Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)/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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do this review. I'll do a first read-through tonight and/or tomorrow and will then begin the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First read-through

This looks like a very solid article, and while I still have other things to check for, I don't anticipate many issues that will need action in this review. A few things I noticed on my first pass:

• Both discussions of Norton might be confusing to a reader unaware Norton had played the Hulk in a previous film (though this is implied). Perhaps an explicit mention could be made of the previous movie, or a footnote could be added giving a sentence or two about this background. Incidentally, the source given for Norton declining the part for creative reasons[1] actually seems to state the opposite, that Marvel turned him down.
• The article has some issues with overlinking--things like the names of the major characters, actors, Stan Lee, The Avengers, city names, 3D, etc., appear to be linked in section after section. The article is also so dense with blue links that it's difficult to read at times. In the long list of scouted locations, for example, imagine how few readers are likely to click through to learn more about New Mexico, Ohio, or "tax incentive" from this article (and those few can of course type it into the search bar); many of these lower-interest terms could be delinked. I've done some myself, but more remains. This isn't a deal-breaker for GA status, but could be improved.
• Another minor issue that's not a dealbreaker for GA status is that quotations should not contain wikilinks per MOS:QUOTE. You can see solutions there for how to include links you consider essential.
• The sentence "An earlier draft of the script, written before Johansson's involvement, included the female superhero Wasp" unnecessarily copies the structure and language of its source {WP:Close paraphrasing). This is a deal-breaker. Please fix and check for other instances.
• The sentences "Concept illustrator and designer of Iron Man's Mark VII armor Phil Saunders stated that "Joss Whedon was looking for something that had the 'cool' factor of the suitcase suit [from Iron Man 2], while still being a fully armored, heavy duty suit that could take on an army in the final battle." To that end, Saunders borrowed ideas that had been proposed in Iron Man 2 as well as some ideas that had been abandoned in Iron Man and merged them together in a modular suit that has big ammo packets on the arms and a backpack.[79] The Science & Entertainment Exchange also provided science consultation for the film.[80]" seem out of place in the middle of a discussion of locations and tax incentives. Can a more logical spot be found for these details?

-- Khazar2 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I added background information for Norton, reworded the sentence describing him declining the role, delinked most of the common, previously linked, quoted, and unlikely searched terms (though I might have missed a few), restructured the Wasp sentence, separated the Concept illustrator and S&EE information from the proceeding paragraph (not sure where else to put it, as it relates pre-production), and removed information regarding Zak Penn's and the Hulk's confirmation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A picky point I should have caught the first time: "Casting began in October 2008 with the signings of Robert Downey, Jr. and Don Cheadle, who would reprise their Iron Man 2 (2010) roles as Iron Man and War Machine, respectively. Despite previous reports, Cheadle denied such statements in an interview with MTV News, saying that he would not appear in The Avengers." So was Cheadle signed, but didn't appear in the movie? Or do we have a wrong sentence followed by a correct one? If Cheadle was never signed, mention of him can probably be removed entirely. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't make any such distinguish. The information goes to explain why he is not in the film since he was thought to be appearing for over two years, which was an explanation asked for by readers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I reworded to avoid the reference to him being "cast" in the film, but left mention of him in the article. Thanks for your quick responses to all of this, by the way. I want to give one more look-over, but I think we're done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A minor instance of close paraphrasing was found and corrected, but spot-checks of 15-20 other sources revealed no further issues. Prose is clear and straightforward.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article is thoroughly sourced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article does an excellent job of covering plot, background, reception, etc.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is slightly overdetailed in "development" and "pre-production" sections, with an emphasis on early media reports, but overall is good in this area.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is factual in tone and clearly attributes critical opinions.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article appears to have no ongoing edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Article has a good range of useful images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent work.

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.