Talk:Trinity War/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 19:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article for GA status over the next week or so. Anyone who is waiting for this review - please be patient, there's a lot of material to cover here & I don't know how long it might take. Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

In general the article is very impressive, looks well-sourced, well-written, etc. I do have some serious concerns, please see below Copyright section. Shearonink (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations
There are some apparent copyright violations. Please see the following articles: Each of the above articles has a match over 50% of possible copyright violations, see the following Copyright Violation Tool's results: I am putting this review on hold until the Copyright issues are resolved. From my first look it appears that some phrases/sentences have been lifted wholesale out of various sources. The sentences & phrases need to be put in the writer's own words. Shearonink (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Newsarama August 2013 Source
 * 2) IGN August 2013 Review
 * 3) IGN April 2013
 * Copyright results
 * Hi . Thanks for reviewing. The first two sources are reviews for the issues, in which direct quotes, attributed to the authors, have been used to state said authors opinions. The third, there is a large quote from Geoff Johns used in the "Name" section, which is again attributed to them. That is what has triggered the copyvio indicator. I can look to reduce the quote from Johns in the "Name" section, but I don't think the others need to be addressed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the Johns quote. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Just a style question - have you ever considered putting some of the longer quotes in block quotes?  Going on... Shearonink (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When I work on articles, I tend to try and avoid block quotes if I can, trying to find ways to cut down on the quoted material, or formatting alternatively. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Now that the quoted material is more clearly-delineated, the article passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2016 (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:
 * 1) 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. 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Since the comic bookresources.com references were added back in 2013, that website has changed its URL to cbr.com and the nomenclature of the URLs have somewhat changed as well. Please update & correct the following refs: 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 53, 55, 59, 60. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shearonink (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Why is this necessary if the URLs are not broken? If any are broken, I will happily fix, but as long as CBR internally redirects properly, I don't see why the links as added when this article was crafted before their shift need to be changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just checked, and none of the URLs are broken or are taken to any incorrect articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that yes, the internal redirect are working properly now (even though the URLS have been reconfigured completely. Reference 48, for instance, http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=user_review&id=6383 redirects to http://www.cbr.com/justice-league-23/).  But looking forward, what will happen if/when CBR.com changes their URLs/internal coding and there is a double redirect, or perhaps in the future a triple/etc redirect?  In the interest of future verifiability, I think it is better for readers if article sources are made as technically clean as possible when we editors have a chance to do so. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with that, but I've updated all the URL and relevant cite data. Also, in doing that, I slightly reformatted the reception section. I've added in scores from the aggregate site Comic Book Roundup for the event as a whole, and for the main titles. I also adjusted the heading formatting and moved around a couple things. The diff for all changes is here Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns with what I did. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * Help me understand something - Why is so much of the article taken up with the critical reception? I ran a page size tool on the Reception and it is about 50% of the article's total size.
 * Well there are six main titles to the storyline, with three main review sites providing opinions. So that comes out to 18 reviews, outside of the tie-ins, which also received a few. I've tried my best to keep each as concise as I could, while still expressing the reviewer's thoughts. So it will add up in size. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article passes all of the WP:GA with flying colors. Congratulations to all the editors who contributed, especially Favre1fan93. Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Appreciate you taking the time to review this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article passes all of the WP:GA with flying colors. Congratulations to all the editors who contributed, especially Favre1fan93. Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Appreciate you taking the time to review this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article passes all of the WP:GA with flying colors. Congratulations to all the editors who contributed, especially Favre1fan93. Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Appreciate you taking the time to review this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)