Talk:Heroes Join Forces/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Plot
Let me start by saying I do not watch either show, so my comments are based solely on what is presented here. If I misunderstand the relative importance of any element, don't hesitate to do the exact opposite of what I suggest (ie: expand an idea instead of condense it).

"Later, Kendra is kidnapped by Hawkman, but is rescued by Barry and Oliver who capture him." I think this would read more clearly as "Later, Kendra is kidnapped by Hawkman, but Barry and Oliver rescue her and capture him."
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Kendra unlocks her abilities ..." What does this mean?
That she was able to use wings that grow out of her back. Not quite sure how to word this into the text. Maybe something like "Kendra unlocks abilities that allow her to grow wings out of her back."? - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Kendra unlocks abilities and becomes Hawkgirl" work? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Brojam (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...the team decides to regroup in Central City, where Oliver witnesses Samantha Clayton with her son, and realizes the child is likely his." I think this would read better if it was split after city. Samantha should also be introduced somehow, instead of just being namedropped.
Done for the sentence, but not for Samantha since I don't introduce any of the other characters when they are first mentioned. - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them were introduced in the lead (ex: "Kendra Saunders and Carter Hall, the reincarnations of Hawkgirl and Hawkman."). Something simple like "His ex-girlfriend Samantha" would really improve the clarity here. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Brojam (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Meanwhile, Caitlin Snow..." From this point to the end of the paragraph, the information seems superfluous. The characters are name-dropped instead of introduced, and the events seem like a simmering subplot instead of being relevant to the crossover. I'm sure this is important to a larger plotline, but a GA article should have a plot summary that can stand on its own.
Same point as above and quite important so rather keep this plot detail. - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it important? None of it comes up again in the plot summary, nor is it discussed in the reception. It's the only mention of Zoom, and there's no context for it. If it's important to this crossover, it needs to be expanded so that's clear. If it's part of a bigger arc, it should be removed. Subplots like that are best left to List of The Flash episodes. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added commentary about the serum used in this plot detail. - Brojam (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Oliver has Barry perform a paternity test on William..." Is William Samantha's son?
Yes, I've added it in the first paragraph, when Samantha is first mentioned. - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Oliver has Barry perform a paternity test on William and discovers he is his son. Confronting Samantha..." I think this would read smoother as "When a paternity test confirms Oliver is William's father, Samantha agrees..."
Modified a bit, but kept part about Barry doing the paternity test since that's how he knows and because of this tells the information to Oliver when he travels back in time after everyone dies. - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the condition he tells nobody" should be tell no one
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Felicity learns of Oliver's paternity and realizes that he had no intention of telling her. Feeling betrayed that Oliver is still willing to keep secrets from her, she ends their relationship." I think this would read smoother as "Felicity learns of Oliver's paternity and feels betrayed because Oliver is still willing to keep secrets from her, so she ends their relationship."
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"close enough to destroy the staff" suggest "close enough to Savage to destroy the staff"
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Savage quickly overcomes the element of surprise and kills both she and Carter before" suggest "Savage ~~quickly overcomes the element of surprise and~~ kills both ~~she~~her and Carter before"
Replaced the "she" with "her" but kept the part of element of surprise - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"destroy Central City and everyone in it." The everyone in it bit seems informal and inaccurate, since the next sentence says Barry escaped (unless the meeting wasn't in Central City?)
The meeting was indeed in Central City but since Barry has super speed he was able to escape and not die like everyone else. - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he gets out, then it's not really "everyone", is it? ;) Since there's no mention of an evacuation, I think stating this is redundant and informal. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Brojam (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" repeating the words Savage said the first time he killed the pair" These words were never mentioned before. Is there some relevance to them?
I remember it being important for future episodes, but I can't remember which ones. No harm in keeping it. - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...except that it's glaringly obvious that something is being omitted. What are the words? Do they have meaning? More importantly, do they have meaning to this crossover? If so, they need to be explained. If not, they shouldn't be mentioned.
Removed - Brojam (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with this revision by User:Kailash29792. Having the actual quote removes the mystery. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and characters
no concerns

Production
The first paragraph of this section talks like the first crossover was the backdoor pilot in Arrow S2, which would make this the third crossover event. The lead calls it the "second annual crossover". I understand the ideas, but the current language is contradictory. I suggest changing "Yearly crossover events in the Arrowverse have occurred..." to "The two shows have been written in a shared universe (the Arrowverse) since..."
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"which is serving as a [sort-of] pilot for Legends" suggest linking the italicized text to Television pilot#Backdoor pilot.
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlike last year's crossover, which was basically two separate..." This should specify 2014, and basically isn't needed.
Done Do you want me to remove "last year's"? - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Brojam (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"even more rewarding for the audience than the last years." Years is possessive in this usage, and there should be an apostrophe (before or after the s, depending on how you tackle the crossover issue mentioned above). But since this is a quote and the source made the error, you'll need to add [ sic ] to the tail end instead of correcting it.
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more information available for the filming subsection? If not, consider combining it with the Writing subsection.
Would rather keep it separate since they don't really go together. - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release
"to be screened at an exclusive fan screening " - repetitive. Suggest replace screened with shown
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
link to Screen Rant in prose and ref.
Done Thanks. Brand new article, didn't know it had one. - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"criticizing the "silly drama" between Oliver and Felicity in "Legends of Tomorrow"." - should be "Legends of Yesterday"
Done Thanks - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
"A second crossover between the two series was announced" - this would read more clearly without the word second
Going to keep since we use this for "Flash vs. Arrow" and "Invasion!". - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I don't see this format used on those articles. As is, the lead is discussing a second crossover before mentioning the first one. I'm talking about the usage in the second paragraph, not the opening line. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sorry, thought you meant in the first paragraph. - Brojam (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"who stating the network's " - stated
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"following the success of "Flash vs. Arrow". " - suggest adding "the previous year's crossover" here to clarify what Flash vs. Arrow is.
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"reviews however, the " comma should be after reviews, not however.
Done - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
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:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
earwig's top results are quotations and common phrases. no concerns
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Flash vs. Arrow has a section for music. Did the music for this crossover not received similar coverage?
Unfortunately no. Certain music was included in the season soundtracks of each show, but no sources specifically singled out that they were in the crossover. - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured. Thanks for clarifying Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead mentions another crossover the following year, but it's never mentioned in the article body. It's already sourced so it's fine as is, but have you considered adding a section on Additional crossovers similar to the Flash vs. Arrow article?
I've been wondering what to do about this. I had tried to add a similar section on "Invasion!" but got reverted so I didn't bother adding it to this article. @Favre1fan93: Thoughts? Should we have an additional section or only mention the future crossovers in the lead with a source and if so how many do we include: all of the future ones or just the next one? - Brojam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a small section with a "see also" or "main" template (like at Iron Man 2)would be appropriate, but Favre1fan93 has more experience in TV/film articles than I do. Hopefully he'll weigh in and expand on his edit summary. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon inspection, Favre1fan93 has a template up saying he may be offline for a while. Maybe @Adamstom.97: or @TriiipleThreat: could help? They work with him often. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I reverted the edit over at Invasion! was that we generally don't mention other episodes on episode articles unless it is in passing in the body. The article does link to the other crossovers in the infobox, and having the info sourced at the end of the lead is how we deal with subsequent television seasons that aren't mentioned in the body (for example, Daredevil (season 1)). So, I think it is fine as is, but I'm not against adding a small "sequel" section like what is done for films if others feel that we should do something like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. As long as it's inline with the general standard, it's fine with me. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concerns
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concerns

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concerns
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass pending responses

@Argento Surfer: Addressed all your notes above. - Brojam (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a couple more sources for production info. Will add the new content by the end of the day. - Brojam (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the additional material, but I'm happy enough with the current state to pass. Nice work, and good luck if/when you push for FA. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]