Featured topics and good topics aren't the same thing, and this seems likely to fail anyway, given that this article is no longer GA, and Captain Marvel has been out on home video for close to a month and not even been nominated yet. |
TheHistoryBuff101 (talk | contribs) →Relisting: new section Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
::::And if the above {{tq|''the article can be GA again after the concerns are addressed''}} is meant to imply that the article will automatically be re-promoted, unfortunately that is not how it works. It will need to go through GAN again, and preferably not only the unambiguous copyvio but also the quotefarm problem (which was part of the GAR rationale) and the POV and instability issues (which were raised and ignored in the original, insufficient GAN) and the cast section problems (which are shared by other articles in the "series", were raised [[Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA1|here]], ignored [[Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA2|here]], and of course ignored in this article's GAN) will need to be addressed. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
::::And if the above {{tq|''the article can be GA again after the concerns are addressed''}} is meant to imply that the article will automatically be re-promoted, unfortunately that is not how it works. It will need to go through GAN again, and preferably not only the unambiguous copyvio but also the quotefarm problem (which was part of the GAR rationale) and the POV and instability issues (which were raised and ignored in the original, insufficient GAN) and the cast section problems (which are shared by other articles in the "series", were raised [[Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA1|here]], ignored [[Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA2|here]], and of course ignored in this article's GAN) will need to be addressed. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::A few points of clarification: First, I was alerted to the issue because it appeared in the current activity box at [[WT:Comics]]. Second, while I'd like to get these issues cleared up, I cannot commit to doing so in any reasonable amount of time. I'm still working on a [[Talk:Herman Melville/GA1|GA review I started in mid May]]. Third, clearing up copy-vio isn't something I can do easily because my computer has a content filter that blocks sites it classifies as "entertainment". I was only able to address the item above because [[User:Hijiri88]] was kind enough to provide quotes. Finally, I asked for his opinion on my edits because he was the one who expressed concern. [[User:Argento Surfer|Argento Surfer]] ([[User talk:Argento Surfer|talk]]) 12:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
:::::A few points of clarification: First, I was alerted to the issue because it appeared in the current activity box at [[WT:Comics]]. Second, while I'd like to get these issues cleared up, I cannot commit to doing so in any reasonable amount of time. I'm still working on a [[Talk:Herman Melville/GA1|GA review I started in mid May]]. Third, clearing up copy-vio isn't something I can do easily because my computer has a content filter that blocks sites it classifies as "entertainment". I was only able to address the item above because [[User:Hijiri88]] was kind enough to provide quotes. Finally, I asked for his opinion on my edits because he was the one who expressed concern. [[User:Argento Surfer|Argento Surfer]] ([[User talk:Argento Surfer|talk]]) 12:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Relisting == |
|||
Could we ask TriiipleThreat to help bring back the article to Good Status? |
Revision as of 12:19, 25 August 2019
Black Panther (film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 2, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Wesley Snipes had been interested in portraying the Black Panther in film for more than 20 years, before Marvel Studios officially announced Black Panther in 2014 with Chadwick Boseman in the role? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Etavioncarroll (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kroman18 (article contribs).
Jamie Broadnax
In § Critical response it says "Jamie Broadnax of Black Girl Nerds". I suggest a link to Jamie Broadnax, and maybe also Black Girl Nerds. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Partly done: I've linked Jamie Broadnax. I did not link Black Girl Nerds, since it redirects to Broadnax's article anyway. NiciVampireHeart 19:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, makes sense. Thanks. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019
Change "John Marzano served as cinematographer for aerial footage of South Africa, Zambia, Uganda, and South Korea". To "Marzano Films www.marzanofilms.com was the aerial film director for all aerial footage taken over South Korea, South Africa, Uganda and The Victoria Falls and Zambezi River in Zambia for the entrance to Wakanda, using Eclipse XL HD & Mini Eclipse cinematography equipment mounted to helicopters".[1] Websitemagpie (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I will note that this request seems overly detailed for this article in my opinion, but provide your source and it can be reviewed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Still Not done: The source you've provided doesn't support the information you're requesting to be added. It does name the Eclipse and Mini Eclipse as the systems that were used, but as I said before I think that's too much detail for this article. Beyond that, the source doesn't say that Marzano was responsible for all aerial footage in those locations. It doesn't mention any specific locations such as Victoria Falls or the Zambezi River, nor that the equipment was mounted to specialist helicopters. The article does already mention his aerial footage in all four of these countries. Again, if you can provide reliable sources that directly support your request, please feel free to do so. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Amended to shorten the text and included new reference material to support changes. It is very important that "John Marzano" is changed to be his company name "Marzano Films" and credit the company with the work carried out on the making of this film and the locations they filmed in, please see above. Websitemagpie (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing still an issue
Our article: Black Panther premiered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on April 18, 2018, marking the first public film screening since movie theaters were banned in the kingdom in the early 1980s after ultraconservative religious standards were introduced in 1979. [...] The film premiered in a newly constructed 620 leather seat cinema, owned by AMC Theatres, in Riyadh's King Abdullah Financial District that (sic) was originally intended to be a symphony hall.
(Note that "newly constructed" is OR not supported by the source -- the two cited sources conflict on whether the theatre is a converted symphony hall or was "intended" to be used for that purpose, but neither actually says the building itself was new -- and "that was", while probably not technically ungrammatical, is very poor, awkward writing that was apparently done in a weak attempt to create the illusion of appropriate paraphrasing. Technically, Black Panther premiered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on April 18, 2018 is also unsourced, since we are not allowed cite a source written in the future tense for a claim that something happened in the past.)
Cited source: The “Black Panther” bow will mark the first screening of a film release in the kindgom since movie theaters were banned in the early 1980s, after Saudi Arabia adopted ultraconservative religious standards in 1979. “Black Panther” will inaugurate the new Saudi era in a luxurious cinema in a building originally intended to be a symphony concert hall. The facility, in Riyadh’s King Abdullah Financial District, has more than 600 leather seats,
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: - Have my edits addressed your concerns mentioned above? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Sorry to be late. For whatever reason I don’t seem to have noticed your ping. If I recall, I was quite busy last month -- maybe I saw it, thought I didn’t have time to click the link, and so put it off till later. Anyway, what the article needs is a thorough check for all potential plagiarism and OR, and until someone does that I don’t think the article can safely be considered “clean”. The same goes for the other “MCU” articles F1F93 has extensively edited. (Actually, plagiarism might be limited to F1F93 -- if we assume that the "That's not plagiarism" comments do not themselves indicate a poor understanding of our copyright policy in a manner that would merit the assumption that they themselves have copy-pasted text -- but the OR problem is something I've noticed with Adamstom.97 as well, or even more so.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- No need to apologize - everybody gets delayed some time.
- I understand that you think the whole article needs a once over, but are you satisfied about the specific example above? I want to make sure my revisions are meeting your standards before I put in any additional effort. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Sorry to be late. For whatever reason I don’t seem to have noticed your ping. If I recall, I was quite busy last month -- maybe I saw it, thought I didn’t have time to click the link, and so put it off till later. Anyway, what the article needs is a thorough check for all potential plagiarism and OR, and until someone does that I don’t think the article can safely be considered “clean”. The same goes for the other “MCU” articles F1F93 has extensively edited. (Actually, plagiarism might be limited to F1F93 -- if we assume that the "That's not plagiarism" comments do not themselves indicate a poor understanding of our copyright policy in a manner that would merit the assumption that they themselves have copy-pasted text -- but the OR problem is something I've noticed with Adamstom.97 as well, or even more so.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: - Have my edits addressed your concerns mentioned above? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Delisting
What was the basis for delisting when Argento Surfer promised to address the concerns raised just one day earlier? According to WP:Good article reassessment, reassessment discussions should typically not be closed when there is a comment 2-3 days older, unless five editors have commented in favor of delisting, or the consensus is clear. Neither is true in this case. Only two editors have participated in the discussion. Maybe the discussion was missed as it wasn't in the same section as the GAR? DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging concerned editors @Hijiri88, SNUGGUMS, Adamstom.97, Trailblazer101. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hadn't noticed such a promise probably because it was placed outside of the GAR, but as I said there, over 3 months had passed and there were no objections to the article being delisted in that period. There conversely had been a delist vote. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose it wouldn't do much harm as the article can be GA again after the concerns are addressed. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- The 2-3 days old comment was a tendentious one made by one of the editors responsible for the copyright infringement (this IDHT -- "that's not copyvio, but even if it was you should just blank it and then the article will be fine" -- was what prompted me to take the article to GAR). Insisting the article cannot be delisted as long as one editor doesn't want it to be delisted unless an overwhelming majority (5-1) have supported delisting seems a bit unreasonable. Several GANs in this topic area have been failed because of issues I and others brought up, and then without attempting to address those issues the articles were renominated and auto-passed: the bar is already far too low for GANs so setting it so high for GARs would be unhelpful. And in this particular case the original GAN reviewer was an obvious troll (and probably a sockpuppet), who wanted so badly to pass the GAN that he started a harassment campaign against me when I opposed it, so delisting should have been a simple, open-and-shut procedural matter rather than something that took the better part of four months to process -- the bar was already set too high, and you (DeluxeVegan) had almost four months to express your opinion on the GAR page but decided only to show up immediately after the GAR was closed? I mean, I didn't wait until the GAN had passed in order to show up and start complaining -- I opposed promotion first, was harassed and name-called and threatened, and then the page was promoted, but it wouldn't have been totally out-of-line for me to watch the GAN unfold and then suddenly decide to publicly complain once it closed with the result that it was obviously going to have but that I didn't like.
- And again, I don't see AS making such a promise. I see him saying he doesn't want to go around doing thorough source-checks on this and all the other MCU film articles (he appears to have come here from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Marvel Cinematic Universe films/addition4) until I clarify whether that one minor check was adequate in my opinion, and I honestly don't think my opinion amounts to much; what we really need is a large number of editors who understand textual copyright, recognize the problem with these articles, and pledge to fix them, and I simply have not seen evidence of that at any time in the last seven months or so.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- And if the above
the article can be GA again after the concerns are addressed
is meant to imply that the article will automatically be re-promoted, unfortunately that is not how it works. It will need to go through GAN again, and preferably not only the unambiguous copyvio but also the quotefarm problem (which was part of the GAR rationale) and the POV and instability issues (which were raised and ignored in the original, insufficient GAN) and the cast section problems (which are shared by other articles in the "series", were raised here, ignored here, and of course ignored in this article's GAN) will need to be addressed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)- A few points of clarification: First, I was alerted to the issue because it appeared in the current activity box at WT:Comics. Second, while I'd like to get these issues cleared up, I cannot commit to doing so in any reasonable amount of time. I'm still working on a GA review I started in mid May. Third, clearing up copy-vio isn't something I can do easily because my computer has a content filter that blocks sites it classifies as "entertainment". I was only able to address the item above because User:Hijiri88 was kind enough to provide quotes. Finally, I asked for his opinion on my edits because he was the one who expressed concern. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose it wouldn't do much harm as the article can be GA again after the concerns are addressed. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hadn't noticed such a promise probably because it was placed outside of the GAR, but as I said there, over 3 months had passed and there were no objections to the article being delisted in that period. There conversely had been a delist vote. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisting
Could we ask TriiipleThreat to help bring back the article to Good Status?