.
• MOS:LAYOUT - I recommend combining the release, marketing, and music sections into one, as they appear lackluster on their own, and information on marketing and release are usually grouped together. Also, break up the paragraphs in the production section when possible, as they are far too long to comfortably read. Finally, please rewrite the reception to group shared ideas between the reviews into different paragraphs, each with a topic sentence, rather than just having "A said, B said paragraphs. WP:RECEPTION can help.

 Comment: @Lazman312 I did a preliminary edit to try and trim things down and chunk it up. Let me know if it's better and what improvements need to be made. Y for the LAYOUT recommendation. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Music and Marketing don't go in the Release section. I am open to discussing a better place for the music info since it is only one sentence, my suggestion would probably be to combine Visual effects and Music since they are both post-production related. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted Dcdiehardfan's paragraph breaks in the production section, those paragraphs are not that big and putting a random break in the middle of them is certainly not an improvement. If you have a suggestion for a more logical break then that would be good to hear. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the filming section could have a paragraph break following "...and be used by the visual effects and post-production teams." The only paragraph of the visual effects section could have a paragraph break following "...that the sequence was 90 percent practical." Lazman321 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Y on the para breaks Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:WTW - The closest I found regarding this guideline was that synonyms of said are used throughout the article, but I do feel the synonyms are appropriate given their context. No action needed.
• MOS:FICTION - The article is written from an real-world perspective with sources beyond the episode itself used to contextualize it. No action needed.
• MOS:LIST - Besides an appropriate table of awards, there are no lists. No action needed.

Here is my assessment of the required guidelines as per the criteria. MOS:LAYOUT is what you mainly want to address. Lazman321 (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

There is indeed a list of references compliant with guidelines. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources

There are some sources used that are marginally reliable like ComicBook.com or Screen Rant, but what they source is generally non-controversial, so I'm fine with their inclusion. However, I've never heard of the following sources and would like to know if they're considered reliable: Broadcast Beat, British Cinematographer, Art of VFX, befores & afters, and Film Music Reporter. Lazman321 (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

These are all accepted film/TV industry sources that focus on post-production, cinematography, visual effects, music, etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. None of them listed on WP:FILM/R or WP:RSP. Of these sources, I can only find discussion of Film Music Reporter on WP:RSN, with consensus being that it's generally unreliable. Do you have evidence that they are all accepted industry sources? Lazman321 (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lazman321 Would the fact that those sources interview the actual members of the VFX production team factor into its reliability? The befores & afters and AWN source does indeed interview Charlie Tait, who is the VFX supervisor. I'll see if I can find alternate sources to replace the other content or address those changes. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarification, AWN is considered a reliable source on WP:FILM/R and WP:ANIMATION/R, so it can be kept. I decided to look further into the sources myself to see what could be done about them. At a separate time, I feel each should be discussed on WP:RSN and WT:FILM to gain a consensus on their reliability, but here's my take for now.

• Broadcast Beat appears to be a press release site. It could potentially be kept as a primary source, but I'd recommend replacing with stronger sources.
• British Cinematographer appears to be a magazine endorsed by the British Society of Cinematographers, indicating strong connections to the industry. It can be kept.
• Art of VFX is a blog run by Vincent Frei, who does appear to be in the VFX industry, and what it supports is relatively basic. It can be kept.
• Befores and afters is another blog, this time run by Ian Frailes, who is a subject-matter expert on VFX. That does give credit to this being a genuine interview. It can be kept.
• Film Music Reporter is another blog. Unlike the prior two, it appears to be anonymous, and as such, has no credibility. Please remove it.

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

In short, address Broadcast Beat and Film Music Reporter. Lazman321 (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done Will work on Broadcast Beat later, but FMR should be removed. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have replaced Broadcast Beat with the original press release. I have restored Film Music Reporter for now as I am not convinced that it needs to be removed. There is no consensus at WP:RS or WP:RS/PS that it is an unreliable source, despite some editors expressing concerns about it in these discussions: 1 2 3. It is widely used in film and television articles, including many where it has been accepted during a GA review, and it has never proven to be unreliable in the many years that I have been editing on Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at those discussions, not a single contributor considers Film Music Reporter reliable, meaning the consensus is that it is clearly unreliable. That's because it is an anonymous self-published blog. As per WP:SPS, self-published sources are "largely not acceptable as sources" unless they are written by a subject-matter expert. Because Film Music Reporter is anonymous, whoever is writing it does not have the credentials to be a subject-matter expert. I don't care if other people have used it before. As per Wikipedia policy, it is not reliable. Lazman321 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to know who they are for them to be a subject-matter expert, the site is clearly a subject-matter expert when it comes to reporting on film score / soundtrack news. If there was an entry at WP:RS/PS explaining that it is not considered reliable then that would be one thing, but there is not. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Film Music Reporter about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I found a source you can replace Film Music Reporter with. [1] Lazman321 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I have made the switch for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

2c - No original research

 Reviewing... Source check here. Lazman321 (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Finished. I noticed a few things that need addressed, but nothing too crazy. Lazman321 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns in the source check. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations

I didn't notice any plagiarism during my source check, and the quotes aren't too excessive. Earwig's Copyvio Detector marked copyright violations as being unlikely. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

The article does cover all the main aspects of the episode; including its plot, production, release, and reception. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

3b - Focused

The reception section goes into some excessive detail in the reviews. This could be addressed alongside by concerns with the reception section under 1b. Otherwise, the article doesn't go off topic. Lazman321 (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Tried to trim it down a bit. I might later go onto add another review on that second paragraph since it's just the combined Agard and Holub EW review. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lazman321 any updates? DO you think my edits thus far is good or would you like more editing? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You know, I think it's fine for now. I do feel my requests regarding the reception section under this and criterion 1b were misinterpreted; I wanted a overhaul of the reception section to consolidate shared points of contentions between reviews into separate paragraphs (e.g. paragraph one is about opinions on characters, paragraph two is about opinions on story, etc.), similar to what WP:RECEPTION suggests. However, after some consideration, I realized I might've been imposing my own stylistic preferences as conditions beyond what the criteria requires, which goes against WP:RGA. As such, I will retract my requests regarding the reception section. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

4 - Neutral

None of the article including the production section feels promotional. The reception section could suffer WP:DUE problems due to it only focusing on a few reviews when a lot more could be used judging by the Rotten Tomatoes page. Obviously, not all 100+ reviews are reliable, but I did notice reliable reviews not used in the reception section. Lazman321 (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If someone else doesn't get to it first, I can have a go at adding more reviews to the section later on. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You know what, you don't have to add more reviews to the reception section. I won't make it a requirement. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

5 - Stable

This article hasn't been edited since September, so it's stable. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

All images are appropriately tagged. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

All images are relevant. One is a cover art, one is visualization of the production process, and one is of an actor who was nominated. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

7 - Verdict

@Dcdiehardfan: @Adamstom97: I will be placing this review  On hold for seven days. I will be holding off my assessment of the prose until after my other concerns have been addressed, particularly regarding the reception section. Feel free to ask me any questions. Lazman321 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Sorry, that was the wrong ping Lazman321 (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Lazman321, just wanted to confirm, are we just waiting on the Film Music Reporter issue or is there anything else you were waiting for us to resolve that I am missing? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

For most part I guess. Just know I'm going to address criterion 1a promptly. Lazman321 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns.  Passed Lazman321 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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.