Talk:The Winter Soldier (story arc)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 22:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that writer Ed Brubaker earned more from the residuals for his cameo appearance in the 2014 film Captain America: The Winter Soldier than he did for the comic he wrote that the film was adapted from? Source: 1
  • Reviewed: Hare Hare Yukai

Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Winter Soldier (story arc); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Passed copyvio check, the two possible violations were in fact quotes and given as quotes. Spot-checked the accessible sources, AGF on the offline sources. Interesting hook. Article long enough and new enough at the time of nomination.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Winter Soldier (story arc)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 01:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A few things need addressed before the article passes

• Can the ISBN and TPB be added in the infobox since those parameters are listed? If not, I recommend just removing unused parameters

 Done I think I did that correctly. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• It was written by Ed Brubaker, and drawn primarily by Steve Epting - the comma isn't needed

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Captain America, Bucky Barnes and sidekick can all be unlinked in the context section. They are all marked as WP:DUPLINKS since they're all linked in the plot section.

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• He noted that to reverse Bucky's death necessarily meant - I think a word is missing before necessarily

 Fixed I'm not sure, I think the word was meant as an adverb meant to further clarification altogether rather than conveying new info. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Brubaker selected the name early in the pitch process, as it was name that "that could - another missing word and a double "that"

 Fixed Minor clarification -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a reason that the ref at the end of the production section isn't list defined like the other refs?

Y All web refs converted to LDRs -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Same thing with the refs in the releases section

Y All web refs converted to LDRs -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• The article isn't super long, but it is a bit quote heavy, so maybe try to clean that up a little where possible if you can.

 Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Not absolutely necessary, but I recommend adding archives to the refs that are websites where possible.

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Images look good and all have proper licensing
• Spotchecks: Check refs #7, #13, and #16 (as of this edit). All refs are used properly and the info in the article is supported by each of these refs.
• Earwig also found no big issues. The 2 biggest matches were quotes which are properly cited.

Overall great job. Just a some minor things need cleaned up. I'll do spotchecks once everything else has been addressed. -- ZooBlazer 01:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

ZooBlazer Hey there! It's good to see you here Zoo. I just decided to quickly pitch in and help decide to expedite the process here by going ahead and already take care of the above issues. Feel free to update me as the GAN progresses, both Zoo and the OP. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan Thanks for helping out! Everything looks good to go. I did the spot checks and checked Earwig. No issues came up, so I'm happy to pass the article. We didn't get to interact, but congrats @Morgan695! -- ZooBlazer 01:21, 5 January 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.

• Just wanted to say thanks to ZooBlazer for taking on this GAR, and to Dcdiehardfan for taking on the edits in my stead. Morgan695 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)