Talk:Agent Carter (film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 12:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Been thinking about doing this for a while. A change of pace from the video game reviews. –Cognissonance (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

• Cite ref. 4 for runtime.
  •  Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• "and is the fourth film in the Marvel One-Shots short film series" – Avoid repetition: "and is the fourth instalment in the Marvel One-Shots short film series".
  •  Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• "Peggy Carter faces sexism post-World War II while working for the Strategic Scientific Reserve" – Per ref. 4 this is not a summary of the plot, but of the circumstance leading up to it.
  • I've expanded it a bit to be more of a plot summary. Let me know what you think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Cast

• "We all knew Peggy Carter, because of the portrayal of Hayley Atwell, was a fan-favorite and a Marvel Studios favorite. She’s always been forefront for us....We adlibbed it on the day, but I particularly liked when Peggy looks into her compact at a bad guy. She’s using it as a periscope device, then she takes a moment and looks at herself." – Convert into prose. Copyvio is reacting to all of the long quotes, and it is preferred that most things are paraphrased.
  • Cut down. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• "John Flynn" – First name not mentioned in the source.
  • Source added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• "Carter's sexist SSR boss" – Would be read as WP:POV: "Carter's SSR boss".
  •  Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Ref. 2 is cited twice in succession in the last paragraph. Need only the last one.
  •  Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Production

Development

• "In August 2011, Marvel announced that a couple of short films, designed to be self-contained stories" – Ref. 4 was published in 2013 and does not mention the 2011 announcement. I also can't find the second short film that was announced, as all the others had been released already.
  • The info before the second comma was sourced by (former) ref 5, with the designed... covered by ref 4, and the remaining part of the sentence once again from ref 5. I've reworded the entire sentence to avoid this ref split up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Ref. 5 redirects to an unrelated article. deadurl=yes
  •  Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• I do not see Eric Pearson named in ref. 7 or 8.
  • That was odd. Added a ref to source him. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• "had been developing it, and we had an Agent Carter script—I don’t remember if Hayley was not available at that time or if complications in that way...When we started talking about what short we’d do next, we were throwing around ideas and we said, 'Let’s see if Hayley is available now. Can she do it?' And so, we pulled it out of our pile and we sent it to her and it just so happened that she was available" – Convert into prose.
  • Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• "She had seen Item 47 and liked it very much. She had read the script that we had developed, and she really loves the character, so she was on board. She also liked the fact that she got to show off some of her skill sets, that weren’t shown in the previous film. And we got to see her fight. I think everybody has a little bit of an action hero in them and wants to show it off. So, with that combination, she said yes" – Convert into prose.
• "When she first got here, there were wardrobe fittings and things like that, but she worked for three days with the stunt team. We had already pre-choreographed the fights and showed them to her, and she came in and started rehearsing. Brad and I would go at the end of every day to see her, and it just kept getting better and better and better" – Convert into prose.
  • For the two above comments, I've condensed both quoted material to be less quotes overall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Filming

• "I loved the way [Joe Johnston] shot Captain America—it was absolutely beautiful—but I was going to do it a little bit differently. I wasn’t going to go towards the sepia tone; I was going to keep it a cooler blue to differentiate it a little bit, but the style of the shoot is maybe more classic than Item 47. It was a conscious decision to do that, to keep it a cooler look. We used special lenses, we used two lenses: special lenses for night, special lenses for day. They were older lenses, uncoated, the flares are a little better and have a different quality, and I think the coolness of it modernized it a little bit to where you’re consciously not saying, 'Well, it’s obviously set in period but it has a modern feel to it" – Convert into prose.
  • Reduced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• The quote box is too large, which in a section too reliant on quotes is unacceptable.
  • Reduced and moved some of the info to the post-production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• "what we did was, we choreographed the action with Hayley in mind, obviously, she’s the lead, and I just wanted the film to have a lot of energy. I didn’t want it handheld, so for most of these, we used the Steadicam or a dolly. It was all very planned out. What I did was videotape the fights, and sat down with our cinematographer and I did not make a conscious effort to look, I did not say, 'Let me look at that fight, let me look at that fight.' I wanted it to be very organic and didn’t want it to be too influenced, even though everything you watch has an influence. So we took a fresh approach to it. I’ve seen a lot of compliments about that, about the film work, that it was energetic yet you could still see the fight and that it wasn’t too quick cutty or blurry or shaky. I think that was our conscious choice, in terms of our action" – Convert into prose.
  • Reduced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• "I wasn’t going to get every shot and I wasn’t going to get every punch and kick, so what we do is get the optimum—this is the fight—I lay it out and I know before we start shooting that I can live without this shot or I could live without that shot. Our cinematographer, Gabriel Beristain, is adept at using two cameras when we had to, and that’s always helpful; we had a great Steadicam operator so it’s very laid out, everybody knows what they’re doing, they see the fight in advance, I show them the shots. It makes it a lot easier when we get there on the day to say, "This is what we have to accomplish." If you’re making it up as you’re going, which sometimes is great, it just requires time" – Convert into prose.
  • Reduced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Post-production

• "to save money" – Improve prose: "for budgetary reasons".
  •  Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• The title of ref. 10 is Marvel One-Shots: Ms. Marvel, Loki, young Nick Fury, or Black Panther?.
  • Currently on EW, yes. But when it was added (via the archive link), it was as it appears in article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• "who they had worked with before" – On what?
• "Though a mixture of 2D and 3D animation was used, it was all made to look 2D, and though" – Avoid repetition: "A mixture of 2D and 3D animation was used, despite the goal for its design to look like 2D, and though".
  • Adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Ref. 11 does not seem to support the claim that Perception had worked with Marvel before.
  • Removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Music

• "sent them over Johnny Rivers' "Secret Agent Man", even though it was in the 60's, and I said I wanted this kind of feel, this kind of sentiment to it. [Lennertz] said, 'I understand, I get it.' I think he did a terrific job getting that and reaching that and even though it might not be pure 1940s, it has a period feel to it, and yet it has a James Bond secret agent sentiment to it too" – Convert into prose.
  • Reduced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Release

• Ref. 13 does not name Agent Carter, which it must to confirm that the short was available for download earlier that September.
  • Added an additional ref to the sentence. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Reception

Critical response

• Too many quotes, not enough prose.
  • As these are review, I don't think there are too many quotes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Accolades

• Should not be its own section with only one sentence.
  • Combined with critical response. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Television series

• "and also" – The "and" is not necessary.
  •  Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Ref. 28 – deadurl=yes
  •  Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Overall

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Copyvio is at 93% probability violation which I agree with, given the quote-to-text ratio.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall

   Pass/Fail: (see below) → –Cognissonance (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: Thank you for the review. I'm curious why you have outright failed the review, without the opportunity for myself or another active user watching this article, to address the issues you have raised, especially the copyvio aspect, which most certainly could have been done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: The prose issues were too great, and your userpage said you were busy. I was also reminded of a situation with similar appraisal. Cognissonance (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes I'm on wiki on and off at the moment (and you don't know my schedule), but there are other users who actively watch this article who could have assisted. I just feel the fact it was essentially 24 hours from you starting the review to then going to a fail (over waiting for comments) was a bit swift, and I was not given a chance to help address your concerns (which I gladly would have). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Was not aware of the other users. Cognissonance (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, GA nominations do not allow you to indicate users who are looking to take the article to GA status (as some featured content reviews can). But yes, there are a few who actively follow this article; I just happened to create the nomination. I'm still willing to address your concerns, if it is possible for you to backtrack your initial "fail". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Will put it on hold for now. Cognissonance (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'll get to work addressing your comments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I've gone through and replied to each of your points. I all added some slight info to the TV series section (on McDonough reprising his role as well) and a bunch of wikilink I realized were not done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And if you have suggestions for me to further reduce the second paragraph of the filming section, that'd be good. Earwig is still giving a high number of violation, despite my reductions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• "He added that the production used two special lenses (for both night and day) noting" – The flow would be improved were it only "The production used two special lenses (for both night and day)" with the proceeding quote also converted into prose.
• "too influenced, even though everything you watch has an influence. So we took a fresh approach to it. I’ve seen a lot of compliments about that, about the film work, that it was energetic yet you could still see the fight and that it wasn’t too quick cutty or blurry or shaky. I think that was our conscious choice, in terms of our action" – Still comes out of nowhere with the quote, which in bulk is used as crutches. It would be best not to use them in Development and Filming where there are already quote boxes.
• "I think [Lennertz] did a terrific job getting that and reaching that and even though it might not be pure 1940s, it has a period feel to it, and yet it has a James Bond secret agent sentiment to it too" – It essentially repeats the preceding information.
• I don't know what it is with these Marvel sources, but ref. 4 also redirects to an unrelated article.
• Although there is more leeway in Reception to use quotes, I still think there is some room for improvement there. –Cognissonance (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• These have been seen. I'll get to them in the morning. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I am one of the other editors watching this page that Favre mentioned. I have gone through and given the article a c/e, trying to cut down on all the quotes. Let me know what you think. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: That's more like it.

• "flying with the gun into the door" and "being attacked by the big guy" do not have a point of reference. Who's quotes are they? Convert them into prose.

• Attributed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Rosie Fletcher of Total Film noted that the short was well received by the audience at Comic Con" – Yet the source only gives Rosie Fletcher's point of view. And it seems like this is what the lead's "received positively by fans" is relying on.

• End of the source: (which raised whoops from the first-look audience). This is the sentence we then translate to "was well received by the audience at Comic Con" and for the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• "and said that praised Atwell's performance" – Fix sentence.

• Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Unless what appeared in the quote boxes was fluff, there might be more information to add. Go through the sources and see if there are any stones left unturned. –Cognissonance (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Searching. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• I've looked through all of our sources, and think we've added all that we could from them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist Adam. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This looks good. Promoted. –Cognissonance (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Great. Thanks Cognissonance putting the review back on hold so I (and later Adam) could work through your concerns. And I'm not entirely sure, but do you need to change the "hold" above to "pass"? Didn't want to do it myself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No need. –Cognissonance (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)