Talk:Luke Cage season 1/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments Already good enough as far as I can see, the above are polite suggestions really. Nice work, on hold for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "in Harlem. It" probably worth saying New York for those who don't know where Harlem is...
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * " the unique atmosphere and culture of Harlem" sounds a bit OR-ish/POV-ish, maybe just remove "unique"?
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Visual effects were provided by FuseFX, and included depicting Cage's abilities." picky but would be tighter "Visual effects, including the depiction of Cage's abilities, were provided by FuseFX."
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "premiered in Harlem" since this was a TV series, how did that premier in one city work?
 * They just showed the first two episodes in a premiere setting i.e. a whole lot of well-known people went to a theatre in Harlem, had a red carpet and then watched the two episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For me, if you can cite it, that's worth including here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEADCITE the cite is not included there. See the info sourced in the last sentence of the "Marketing" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see it, I missed it first time round. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "to an estimated high viewership" sounds very woolly.
 * I do think this is the best way to summarise the viewership section though, since Netflix does not release data and so all we have are estimates. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but the problem is what is defined as "high" here? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would "strong" be better, since that is a sourced term in the viewership section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, there's no context for what that really means. Does "strong" mean thousands, millions, billions?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We're just trying to find a way to summarise the actual viewership section (which has more details) down to a couple of words, but it is quite difficult since we really don't have any concrete numbers. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the actual quote? Perhaps use that in quote marks because right now it's effectively meaningless without context, so a quote is the best it's going to be.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't really one good quote we can use, just a bunch of data that vaguely says that the show did well. This is why it has been so hard to come up with ideal wording. I think it is still important to mention the viewership in some way, but I don't want to be stating full-on facts in the lead when that is the job of the section in the body. Specifically, the season was one of the top five most viewed during its first 30 days. If you can think of a concise and clear way of saying something to that effect then we could go with that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I like that, it's specific and contextual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tried to add something. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "particularly for its first half" not keen, especially given 13 episodes...
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "the 1970s style and music" last para we had "composed a "90s hip-hop" score", this seems contradictory.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Title [a]" no space.
 * The spacing that you see there is just how the table displays that. If you look at the wikicode, the reference [a] is being provided as a parametre to the table. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that's the downside to using such templates which incorrectly render such things. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "actually shooting up an arms deal" I'm not sure I understand this, a little too "in universe" or "jargony" for me.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * " d-Nice also appears, as " no reason for that comma.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "but his right-hand Tone" I would usually expect to see "man" in there.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "C.O. " is piped to a redirect. I would spell it out and pipe it to Prison officer.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "type of weapon, the Judas bullet, " strictly, is a bullet a weapon, or is it ammunition?
 * Per our own article on ammunition, I don't think it is incorrect to describe a bullet as a weapon, though I do understand why it might have seemed a bit odd to you on first reading it. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't think you can kill someone with a bullet without a weapon, e.g a gun though. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The bullet is the weapon in the sense that one can fire it through various methods: a gun, rocket launcher, etc. So I think classifying the bullet as the weapon is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what you've described is the projectile which is launched from the weapon. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A bullet is still generally considered to be a weapon though, and in this case it is definitely the weapon (rather than whatever is launching it) because the bullet itself has been specially designed to cause harm to powered people. The gun being used is irrelevant and not discussed in the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I've never heard anyone consider the ammunition to be a weapon, but it's clear you're sticking with this and it's not a huge issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "home in Savannah, Georgia where " comma after Georgia.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings " small t in The. Fix later in the prose too...
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * " binge watching " I would expect this to be hyphenated.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "' editor-in-chief" don't pipe to the unhyphenated version as it simply redirects back to the hyphenated version!
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ", reprising his role from Jessica Jones;[9]" I think (think) this is now the third time you've mentioned this?
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "art deco" is capitalised.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "ear pieces" I call them defenders, is that an ENGVAR thing?
 * Haha, I have never heard of that. I call them earplugs, but I didn't think that was the common name either so I just went with the term used in the source. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Visual effects" section has a couple of quotes, but no references until the end of the section. I'd expect the quotes to be cited immediately.
 * I just removed the earlier ones as they weren't all that necessary anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "18-49" needs an en-dash. Both times.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You need an "As of" for the Rotten Tomatoes, as of right now, it's at 94% with a 8.03 average rating from 69 reviews.
 * The standard process which I am following (per most film and TV articles) is to just use past tense in case it is no longer up to date, since these numbers so quickly change. At the moment it says RT "reported a 93% approval rating with an..." which is not incorrect, since they did report that at some point in the past. I'll go ahead and update the numbers to the new ones now. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It'd be better to follow WP:ASOF and just add the date relevant to the stats. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since that is not what is done for all the WP:TELEVISION or even WP:FILM articles that I have seen, I would be reluctant to change up the process just for this article. Especially because it is unlikely that the number will change significantly moving forward. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This kind of transcends what is done for TV or film articles in general, if they don't do it, it's bad practice, as this has been shown to have changed significantly since you nominated the article. I don't see what the actual problem with using the template that's recommended for this kind of information.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is not a special case; there is literally nothing about this article that demands a different approach from any other film or TV article. If you seriously think that this is something that needs to be done, then you must think that it should be done for all TV and film articles. In that case, I would suggest that we take this discussion to a more central talk page (perhaps WT:MOS?) where a wide-ranging consensus can be formed, and if the community agrees with you then we can update this article and others to use the ASOF template. Otherwise, I am not comfortable making the change here when the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS across the relevant projects is to use the current formatting. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what WP:ASOF does, it deals with data which changes quickly. This one changed by about 15% over nine months which is enough, particularly as your ref and the stats did not tie up.  Adding As of will mean the WP:V is preserved and cope with future fluctuations.  That it doesn't appear elsewhere seems like an oversight to me, particularly when these shows are available 24/7/365.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, do you want to have the discussion at WT:MOS? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's already covered at WP:ASOF and honestly, we're talking about adding "As of November 2018", to maintain verifiability and for future-proofing. I can't see a single reason to object to that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My objection is that it is not accepted by the community. I do think your reasoning is sound, so if we have the wider discussion then I don't see why it wouldn't become the new consensus quickly. I just think it is wrong to try and force someone to go against consensus in order to pass a GA review. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's only an implied consensus, and probably because nobody has discovered such a discrepancy in the past. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, but I fail to see why the addition of something which is inline with community norms and follows a Wikipedia-wide editing guideline is so problematic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because if this really is something that be happening then I think that should be made clear, so the change can be applied to the hundreds if not thousands of articles that are the same as this one. And if that is not the case, then the change does not need to be made here. It's not a case of me specifically trying to not do something here, I just want to make sure that whatever we do, we do it right. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well no, in this case because it's clear that reference is still unstable, it's useful (per the editing guidelines) to add WP:ASOF. For other instances, where the source is stable, it won't be.  It's not a "one size fits all" or "this needs to be rolled out across thousands of articles" type of argument.  It's tailorable for each circumstance, and in this case, the reference did not back up the claim in the article because the figures were still in flux.  That's the whole point of WP:ASOF.  It doesn't need a Wikiproject's buy-in, it doesn't need "community consensus" to roll it into individual articles, just a common sense approach to serve our readers who may look at the figures, look at the source and say "huh?  that's not right", just like me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But this article is not any more likely to have the RT information out-of-date than any other film or TV article, which is what my original concern was. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The only reason we're having this discussion is because it did. I checked a few other GANs, they're all out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's my point. If this is a problem, then it applies equally to all film and TV articles because they are all just as likely to be out of date as this one was. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. I don't think Jaws will be receiving new reviews and new criticism on Rotten Tomatoes.  The fact of the matter is that this reference was out of date.  It needs the WP:ASOF approach, per the Wikipedia-wide guidelines.  Other movies may not need that, others may do.  It's nothing to do with the movie project or anything, just a common approach to material that will get out of date.  This was nearly 20% wrong.  Whether or not other articles use it is immaterial.  Feel free to discuss it elsewhere but I'm just applying the Wikipedia-wide editing guideline that means our readers won't be misled when they find (just as I did) that the source doesn't match the claim in the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick check shows that Jaws, which currently has this RT score, looked like this a year ago, so it is still being updated as well. This is seriously not a problem with this article, it is a Wikipedia-wide issue that needs to be addressed. I am happy to make the change here, but only when I know that it is how the community wants to approach the issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, for clarification, you are not prepared to add four words ("As of November 2018") to the article to absolutely ensure that our readers understand that changing statistics are not necessarily verifiable by the source you provide? Just those four words which you've offered about 1000 against?  Four words which would actually improve the quality of the article, just as as of is used in 100s of 1000s of articles across Wikipedia but somehow its use in the Rotten Tomatoes sentence in film articles is somehow verboten?  Really?  I mean, REALLY?  I'm not asking you to change any facts or rephrase any claims or use a different font or anything, just add four words (in accordance with Wikipedia-wide editing guidelines) and you want to keep challenging it?  Do you realise this will soon be recorded for all humanity to read once the aliens land? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am prepared to add them. In fact, I am happy to do so. I think it is a good idea. I just want to check with everyone else first. I don't think that is too much to ask. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine, go ahead and check. But if I asked you to turn a hyphen into an en-dash because it's compliant with editing guidelines, would you need to ask everyone else first?  I'm not clear on why this is such a big deal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you had asked me to turn a hyphen into an en-dash where the hyphen was being used uniformly across hundreds of articles then yes, I would want to check first there as well. It is only a big deal because it effects so many different articles. I have started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators as that seemed like an on-topic place to have it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked you to comply with editing guideline norms, and you refused. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't refused to do anything, I just want to do this correctly. Now that the discussion is finally underway, we'll know exactly what needs to be done moving forward soon enough and this back-and-forth will no longer be necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well if common sense is applied, the answer will be "do it according to the editing guideline" which is why it's an editing guideline. We don't need any sanction from a sub-project to encourage a Wikipedia-wide editing guideline, particularly in the face of overwhelming evidence for the need to do so.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is not my experience. There will always be those who argue against what seems like common sense application of guidelines, and it can lead to edit warring. If something is going to affect multiple pages then that goes a bit beyond WP:BOLD due to common sense, and so I have found it is easier to try start a discussion first with as many people as want to be involved. It is not a foolproof system, but hopefully it will cause less issues in the long run if we do make a change here and any where else that it is needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've got your discussion going there now, but it really isn't about a specific article or a specific genre of articles, or a specific project's set of articles, that's the point of things like WP:MOS, they transcend the petty issue that Wikiprojects mandate. It's a hell of a lot of fuss to object to the inclusion of just four words in line with a Wikipedia-wide editing guideline to make our reader's lives better.  The Rambling Man (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * " blaxsploitation " doesn't normally have an "s" in it.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed-> BuzzFeed.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In the table, Recipients sorts oddly because of Episode names in quotes.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You could add row scopes to the table for the award...
 * I don't think I have seen this at other TV articles for tables like this, and it seems like it would put a lot of emphasis on the award that I don't think is necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref 109 has spaced hyphen, should be en-dash.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Empire is piped to a redirect.
 * ✅ - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this review Rambling, it's great to finally get this done! I have responded above, with a couple of comments in some places but mostly I have made minor changes per your suggestions. Let me know how it all is. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Couple of responses for you . The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've responded above to some of your more recent comments to Adam. He is also welcome to respond to them too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a few responses of my own now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a couple issues to resolve now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey are we able to proceed with this review? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there doesn't appear to be consensus to support the Rotten Tomatoes change, per the discussion that has taken place at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators, so I don't really want to make the change here at the moment. Also, I am aware that Rambling has had some personal issues recently and spent some time with limited involvement on Wiki. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm still staggered that this whole thing has stalled over a Wikipedia-wide convention of dating potentially out-of-date material (which was the case here). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Any further progress on this? AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything has been addressed except the Rotten Tomatoes comment, which went to another page to gain some consensus. I don't believe the change or consensus was hoping to get ever occurred. So they can comment further how they want to proceed with this given review, given that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, that discussion showed more people agreed with the inclusion of as of (when necessary). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I wasn't really following that discussion. But was any "actionable" consensus formed to implement such a request? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I closed the ASOF discussion. Will see if it sticks. AIRcorn (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Status query
The Rambling Man, adamstom97, where does this review stand? I see that Favre1fan93 hasn't edited since February 21, so they may not be active at the moment. Is there any way this can be wrapped up? The review will have been opened for four months next week. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't been that active recently. This review is depending on the outcome of a different discussion. Since I haven't been around, I don't know what happened there, but hopefully Rambling does? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That discussion is heading into no consensus territory. I would say it is up to you how you want to present that. Using "as of" or just updating the score should both be acceptable for Good Article purposes. AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, adamstom97, this review has now been open for five months, and if I'm reading correctly, was effectively completed except for the "asof" issue after five days. The post-discussion RfC concluded over three weeks ago: There's a broad feeling here that the use of the "as of" template is not necessary, with a side of "it's pointless due to accessdate anyway", but also a consensus that this isn't really the best venue for a binding discussion ... but a binding discussion shouldn't even be necessary. This is a Good Article candidate, and as such is supposed to meet certain standards, which do not include the entire MOS, only five specific portions of it, and none of them involve the "asof" template. The particular item, Rotten Tomatoes, is accurate as of the current date, and as this is a long-since broadcast and released on DVD television season, there should be no realistic expectation of significant future change. As the WP:As of page says, Usually "as of" is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide the most current information available, and will need updating in the future. I don't see why the "most current" information would be part of this particular article's mandate.

In any event, five months is long enough. It's time for this review to be concluded, one way or the other. If The Rambling Man truly feels that the article must fail absent that one qualification—that its lack of an "asof" means it doesn't meet the GA criteria as written—then it's time to do it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder and update Blue. Now knowing the outcome of that discussion I am happy to stand by my original position of not wanting to add the As of tag here. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This one probably needs to be closed by now. --MrClog (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so. I will not be participating in this review any further.  It's a been a huge timesink and all over two words.  Ironically just earlier today I saw an article about a movie whose Rotten Tomatoes aggregator score had to be updated as it was so far out of date.  Anyone can pass this, but I pass. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion
Above I have been permitted to close this GA review. Because all issues have been taken care of except for the "asof", which is not a GA requirement, I'm going to let this nomination ✅. --MrClog (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)