Talk:Invasion! (Arrowverse)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Esprit15d (talk · contribs) 00:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to start by mentioning that this is a very strong article. I love reviewing articles that have been treated with so much dedication and care. I've already made some simple and uncontroversial edits to the article. Here are my further comments:
 * I'm inclined to think that "Invasion" (when referring to the crossover as a whole) should not be in quotation marks. Per MOS:MAJORWORK, Also, Titles says that "Descriptive titles for media franchises and fictional universes (including trilogies and other series of novels or films) should not be placed in italics or quotation marks,." The individual episodes (which make up the crossover) should be in quotations, but complete works are not in quotes. If anything, it could maybe be italicized, but not quotation marks, and I think that nothing would be fine.
 * I definitely don't think italics would be correct, and I don't think using quotes is an issue either, especially since it is the same as the episode names. If they were different, I might be inclined to agree with no quotes, but I don't think having the quotes is an issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Quotation marks are used in the titles of works to indicate that they are an installment of a larger work (eg. a song on an album, an article in a magazine, and episode of a television program). That is not the case here.  In the absence of a reason to use punctuation, it should be omitted.  For example, one wouldn't put quotation marks around the title of a concert tour or underline the Marvel Comic Universe.  The rule of thumb is "if in doubt, leave it out."--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "when he attempts to stand up for Barry." -- Does he attempt to stand up for Barry, or does he actually stand up for him? If so, take out "attempt to"
 * He attempts to stand up for Barry, other persons in attendance do not follow suit in supporting Barry. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "inside pods about a Dominators ship" -- The word "about" there usually would mean "around."  If that means the pods are tossed everywhere, I might say "strewn about," as the current phrasing does not paint a clear image.
 * I have made it "inside pods on a Dominators ship" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "making them realize what the Dominators have done to them" -- I made some edits to clarify that they were "unconscious" except for the hallucination they were all sharing. Also, to indicate that they could communicate with each other despite in the shared hallucination, despite being "unconscious.:


 * I'm pausing for the evening, but I will be resuming tomorrow.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I tried to simplify some of the sentences that were run ons and a bit cluttered with unnecessary passive voice, prepositional transitions, and other wordy language.
 * The casting chart looks awesome.
 * "is knowledgeable about these particular enemies, the Legends can help better understand the last time the Dominators visited Earth thanks to their time travel capabilities, and both Teams Flash and Arrow have a diverse array of capable heroes who are able to understand and counter just about every imaginable threat." -- this quote is an opinion and is too long not to attributed to someone. Please include in the text who said this.  For example, "the showrunner said..." or "XYZ magazine said..."  Plus, commentary on fiction must be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and that sentence came too close talking about them like they are real, versus characters.

Interrupted again. I will return.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * All three of the subheadings under release can be consolidated. There isn't enough information there to justify subheadings.
 * I disagree. Having it all together would not seem proper to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reception chart looks solid.
 * The critical review sections are good. I think the individual reviews could be more concise, but I won't fail for that. That's more a FA issue.
 * The references section is very well formatted. I did notice, however, that some of the links are archived, even though they aren't dead links. What is the reason for that?
 * WP:LINKROT prevention. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox is awesome.

I've completed my review, and I will be placing the GA review on hold pending feedback on a few items I mentioned above. Great work so far!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have answered above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is just a courtesy ping for the review, given it has been 14 days since I last commented and answered your initial questions and have not heard a response. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a lot going on personally, but had not forgotten about it. I will address the matters now.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good. I've made one additional comment.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Other comments
I've just made some edits that smooth out the Plot section, but looking through the article afterward, standardizing the dashes and adjusting the spacing around ellipses per the manual of style, what struck me was the number of very long quotes being used, mostly in the reviews section, but also how little of the source material was put into prose.

Handling reviews is tricky, and I don't think it's quite successful here, certainly not at a GA level. There are a number of things to consider. First, you want it to flow. This can be by contrasting reviews, or points in different reviews, by highlighting agreement here but disagreement there, by going from most positive to most negative or vice versa, but it should be smooth either way. You can even deal with certain aspects from more than one reviewer in a paragraph, rather than do each reviewer as a single unit. Next, you want it to be consistent. This article's reviews bounce back and forth between past and present tense, between "wrote" and "noting" and "said" and "stating". Stick with the former: "wrote", "noted", "stated", "concluded", etc. You also want to avoid run-ons and repetition: there was one sentence that used "noting" twice before I removed the second one.

Per WP:Blockquote, quotes that are about 40 words or longer should be put into blockquotes. I have done so to the article, making sure each blockquote has its own citation, and it really makes the ratio of quote to prose stand out. It also points up the quality of the prose transitions into (and sometimes out of) the quotes—these need to stand on their own and flow well into the quote, and they don't always do so.

There are also sentences that just aren't clear and concise (one of the GA criteria for prose). For example, and Oliver's "lash out" at Kara to have her not be at the confrontation with "Glasses". is particularly opaque, though that whole paragraph could use polishing.

In short, I think there needs to be rewriting here so the reviews are more prose and much less quotes, and the connections between the two are more graceful; this should not merely be chopping the quotes into smaller bits to get around the blockquote rule. Having a couple of particularly engaging blockquotes is fine, but the main thing is to get a good narrative and only use phrases from reviews when they convey the reviewer's style and unique/exact phrasing in a way that would be difficult to capture the import and flavor in a rephrasing—the last thing we want is to mischaracterize what the reviewer said. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Favre1fan93, Esprit15d, what's the status of this nomination? It's been over three weeks since I made the above comment, and I don't see that any edits have been made to address the issues raised. Will there be work done on the article soon? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, There has been no activity on this nomination in the past two weeks. In the interest of keeping the nominations page clean, I kindly ask the reviewer to please continue with the review process. If no progress is made within the next few days the review will unfortunately be closed. -- Dom497  ( talk ) 02:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Dom497, it is not up to you to decide when this nomination should be closed. The decision is up to Esprit15d, though as their most recent edit on Wikipedia was New Year's Day, if they were still to be absent at the beginning of February, it might be time to find a new reviewer to continue. In the meantime, Brojam requested a week ago that the article be copyedited by the Guild of Copy Editors, with special attention to the critical response section and its overuse of quotes. Under the circumstances, it would seem to make sense to wait until the copyedit is completed, though I do have sympathy with the feeling that it has been too long since the nominator has worked on the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I would close the review (terrible wording on my part...sorry). I was just trying to nudge this review to make sure people are still aware of it. I'm not the reviewer so I don't have the final say but for me, requesting a copy edit would be grounds to end the review and wait until the copy edit process is complete.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has been copy-edited. I hope this addresses some of 's concerns. It is also still up to to give an ultimate decision on the result of the nomination. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Favre1fan93, it doesn't address the main point, which had to do with the Critical reception section and the excessive use of long quotes. There are still far too many of them for a proper GA, and most of them need to be much shorter with more paraphrasing in your own words. I'm puzzled as to why the GOCE is ignoring WP:Blockquote, and am querying the copyeditor on that point. I noticed that you removed some of the copyeditor's additional inline citations, and I'm afraid you did so in error. You need to cite every quote by the end of the sentence in which it appears, even if the next sentence happens to be from the same source and has its own cite. Verifiability of quoted text is extremely important, and certainly so for a GA. If you want this to pass, you'll restore them. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * RE to the point about the ref tags. In my 6+ years working on Wikipedia, I have never come across an issue with citations appearing at the end of the information chunk in which it cites, quotes and all. If there is other material inserted between it then yes, but we shouldn't needlessly be doing "Sentence 1 "with a quote".[citation 1] Here is another sentence.[citation 1] And another cited by the same source.[citation 1]" when "Sentence 1 "with a quote". Here is another sentence. And another cited by the same source.[citation 1]" works just as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

New reviewer
Since the review appears to have been abandoned, I'd be willing to step in and take over. , any objections to me as the new reviewer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No objections - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The Dominators storyline was its weakest link: suggest "was regarded as its weakest link", since we don't want the opinion in Wikipedia's voice.
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A subsequent crossover, "Crisis on Earth-X", occurred the following year: suggest "fourth" instead of "subsequent", as being slightly more informative.
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * which exposes Barry's manipulation of the timeline and its effect on other team members. As a result, only Oliver, Kara, Felicity Smoak, Martin Stein, and Jefferson "Jax" Jackson still trust him: as someone who knows nothing about these shows, I think this is a little too opaque. Does the "him" at the end refer to Barry Allen, Cisco Ramon, or Rip Hunter?  (I see from the next paragraph that it's Barry, but it's not clear until then.)  And can we get an adjective or descriptive phrase for "effect"; perhaps "negative effects", if it was negative?  And I've no idea why those people, some of whom haven't been mentioned before, would trust someone after this news, but nobody else would.
 * I changed the "him" to Barry. There really isn't a good encompassing adjective for "effect" because Barry changed things, some good, some bad (depending on who looks at the situation). For the last comment about why these people trust, that's I think too much to get into for a plot summary of one episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oliver also stays behind when he tries to defend Barry: Why does this follow? By "defend" do you mean Oliver takes his part in an argument about whether he's trustworthy?  Does he voluntarily stay with Barry or do the others refuse to have him come with them?
 * Fixed (hopefully). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * the Dominators kill him when he is found and give the group a mind control device: again I'm sure this is obvious to someone who knows the plot, but when I read this my reaction was "why would they give their enemies such a useful gadget"? Of course the next sentence makes it clear what's going on, but how about: "the Dominators kill him when he is found, and use a device to place the team under mind control.  The controlled heroes..."
 * This isn't the same sentence anymore as when you looked at it. So I think it is okay now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * having never gotten on The Queen's Gambit: I understand that this is a backstory reference, but is there any way to link it to something explanatory?
 * Linked to the plot section of the Arrow pilot, where this is shown. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Diggle is the Hood: Similarly here; either explain that the Hood is a villain (or whatever he is) or link to an explanation.
 * Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The captives begin seeing flashes of their lives, making them realize what the Dominators have done to them: suggest "The captives begin seeing flashes of their real lives, and realize what the Dominators have done to them".
 * Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * They decide to escape, but their attempt is blocked by their enemies: Malcolm Merlyn...: suggest "Their escape attempt is blocked by Malcolm Merlyn..." as more concise.
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * now that metahumans have appeared due to the Justice Society of America: metahumans have appeared because of the Justice Society of America? Or do you mean something like "now that metahumans such as the Justice Society of America have appeared"?
 * As with above, the sentence is different since you've examined it. I think it solves your issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This did not occur due to a note from the studio that: this makes it sound as though the following text is the text of the note, but in fact it's Guggenheim's description of the note. How about "The studio considered the idea too confusing, and the idea was dropped", and then I'd paraphrase the other material -- there's nothing there that benefits from being a direct quote.
 * There are too many quotes in the article. We're supposed to use quotes to illustrate articles; they shouldn't be the primary way we give information to the reader.  Take a look at this version of the article, in which I've bolded every quote.  The production section needs to have the quotes cut by at least half, but the biggest problem is in the reception section, which is almost entirely constructed of quotes.  Take a look at WP:Copyediting reception sections for some ideas on how to rewrite this.
 * Handled many of the quotes in the production section. I will tackle the reception section shortly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , adding a ping in case you didn't notice the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've answered above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've struck all the points above except the last one, which you're still working on. Let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The reception section has been c/e. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotes in the production section are now fine. I still think there are too many quotes in the reception section, but it's better than it was, and this is GA, not FA, so I'm going to pass the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)