![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hey there, Facu-el Millo and TriiipleThreat. There was nothing " be bold" about the edit, it was fairly conventional. None of this was meant to be controversial, nor out of the ordinary. The producers have specifically chosen the names and order of the main actors featured above the closing credits full list. The decision on those prominently displayed names is seen by all of the tens of millions of customers who have already seen, and can continue to confirm, with every single viewing of the source material. It's not a tricky item based on original research or a random personal opinion about which actors should come first - it is a direct result of the prominent billing of the cast as determined by the people who produced the film and laid out the credits (sorry, prominently seen Akira Akbar as Monica Rambeau, who becomes a Captain Marvel in the comics - the producers have placed you in the general cast list). I admitted, and did include a note for transparency, that one change had been made - I included the actor performing the 13-year-old version of Carol Danvers along with the actor performing the grown version. That change may have been an overstep, and if her name should properly be moved to the bottom of the list of the 14 actors that the producers deemed should be included in the highlighted credits, then so be it. Regarding the order of some actors in the prose below the main cast list, such as Chuku Modu and Vik Sahay, that simply adopted their order in the longer cast credits where their names appear, while the little addition of prose explaining their context in the film ("On the planet Torfa, Chuku Modu portrays Kree spy Soh-Larr, while Vik Sahay plays a heroic Torfan") does not seem to need removing, but maybe this was controversial. Regarding the roles themselves, they have been referred to as credited, per WP:CASTLIST: Minn-Erva is not entered here as Doctor Minerva, Korath is not entered here as Korath the Pursuer, Talos is not entered here as Talos the Untamed, and none of those names have been used in this list - by the same token, Ronan and Agent Coulson are the names as credited for those two characters. If needed, the extra prose after the credited role can hold any further details, such as Ronan is "a leader of the Accuser Corps in the Kree Empire", or perhaps "the Supreme Accuser of the Kree Empire"(?), or that "Gregg stated that Phil Coulson would be younger in the film …". Again, none of this was intended as a stretch or bold change, and I addressed some of this in the edit summary to show that it was not some kind of spiteful revert. Thoughts? Jmg38 ( talk) 23:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Captain Marvel (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To the "Home media" section, add that Captain Marvel was released in Blu-Ray 3D format in every region except the USA. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=305995 NimaZeighami ( talk) 08:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
In Audience response section, it said "Unlike Wonder Woman, which was watched by more men than women, Captain Marvel's initial audience was 61% male according to PostTrak." If WW watched by mostly men and CM watched by 61% male, should it say "Like", not "Unlike" or should men compared to women be corrected like WW watched by more men and CM by female or WW watched by more women and CM by male? Planet Star 04:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: Did you do a source check to verify that this article includes no plagiarized text? Certainly, IMO, several sections of it include far too much quotation relative to original text. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there any actual evidence of plagiarism though? I looked through the article in detail a while ago, and I didn’t see any problem. If you have a list of sentences that are plagiarized, it would be helpful, but as it stands, I see no reason at all why this article shouldn't be nominated for good article status. Hadassah16 ( talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Hadassah16: Thank you for your efforts to improve this article! As you can see, Hijiri is only interested in opposing the GA nomination and doesn't actually want to help out with improving the article, but if you have any further concerns to do with quotes and paraphrasing (or anything else) that you would be willing to work on then I am happy to collaborate with you. - adamstom97 ( talk) 20:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. I think we would benefit henceforth from limiting discussion to concrete article improvements, without criticizing any editors directly or indirectly. Anyway, I already eliminated the extra quotations, so the quotation issue appears to be settled now. Hadassah16 ( talk) 04:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator ( talk · contribs) 05:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This review is fundamentally going to come down to whether the article does or does not have a copyright problem. I will provide an evaluation of the article in terms of all six of the good article criteria (you may have to wait for a day or two for this). However, it is already my opinion, and needs to be clear from the outset, that the only likely reason for not passing the article would be the existence of a copyright problem - or some kind of major dispute or conflict at the article, whether or not related to accusations about copyright issues and plagiarism. If there is a copyright problem or a large degree of inter-editor conflict and disagreement, I can't pass the article. Otherwise very likely it will pass.
Freeknowledgecreator (
talk)
05:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
1. The first good article criterion is that the article be well-written. I think the article meets that criterion; however, I have the following minor criticisms.
The article states, "Feige explained that Danvers is the first superhero that Fury has come across, which sets him on a path to where the character is in the modern MCU films." I think I would have written something slightly different in place of "modern" - for example, "more recent" would seem better. This is just a suggestion.
"This was changed since Star Wars is a contemporary franchise and not specific to Danvers, unlike the pilot-themed Top Gun" - in place of "this", I would have used something more specific, eg, "Its name".
"Lola looked at several of Jackson's films as a reference for his de-aging including Pulp Fiction (1994), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Jurassic Park (1993), Loaded Weapon 1 (1993), and One Eight Seven (1997." I would have written that instead as, "Lola looked at several of Jackson's films, including Pulp Fiction (1994), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Jurassic Park (1993), Loaded Weapon 1 (1993), and One Eight Seven (1997, as a reference for his de-aging."
"Trixster did initial development on the look of Danver's Binary powers, and contributed the majority of visual effects for Goose the Cat including movements that were impossible for real-life cats to act." I would have added a comma after "Goose the Cat."
"Richard Brody of The New Yorkercompared the film to a political commercial that "packs a worthy message [but] hardly counts as an aesthetic experience. The message of the film is conveyed less through the story than through its casting." There is a typographical error there. An additional space is required to separate "The New Yorker" from the next word, "compared". Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 09:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
More soon. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 09:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
2. The second good article criterion is that the article be "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing "no copyright violations nor plagiarism." It would help if Adamstom.97 and other editors interested in the article could give me their views of whether the article contains copyright violations and/or plagiarism. I will of course also review the matter myself and come to my own conclusions. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 23:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the review Freeknowledgecreator, and thanks for the help TriiipleThreat -- those changes all look good. as for copyvio, I am comfortable with the level of paraphrasing that I have done (several re-writes) with the article that it is no longer too close to any of the sources. - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
3. The third good article criterion is that the article be "Broad in its coverage". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 04:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
4. The fourth good article criterion is that the article be "Neutral". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 04:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
5. The fifth good article criterion is that the article be "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I have reviewed the recent history of the article, and the talk page disputes, so I am well aware the article has been the focus of some disagreement. The level of conflict, however, does not appear severe enough to fail the article. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 07:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
6. The sixth good article criterion is that the article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". The article meets this criterion, being well-illustrated. The copyright status of the images doesn't appear to present a problem. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 07:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Overall, the article clearly meets most of the good article criteria, except that 2 poses a potential problem, as noted above. Again, it's important to avoid both actual copyright violation and the appearance or suggestion of it, so I would like to see rewrites to bring the "45.1% confidence" result down. Even if Adamstom.97 does not wish to do this, other editors are free to. Shortening the quotation from Perlman that begins, "We've been talking a lot about..." is an example of the kind of thing that could be done. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 07:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
There are a couple of things that disappoint me about the article and I hope they can be improved before declaring this article good (therefore making it even harder to convince the average editor that the article does need further improvement):
In response the above point that suggested replacing "modern" with "more recent" I have the same problems with the revised phrasing as the editor seemed to have with the previous version. An encyclopedia should try to avoid vague time references WP:RELTIME so the phrase "more recent" is again not specific, and needs further rephrasing, or dropping the time entirely and instead say something like "who he will become". I do think the article is generally good, I just feel that when an article is labelled GOOD or a list is FEATURED editors become much more reluctant to change anything. -- 109.77.229.26 ( talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
In the critical response section please change "Ehrlich did praise Larson's performance, however." to "Ehrlich praised Mendelson and Larson's performances."
The Indiewire review says : "Giving the best performance in a movie that relies on its excellent cast to compensate for its empty characters, the ever-reliable Ben Mendelsohn elevates Talos into a genuine menace" so since he gave the best performance it seems appropriate to mention him too. -- 109.76.135.145 ( talk) 20:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the plan, but Avengers: Endgame was later announced to be a day 1 Disney+ offering. Is Endgame streaming anywhere else? Should we just remove the streaming part of the home media release?-- Simmerdon3448 ( talk) 00:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It was the first film released in theaters that did not stream on Netflix after Disney decided to let their licensing deal with Netflix expire. That is 100% accurate. The distinction still exists, given that it was the first MCU film to be
released in theatersand not stream on Netflix afterward. Endgame was the second to do so, given that it was released in theaters after Captain Marvel. El Millo ( talk) 07:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the article so the issue can be discussed properly first. The information that is in the article now (as of this version) is correct and factual, but it seems that some people have been confused by it so there may be room for improved wording to clarify. Does anyone have any productive suggestions? - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion was closed before I had a chance to reply. I take issue with the assertion "The sources lead us where they may", that is a very limited view and naively assumes editors picked the reviews without any intent or bias or even unintended influence. I strongly disagree, at the very least editors were influenced by all the trolling directed at this film and the Critical response section is overly focused on Larson (which only means it needs to be balanced with more about other parts of the film). A more objective and neutral Critical response section would provide greater coverage to other aspect of the film making process. The section is adequate, but a bit shallow and myopic is all.
It should also be noted that from the Commons Page it was TriiipleThreat who pixelated that image in the first place, and "conveys a sense of the atmosphere" is an animal manure excuse to include almost anything. The article already include other better photos of Fleck and Boden, and various other photos related to the military. Just because you have an image is not a good reason to include it, especially not a largely pixelated image. Do all the other better images in the article not already convey enough of a sense of atmosphere? --
109.77.229.26 (
talk)
12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Do all the other better images in the article not already convey enough of a sense of atmosphere?Not of a screening.—- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 12:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
"Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary"). – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you are missing my point. the subjects are too small to recognize and are hard to identify
. I disagree, the subject is the event itself, not its specific components like individual audience members. The subject i.e. the screening is large and easily identifiable as a screening. Readers can easily see that image is of a group of people, seated in a theatre, facing a large screen. Even pixelated, anyone can tell that the audience is/was/will be viewing something related to Captain Marvel.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
15:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I made a note in the relevant section referencing and linking to IMDB's audience score for the movie, seen in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Captain_Marvel_(film)&diff=954100677&oldid=954100605#Audience_response. It was however removed by an editor on the basis of IMDB not being a reliable source. This puzzled me as IMDB is used at the very top of the same section to say and reference to Captain Marvel being the most anticipated movie of 2019 on it. I thus removed that IMDB reference, since it was deemed an unreliable source elsewhere in the same section, only for another editor to revert on the basis of "IMDb's findings for this are from audience pulls and such, not from them directly, unlike the other source that was reverted." This made absolutely 0 sense as they were IMDB's own polls and implied that IMDB's own audience polls WERE reliable but their own audience reviews were not. Upon challenging the editor's position, he then totally changed his tune and replied, "IMDb's source for this is justifiable based on standard reports as it was controlled by their staff, all other info on their is open to user editing, thus making those unreliable." Can someone explain to me what the hell this means, as neither the audience polls nor audience reviews are controlled by any staff? Anyone can vote in the poll for whatever movie they want just like anyone can leave their own review saying whatever they want. Neither is controlled or influenced by any staff. When I went to the editor's talkpage to discuss this further, he deleted my response, so I am bringing this here to now get other points of view.
As far as I can see, if IMDB is an unreliable source as has been stated, then you can't apply it at the start of one section to make overly positive points about a movie while then deleting it in the exact same section saying it's unreliable for anythng less than positive about the same movie. It appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:DUE and some consistency on the use of this source needs to be established. Davefelmer ( talk) 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
In late December 2018, the film was named as the most anticipated 2019 film by IMDb, the most anticipated new standalone comic book film and the second-most anticipated blockbuster of 2019 according to the ticketing service Fandango, and the second-most anticipated superhero and overall film by Atom Tickets.
...I am in fact only talking about the opening line of the Audience Response section this entire time."
@ Davefelmer: here is the archived version to see the film's peak position, listed there as 22nd, but afterward changed to 23rd in the list given an update of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's box office total. It's all already referenced in that article. The inclusion of this information is common practice in articles on highest-grossing films, see Spider-Man: Far From Home, Avengers: Infinity War, Captain America: Civil War, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and many more. El Millo ( talk) 05:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"Joker not being on there and Aladdin being shown to still be playing in theatres. And what about Frozen 2, Spider Man Far From Home and Lion King which also overtook it?"Do you not understand what peak position means? It's the highest rank a film has been on the list. Captain Marvel came out on March 8, and all those films were released later. Aladdin came out on May 24, Spider-Man: Far From Home on July 2, The Lion King on July 19, Joker came out on October 4, and Frozen II on November 22. Hence, it's completely right for Aladdin to still be playing and for Joker not to be playing yet. And those who
overtook ithad no influence on its peak position at all, precisely because they overtook it. El Millo ( talk) 06:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment – Let me start off by saying a film's peak chart position can be useful information. Return of the King is a prime example of this, as it was once #2 on the list. That's a significant fact that deserves coverage in an encyclopedia. Captain Marvel's peak position, on the other hand, probably doesn't qualify. Exceeding $1 billion is no longer an extremely rare feat, and ranking #22 (or #23) isn't as significant. Perhaps a passing mention or two in the article body would suffice if sources reported that ranking, but I don't believe it qualifies for inclusion in the lead at this point. And that brings me to the next point. Captain Marvel's peak position needs to be mentioned in prose within the article body, and of course, backed by reliable source citations. I skimmed the box office section and didn't see this statistic specifically called out.
Two things probably need to happen at this point:
I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I think it's time we get a community stance on the subject. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so bare with me. I noticed in the lead that the critical reception for the film is quite brief, although the actual section says it received criticism for a "convoluted plot and lack of originality".[190]. I'm just curious if we can mention that in the lead as it is already backed up. What do you guys think? Thanks TrueFilmBuff ( talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Can a freely accessible source be used to support a statement also sourced to The New York Times? -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
It says you have to subscribe to view it for me and presumably other readers.
I was specifically hoping to add one of the two removed in this , but I understand other editors might have other suggestions. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment ...-- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hey there, Facu-el Millo and TriiipleThreat. There was nothing " be bold" about the edit, it was fairly conventional. None of this was meant to be controversial, nor out of the ordinary. The producers have specifically chosen the names and order of the main actors featured above the closing credits full list. The decision on those prominently displayed names is seen by all of the tens of millions of customers who have already seen, and can continue to confirm, with every single viewing of the source material. It's not a tricky item based on original research or a random personal opinion about which actors should come first - it is a direct result of the prominent billing of the cast as determined by the people who produced the film and laid out the credits (sorry, prominently seen Akira Akbar as Monica Rambeau, who becomes a Captain Marvel in the comics - the producers have placed you in the general cast list). I admitted, and did include a note for transparency, that one change had been made - I included the actor performing the 13-year-old version of Carol Danvers along with the actor performing the grown version. That change may have been an overstep, and if her name should properly be moved to the bottom of the list of the 14 actors that the producers deemed should be included in the highlighted credits, then so be it. Regarding the order of some actors in the prose below the main cast list, such as Chuku Modu and Vik Sahay, that simply adopted their order in the longer cast credits where their names appear, while the little addition of prose explaining their context in the film ("On the planet Torfa, Chuku Modu portrays Kree spy Soh-Larr, while Vik Sahay plays a heroic Torfan") does not seem to need removing, but maybe this was controversial. Regarding the roles themselves, they have been referred to as credited, per WP:CASTLIST: Minn-Erva is not entered here as Doctor Minerva, Korath is not entered here as Korath the Pursuer, Talos is not entered here as Talos the Untamed, and none of those names have been used in this list - by the same token, Ronan and Agent Coulson are the names as credited for those two characters. If needed, the extra prose after the credited role can hold any further details, such as Ronan is "a leader of the Accuser Corps in the Kree Empire", or perhaps "the Supreme Accuser of the Kree Empire"(?), or that "Gregg stated that Phil Coulson would be younger in the film …". Again, none of this was intended as a stretch or bold change, and I addressed some of this in the edit summary to show that it was not some kind of spiteful revert. Thoughts? Jmg38 ( talk) 23:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Captain Marvel (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To the "Home media" section, add that Captain Marvel was released in Blu-Ray 3D format in every region except the USA. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=305995 NimaZeighami ( talk) 08:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
In Audience response section, it said "Unlike Wonder Woman, which was watched by more men than women, Captain Marvel's initial audience was 61% male according to PostTrak." If WW watched by mostly men and CM watched by 61% male, should it say "Like", not "Unlike" or should men compared to women be corrected like WW watched by more men and CM by female or WW watched by more women and CM by male? Planet Star 04:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: Did you do a source check to verify that this article includes no plagiarized text? Certainly, IMO, several sections of it include far too much quotation relative to original text. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there any actual evidence of plagiarism though? I looked through the article in detail a while ago, and I didn’t see any problem. If you have a list of sentences that are plagiarized, it would be helpful, but as it stands, I see no reason at all why this article shouldn't be nominated for good article status. Hadassah16 ( talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Hadassah16: Thank you for your efforts to improve this article! As you can see, Hijiri is only interested in opposing the GA nomination and doesn't actually want to help out with improving the article, but if you have any further concerns to do with quotes and paraphrasing (or anything else) that you would be willing to work on then I am happy to collaborate with you. - adamstom97 ( talk) 20:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. I think we would benefit henceforth from limiting discussion to concrete article improvements, without criticizing any editors directly or indirectly. Anyway, I already eliminated the extra quotations, so the quotation issue appears to be settled now. Hadassah16 ( talk) 04:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator ( talk · contribs) 05:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This review is fundamentally going to come down to whether the article does or does not have a copyright problem. I will provide an evaluation of the article in terms of all six of the good article criteria (you may have to wait for a day or two for this). However, it is already my opinion, and needs to be clear from the outset, that the only likely reason for not passing the article would be the existence of a copyright problem - or some kind of major dispute or conflict at the article, whether or not related to accusations about copyright issues and plagiarism. If there is a copyright problem or a large degree of inter-editor conflict and disagreement, I can't pass the article. Otherwise very likely it will pass.
Freeknowledgecreator (
talk)
05:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
1. The first good article criterion is that the article be well-written. I think the article meets that criterion; however, I have the following minor criticisms.
The article states, "Feige explained that Danvers is the first superhero that Fury has come across, which sets him on a path to where the character is in the modern MCU films." I think I would have written something slightly different in place of "modern" - for example, "more recent" would seem better. This is just a suggestion.
"This was changed since Star Wars is a contemporary franchise and not specific to Danvers, unlike the pilot-themed Top Gun" - in place of "this", I would have used something more specific, eg, "Its name".
"Lola looked at several of Jackson's films as a reference for his de-aging including Pulp Fiction (1994), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Jurassic Park (1993), Loaded Weapon 1 (1993), and One Eight Seven (1997." I would have written that instead as, "Lola looked at several of Jackson's films, including Pulp Fiction (1994), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Jurassic Park (1993), Loaded Weapon 1 (1993), and One Eight Seven (1997, as a reference for his de-aging."
"Trixster did initial development on the look of Danver's Binary powers, and contributed the majority of visual effects for Goose the Cat including movements that were impossible for real-life cats to act." I would have added a comma after "Goose the Cat."
"Richard Brody of The New Yorkercompared the film to a political commercial that "packs a worthy message [but] hardly counts as an aesthetic experience. The message of the film is conveyed less through the story than through its casting." There is a typographical error there. An additional space is required to separate "The New Yorker" from the next word, "compared". Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 09:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
More soon. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 09:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
2. The second good article criterion is that the article be "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing "no copyright violations nor plagiarism." It would help if Adamstom.97 and other editors interested in the article could give me their views of whether the article contains copyright violations and/or plagiarism. I will of course also review the matter myself and come to my own conclusions. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 23:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the review Freeknowledgecreator, and thanks for the help TriiipleThreat -- those changes all look good. as for copyvio, I am comfortable with the level of paraphrasing that I have done (several re-writes) with the article that it is no longer too close to any of the sources. - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
3. The third good article criterion is that the article be "Broad in its coverage". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 04:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
4. The fourth good article criterion is that the article be "Neutral". I believe the article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 04:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
5. The fifth good article criterion is that the article be "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I have reviewed the recent history of the article, and the talk page disputes, so I am well aware the article has been the focus of some disagreement. The level of conflict, however, does not appear severe enough to fail the article. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 07:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
6. The sixth good article criterion is that the article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". The article meets this criterion, being well-illustrated. The copyright status of the images doesn't appear to present a problem. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 07:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Overall, the article clearly meets most of the good article criteria, except that 2 poses a potential problem, as noted above. Again, it's important to avoid both actual copyright violation and the appearance or suggestion of it, so I would like to see rewrites to bring the "45.1% confidence" result down. Even if Adamstom.97 does not wish to do this, other editors are free to. Shortening the quotation from Perlman that begins, "We've been talking a lot about..." is an example of the kind of thing that could be done. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 07:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
There are a couple of things that disappoint me about the article and I hope they can be improved before declaring this article good (therefore making it even harder to convince the average editor that the article does need further improvement):
In response the above point that suggested replacing "modern" with "more recent" I have the same problems with the revised phrasing as the editor seemed to have with the previous version. An encyclopedia should try to avoid vague time references WP:RELTIME so the phrase "more recent" is again not specific, and needs further rephrasing, or dropping the time entirely and instead say something like "who he will become". I do think the article is generally good, I just feel that when an article is labelled GOOD or a list is FEATURED editors become much more reluctant to change anything. -- 109.77.229.26 ( talk) 23:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
In the critical response section please change "Ehrlich did praise Larson's performance, however." to "Ehrlich praised Mendelson and Larson's performances."
The Indiewire review says : "Giving the best performance in a movie that relies on its excellent cast to compensate for its empty characters, the ever-reliable Ben Mendelsohn elevates Talos into a genuine menace" so since he gave the best performance it seems appropriate to mention him too. -- 109.76.135.145 ( talk) 20:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the plan, but Avengers: Endgame was later announced to be a day 1 Disney+ offering. Is Endgame streaming anywhere else? Should we just remove the streaming part of the home media release?-- Simmerdon3448 ( talk) 00:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It was the first film released in theaters that did not stream on Netflix after Disney decided to let their licensing deal with Netflix expire. That is 100% accurate. The distinction still exists, given that it was the first MCU film to be
released in theatersand not stream on Netflix afterward. Endgame was the second to do so, given that it was released in theaters after Captain Marvel. El Millo ( talk) 07:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the article so the issue can be discussed properly first. The information that is in the article now (as of this version) is correct and factual, but it seems that some people have been confused by it so there may be room for improved wording to clarify. Does anyone have any productive suggestions? - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion was closed before I had a chance to reply. I take issue with the assertion "The sources lead us where they may", that is a very limited view and naively assumes editors picked the reviews without any intent or bias or even unintended influence. I strongly disagree, at the very least editors were influenced by all the trolling directed at this film and the Critical response section is overly focused on Larson (which only means it needs to be balanced with more about other parts of the film). A more objective and neutral Critical response section would provide greater coverage to other aspect of the film making process. The section is adequate, but a bit shallow and myopic is all.
It should also be noted that from the Commons Page it was TriiipleThreat who pixelated that image in the first place, and "conveys a sense of the atmosphere" is an animal manure excuse to include almost anything. The article already include other better photos of Fleck and Boden, and various other photos related to the military. Just because you have an image is not a good reason to include it, especially not a largely pixelated image. Do all the other better images in the article not already convey enough of a sense of atmosphere? --
109.77.229.26 (
talk)
12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Do all the other better images in the article not already convey enough of a sense of atmosphere?Not of a screening.—- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 12:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
"Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary"). – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you are missing my point. the subjects are too small to recognize and are hard to identify
. I disagree, the subject is the event itself, not its specific components like individual audience members. The subject i.e. the screening is large and easily identifiable as a screening. Readers can easily see that image is of a group of people, seated in a theatre, facing a large screen. Even pixelated, anyone can tell that the audience is/was/will be viewing something related to Captain Marvel.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
15:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I made a note in the relevant section referencing and linking to IMDB's audience score for the movie, seen in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Captain_Marvel_(film)&diff=954100677&oldid=954100605#Audience_response. It was however removed by an editor on the basis of IMDB not being a reliable source. This puzzled me as IMDB is used at the very top of the same section to say and reference to Captain Marvel being the most anticipated movie of 2019 on it. I thus removed that IMDB reference, since it was deemed an unreliable source elsewhere in the same section, only for another editor to revert on the basis of "IMDb's findings for this are from audience pulls and such, not from them directly, unlike the other source that was reverted." This made absolutely 0 sense as they were IMDB's own polls and implied that IMDB's own audience polls WERE reliable but their own audience reviews were not. Upon challenging the editor's position, he then totally changed his tune and replied, "IMDb's source for this is justifiable based on standard reports as it was controlled by their staff, all other info on their is open to user editing, thus making those unreliable." Can someone explain to me what the hell this means, as neither the audience polls nor audience reviews are controlled by any staff? Anyone can vote in the poll for whatever movie they want just like anyone can leave their own review saying whatever they want. Neither is controlled or influenced by any staff. When I went to the editor's talkpage to discuss this further, he deleted my response, so I am bringing this here to now get other points of view.
As far as I can see, if IMDB is an unreliable source as has been stated, then you can't apply it at the start of one section to make overly positive points about a movie while then deleting it in the exact same section saying it's unreliable for anythng less than positive about the same movie. It appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:DUE and some consistency on the use of this source needs to be established. Davefelmer ( talk) 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
In late December 2018, the film was named as the most anticipated 2019 film by IMDb, the most anticipated new standalone comic book film and the second-most anticipated blockbuster of 2019 according to the ticketing service Fandango, and the second-most anticipated superhero and overall film by Atom Tickets.
...I am in fact only talking about the opening line of the Audience Response section this entire time."
@ Davefelmer: here is the archived version to see the film's peak position, listed there as 22nd, but afterward changed to 23rd in the list given an update of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's box office total. It's all already referenced in that article. The inclusion of this information is common practice in articles on highest-grossing films, see Spider-Man: Far From Home, Avengers: Infinity War, Captain America: Civil War, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and many more. El Millo ( talk) 05:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"Joker not being on there and Aladdin being shown to still be playing in theatres. And what about Frozen 2, Spider Man Far From Home and Lion King which also overtook it?"Do you not understand what peak position means? It's the highest rank a film has been on the list. Captain Marvel came out on March 8, and all those films were released later. Aladdin came out on May 24, Spider-Man: Far From Home on July 2, The Lion King on July 19, Joker came out on October 4, and Frozen II on November 22. Hence, it's completely right for Aladdin to still be playing and for Joker not to be playing yet. And those who
overtook ithad no influence on its peak position at all, precisely because they overtook it. El Millo ( talk) 06:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment – Let me start off by saying a film's peak chart position can be useful information. Return of the King is a prime example of this, as it was once #2 on the list. That's a significant fact that deserves coverage in an encyclopedia. Captain Marvel's peak position, on the other hand, probably doesn't qualify. Exceeding $1 billion is no longer an extremely rare feat, and ranking #22 (or #23) isn't as significant. Perhaps a passing mention or two in the article body would suffice if sources reported that ranking, but I don't believe it qualifies for inclusion in the lead at this point. And that brings me to the next point. Captain Marvel's peak position needs to be mentioned in prose within the article body, and of course, backed by reliable source citations. I skimmed the box office section and didn't see this statistic specifically called out.
Two things probably need to happen at this point:
I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I think it's time we get a community stance on the subject. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so bare with me. I noticed in the lead that the critical reception for the film is quite brief, although the actual section says it received criticism for a "convoluted plot and lack of originality".[190]. I'm just curious if we can mention that in the lead as it is already backed up. What do you guys think? Thanks TrueFilmBuff ( talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Can a freely accessible source be used to support a statement also sourced to The New York Times? -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
It says you have to subscribe to view it for me and presumably other readers.
I was specifically hoping to add one of the two removed in this , but I understand other editors might have other suggestions. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment ...-- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)