Talk:Captain America/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 22:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This one should be interesting. Hopefully I'll have a review posted for this within a few days. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Overall, I'm really impressed with this article. It's refreshing to see a comic book character treated in an encyclopedic context instead of having a glorified Fandom page. Most of the issues here are just copyedits and things to be adjusted for clarification, but there are also some possible issues with the sources that need to be looked at. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up this review, and for the thoroughness of your comments. I'll make revisions to the article based on your feedback in the coming days. Morgan695 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've responded to (most) of your comments, but I've been busy this week in my personal life I don't think I'll have time to rewrite the "Enemies" section in the next day. Possible to hold this GAR for a few additional days? Morgan695 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, personal life always comes first. There's no real deadline with these. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've responded to your notes. Thank you for your patience. Morgan695 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , great! If I have one more note for this article, it's that you should definitely take it to FA if that's something you're interested in doing. I see this article becoming a model for how to write comic book character articles going forward: it excels everywhere that most of these articles fall behind. For now, it's easily a GA. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made some minor copyedits myself.
 * Well-written

General:
 * Is there a clear dividing line between what goes in publication history and what goes in fictional character biography? Splitting them is almost certainly the right call, but there does seem to be a little overlap. It's most obvious with the Nomad arc, where they both provide very similar information.
 * I've tried to keep them separate, but there are some instances in Publication history where some plot context is necessary; explaining, for example, why Secret Empire represented a political shift for the character necessarily requires some level of summary of the story.
 * I'm noticing a specific grammatical error throughout this article. For example, take The series was a commercial failure, and was cancelled after just three issues. This is split into two clauses, but the second clause has no subject. This should either be rewritten as "and it was cancelled", or the comma should be removed so the subject applies to the entire sentence. There are several instances of this, so I suggest during a search for ", and" then doing a search for ", but".
 * Are there specific instances of this that stand out to you? I am clearly unaware of this grammatical convention, given that ctrl+f is returning 54 results for ", and".
 * Check for instances of "would" that work better as past tense. For example, would be can often be rewritten as "was".
 * Revised.
 * "Notes" and "noted" are used several times to describe a personal interpretation or opinion. This wording implies a factual nature and should be replaced in each of these instances. If it is factual, then it can just be said in wikivoice without "Critic A noted that..."
 * Revised.
 * There are several sentences that go on too long because they're combined with a colon or a semicolon. I listed a few examples below, but I suggest going through the uses and deciding case-by-case whether they would flow better as two sentences.

Lead:
 * The lead seems to be heavily weighted toward the character's 1940–1964 history, where it goes into detail about that aspect and essentially says "and he's been around since then" when it gets to 1964. A sentence could be added about Nomad, and S.H.I.E.L.D. could be mentioned alongside The Avengers, among other things.
 * I actually think that for the lede, the character context is adequate. It hits the three major aspects of his character – his wartime origins, the freezing incident, his modern status as a man out of time – and I fear that highlighting specific stories would lead to a slow creep of the lede being bloated with too much plot summary.

Creation and development:
 * This approach was also consciously political... – This sentence runs on. It could be two or three sentences.
 * Revised.
 * and notes that he regards Kirby as a co-creator – "and notes that" can be dropped. This would be more concise as its own sentence saying "Simon regarded Kirby as a co-creator..."
 * Revised.

1940–1944:
 * Is there a reason why the comic title is in bold?
 * This was an addition not made by me that apparently is meant to comply with WP:R. I feel like it's just confusing, and have removed it.
 * Captain America's popularity drew a complaint – Long sentence
 * Revised.

1980s and 1990s:
 * in a run that saw a storyline in which Captain America declines – Could this be rewritten to be less wordy?
 * Revised.
 * in which Captain America faced a crisis of confidence in the face of what Dematteis described as – Too wordy, and this sentence runs on.
 * Revised.
 * notably Paul Neary – "notably" suggests that we're elevating the importance of these examples. Does the source specifically identify them as the most notable?
 * Revised.

2000s–present:
 * Cassady noted that while the series was criticized for its political content, he stated that the aim – Besides the issue with "noted", saying both "noted" and "stated" is redundant
 * Revised.
 * The character was ultimately killed – "ultimately" feels inaccurate when the same sentence goes on to say that he was revived.
 * Revised.
 * A sentence about the current run might be warranted
 * Added.

Fictional character biography:
 * the superhero the Falcon – Two "the"s this close together read awkwardly
 * Revised.
 * Following the disbandment of the Avengers, Rogers discovers that Bucky is still alive – maybe Rogers can be replaced with "he" in this sentence. The sentences before and after this also use Rogers.
 * Revised.
 * Ultimately, it is revealed – "ultimately" is used twice in this sentence.
 * Revised.

Personality and motivations:
 * the character was consequently often criticized – "consequently often" reads awkwardly together
 * Revised.
 * while those characters became heroes because of a traumatic incident, Rogers carries on as a hero in spite of a traumatic incident – Italics should not be used for emphasis in formal writing
 * Revised.
 * which Weiner argues serves to reinforce the "nobility" of the character – "argues serves" reads awkwardly. "nobility" doesn't need quotes here, where it looks like MOS:SCAREQUOTES
 * Revised.
 * overt partisan political statements – "partisan political" is redundant
 * Revised.
 * writers have nevertheless regularly used Captain America – "regularly" can be lost without changing the meaning
 * Revised.

Political themes:
 * For example, the conspiracy storyline of "Secret Empire" reflected... – The Secret Empire and Civil War examples are attributed to critics, but this interpretation of the Streets of Poison storyline is stated as a fact, which implies it was the explicit intention of the author. It should clarify whether this is the case or not.
 * Revised.
 * where the United States is criticized for imperialist policies – It should be made clear that this is Dittmer's interpretation, rather than the article taking a position on foreign policy preferences.
 * Revised.

Shield:
 * The description of the shield seems to veer into in-universe description. This is particularly the case with phrases like The shield is constructed from and when thrown, it is capable. A few wording changes might help clarify that it's how the shield is depicted, described, portrayed, etc.
 * Revised.

Sidekicks:
 * "Sidekicks and partners" might be a more appropriate subheading, since Cap and Falcon were more or less peers.
 * Revised.
 * first sidekick is Bucky Barnes – I know this is tricky with fiction, but in my opinion "first is" reads awkwardly as opposed to "first was"
 * Revised.
 * noting that "mostly, Bucky was brought in – this could be cleaned up by pulling "mostly" from the quote, choosing a different word if necessary.
 * Revised.
 * the character remained deceased for many decades & he was revived in 2005 – This makes it sound like the character died and was brought back to life in-universe.
 * Revised.
 * introduced as the superhero The Falcon – "the superhero The" reads awkwardly
 * Revised.

Romantic interests:
 * after Bernie decided to leave New York – "after Bernie left New York" is more concise
 * Revised.
 * Did any of the sources specify who his "primary" love interest was (presumably one of the Carters)? If so, that would be a helpful detail.
 * I wouldn't say that Cap has a "primary" love interest; Sharon has certainly been his most consistent love interest in modern comics, and the elevation of Peggy Carter as a character following her appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has certainly heightened her perception as Cap's "true" love, but neither of those relationships have been permanent and inviolate aspects of the character.

Alternate versions of Captain America:
 * The sentence about the former Captain Americas is long and wordy. I suggest giving this one a little more room, maybe introducing the idea that there were inconsistencies and then in the next sentence listing the examples that were creates to resolve them.
 * Revised.
 * there are multiple variations of Steve Rogers and Captain America – This makes it seem like just a few. Would "many" be more appropriate than "multiple"?
 * Revised.

Cultural impact and legacy:
 * one of the most popular and recognized Marvel Comics characters – "widely recognized" might be preferable to just "recognized".
 * Revised.
 * of the United States-themed superhero to emerge – "superhero" should be plural
 * Revised.
 * provoked a significant proliferation of patriotic-themed – "significant" editorializes, and the sentence still makes sense if it's removed. Of course, this whole sentence should be reworded because the alliteration is distracting
 * Revised.
 * such that a mere three months – "a mere" can be cut
 * Revised.
 * Captain America became linked to counterculture of the 1960s through the film Easy Rider. – This doesn't make sense without further context, and I didn't see any when I checked the source. If this isn't significant to the character, it might be better to remove it.
 * Removed.

All sources appear to be reliable. WP:EARWIG turned up no obvious copyright violations. Non-independent sources by Marvel or its employees don't appear to be used for contentious claims. The Blogspot source appears to be written by reputable entertainment journalists. What I'm really happy to see is that this article isn't plagued by a wall of citations to seemingly random comic book issues.
 * Verifiable with no original research


 * Is there any methodology to how the list of enemies was chosen? If not, then it presents two problems: the selection might be original research, and it encourages drive by additions.Either some sort of criteria should be made clear, or this should be rewritten to look more like the "sidekicks" section. My preference would be the latter, but either would be fine for GA.
 * I've revised the section.
 * I often give this as blanket advice in GA reviews, but it's generally better to paraphrase than use to quotes if the exact wording isn't important to the reader's understanding. There's no such thing as under-quoting, but there is such a thing as over-quoting. The quote boxes are a nice touch though, helping break up the text in an article where images aren't always an option.

Spot checks:
 * Dittmer (2012) – Checked all uses. The cited page doesn't appear to support that he is tethered to hegemony, only foreign policy.
 * Stevens (2015) – Checked all uses.
 * Does this support any of the information it's supposed to support under "alternate versions of Captain America"? The source just has a long list of names, but the article uses a random selection of these names and then provides extensive context that I don't see in the source.
 * The reason listed in the article is the reason why these characters were established as Captain Americas, but as they are relatively minor characters, I found it difficult to find a source directly substantiating that information. I've revised the section accordingly.
 * I see the Ultimate Captain America coverage at pp. 225–226, not p. 224. It also looks like there's enough information here to lend itself to a sentence on how Ultimate Cap is different from primary Cap, if that would be beneficial.
 * Revised.
 * Wright (2001) – Checked all uses.
 * p. 32 is a full page image in the copy at archive.org. I also don't see Cap being referred to as explicitly anti-fascist on the pages before or after, nor that the stories frequently contained political messages.
 * I mostly intended this as an intro statement for the section, but it seems somewhat flowery so I've removed it.
 * Close paraphrasing: steals the wording consciously political.
 * Revised.
 * Supports post-war period but not final years of the war.
 * Revised.
 * This doesn't seem to support any of the details after Timely's corporate successor Atlas Comics relaunched
 * Corrected.
 * Hayton & Albright (2009) – Checked all uses.
 * I see the Vietnam content on p. 18, not p. 17.
 * Corrected.
 * Captain America became linked to counterculture of the 1960s through the film Easy Rider is almost a word-for-word copy of the source.
 * Already removed.
 * Walton (2009) — Checked both uses. causing Dematteis to resign from the series in protest is almost a word-for-word copy.
 * Revised.
 * Dutter (1990) – Checked all uses.
 * Simon only writing two issues is on p. 12, not p. 11.
 * Revised
 * Not a problem with the article, but this source really seems to stress that they wanted to get the first issue out quickly before someone killed Hitler. This is one of those strange facts that could make the article more interesting.
 * Added as a note.

The spot check wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either. The WP:Text-source integrity issues are minor, but five of the six sources I checked turned up at least one. If the information isn't stated on the cited page, that makes it look like WP:original research, even if it isn't. On the other hand, there are also a few times where similar wording is copied from the source. It's not too serious of an issue since it's mostly just a few words each time instead of whole passages, but it's still a plagiarism risk. I went back and forth on whether to halt the review early based on the spot checks, but it should be easily surmountable if it's just a matter of adjusting page numbers and some minor wording changes. There's also the real possibility that I'm just oblivious and some of these are clearly written on the cited pages.

Omissions:
 * Broad in its coverage


 * It's not clear what Steve Rogers has been up to since 2012 except that he was succeeded as Captain America by Sam Wilson and then replaced by Hydra Supreme. Between publication history and fictional character biography, at least one of the two should have some info about this. A few words as to how the Secret Empire storyline resolved might be helpful as well.
 * I checked the version of the article before your rewrite, and one redeeming quality was that it (tried to) describe the different types of enemies Cap has historically faced. In addition to (or as an alternative to) the list of enemies, a paragraph detailing the general themes of his rogues gallery might be beneficial if sources can be found for this. This is something I'd expect for FA rather than GA though.
 * It might be appropriate to have a paragraph about video game appearances under "in other media", though he doesn't have any super prominent video games and it ultimately depends on whether his video game appearances are prominently mentioned in the sources. Either way, it's beyond what I'd expect at GA and I'm just throwing it out there.

Excessive detail:
 * This article's scope otherwise seems to be specifically about Steve Rogers, but an entire paragraph is dedicated to Bucky's costume while he's Captain America. I suggest moving this to Bucky Barnes. If this paragraph is moved or removed, then the subheadings in this section might be unnecessary since there will only be three paragraphs remaining.
 * Done.
 * patriotic-themed superheroes in American comic books during the 1940s, including... – The list of examples is a bit long. It would be better as two or three of the most prominent if not cut entirely.
 * Revised.

No aspect is given undue weight, and no interpretation is given undue prominence. A few minor wording issues, but they are addressed above under criterion one.
 * Neutral

No recent disputes.
 * Stable

The three non-free images are all justified with valid non-free use rationales. Captions provide detailed context. Good choice for the infobox image.
 * Illustrated