Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 01:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am willing to review the article. You may have to wait for a few days before I provide a full, detailed review.

My first observation here is that in my opinion the greatest potential problem with the article concerns copyright. Using the Earwig Copyvio Detector tool here, I got a result of "Violation Suspected 97.1%". At first, I thought that the very high "violation suspected" result was due to the use of one online source, this one, but looking further, that website isn't cited in the article at all. For various reasons, which I'll discuss further, I don't believe that any contributor to the article has copied anything from that website. This is almost certainly a case where an external website is copying Wikipedia content rather than vice versa, creating an impression of an extreme copyright problem where none exists. However, even setting that result aside as a false positive that should probably be disregarded, there are potential copyright problems with the use of two sources, this one, which produces a result of "Violation Possible 43.5% confidence", and this one, which produces a result of "Violation Possible 42.9% confidence." Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The first good article criterion is that the article be "Well written". I believe the article meets this criterion. However, I have the following minor criticism. The article states, "Each of the Elementals are inspired by other Spider-Man villains, such as the water one by Hydro-Man and the fire one by Molten Man, but they are not called such in the film." That sentence isn't quite grammatical. The problem could be solved with a minor rewrite. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

2. The second good article criterion is that the article be, "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing, "no copyright violations nor plagiarism." The article does not meet this criterion at present. As I have indicated above, this is not because of that "Violation Suspected 97.1%" Earwig result. Earwig is an imperfect automated tool, the results of which have to be interpreted by human beings. For various reasons, I believe that the very high Earwig result is due to someone copying from an older version of the Wikipedia article and placing it on their blog. For example, if you look at that blog, you can see that it actually includes numbers representing Wikipedia citations, which indicates that the content there was taken from Wikipedia and not the reverse. There is no reason to think that Wikipedia editors have copied from that blog. However, two other sources do seem to pose a problem, this one, and this one. The article needs to be rewritten to make less use of those sources; when it does, the problem here will have been solved. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

3. The third good article criterion is that the article be, "Broad in its coverage". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

4. The fourth good article criterion is that the article be, "Neutral". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

5. The fifth good article criterion is that the article be, "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Despite past conflict and edit warring at the article, I'd say the article currently meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this review Freeknowledge! I have re-written the section on the Elementals, and paraphrased those two problematic sources. Let me know if there is anything else. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll review what you've done, assess the article according to the remaining good article criterion, and get back to you. Final overall verdict should come soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

6. The sixth good article criterion is that the article be, "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". The article meets this criterion. It contains a small but sufficient number of appropriate images. No apparent copyright problem with them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Final overall verdict coming soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of the review, the most decisive issue here is copyright. The Earwig Copyvio Detector tool produces a result of "Violation Suspected 97.1% confidence". To some that may seem like a damning result that makes it necessary to fail the article. However, I believe it mainly shows that Earwig is a less than fully reliable tool that needs to be used with care. If I thought that there had been borrowing from this blog post, then I certainly would fail the article. However, while some kind of copying has obviously occurred, I am confident that it is copying from Wikipedia to that blog post, not copying from the blog post to Wikipedia. This is an important issue, so I'll explain my reasoning in some detail. If you look here you can see that much of the text in the blog post that resembles the article's text is description of the film's plot. The plot of the film is publicly available information, however, and it makes no sense to suppose that editors at Spider-Man: Far From Home would need to copy from a blog post to get a description of it. Chronology also needs to be taken into account. Spider-Man: Far From Home was released theatrically in the United States on July 2, while the blog post is dated to October 24. Editors at Spider-Man: Far From Home would thus have had months to watch the film and write an account of its plot for Wikipedia before that blog post appeared, so common sense indicates that the blog post is copied from the Wikipedia article and not the reverse. Another key indicator that the copying is from Wikipedia to the blog post and not the reverse is that the blog post contains numbers in brackets that represent Wikipedia citations, such as "[54]". Again evaluating the issue in terms of common sense, these numbers indicate that the content originated on Wikipedia. I will pass the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)