I have made edits to this article and got a
second opinion to confirm my contributions were not significant enough to disqualify me from doing this review.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Publication history "According to the official synopsis..." This quick, promotional synopsis seems like an artifact from before publication. I think it can be stricken entirely, and the first two lines about the retreat and Bendis' quote can be combined with the following paragraph. You link Invincible Iron Man, and I know it's the title, but that article doesn't mention anything about a second volume. Neither does
Iron Man#Later volumes, actually. I think
Iron Man#All-New, All-Different Marvel is closest to what you're looking for? Ideally the other two would be updated, but I can't penalize this article for the failure of others. I'll leave it up to you if/how you want to address this. "Marvel also released a prelude..." The world also was used at the end of the previous sentence, and the wording is a bit clunky. I think "In May 2016, Marvel released additional prelude stories in a FCBD edition by... and a zero issue by..." The quote from Alonso would work nicer higher up, closer to the mention of the retreat. Why mention the May release of FCBD and 0, then jump back to March announcements? The May material should be moved lower. A month should be specified for C2E2 (it was March). You mention a delay for issue 5, but I think the publication schedule should be discussed more. There were 9 total issues released over 8 months, and one of them was late. Was this supposed to be twice-monthly?
Made all of the suggested edits (See
Diff), except for the removal of the premise, which I think adds context and understanding to the rest of section, especially if readers read the PH section before the plot section. The early issues were released bi-monthly, but that soon fell behind. I think that I covered all the delay information that was readably available from reliable sources.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
19:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Works for me.
Plot The paragraph beginning "Captain Marvel asks Banner..." seems disjointed. I think the first half (ending "immediately arrested.") belongs with the previous paragraph, and the rest belongs with the next paragraph. In the PH section, the character was called "Captain America." In the Plot section, he's called Steve Rogers. Either is fine, but should be the same in both places. The bit about Ulysses' vision of old Wolverine and telling Medusa about it seems extraneous. The events don't actually happen, and the response to them is "in vain". That should be cut. "Cosmic entity" should link to
Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics). Was anything from The Oath worth including? It was mentioned as being the epilogue.
Rearranged paragraphs, made consistent use of Steve Rogers, and wiki-linked "Cosmic Entity" as suggested (See
Diff). I left the bit about Ulysses' vision with Wolverine as it seems that plotline is opened ended with the superheroes failing to stop the fight. The consequence of their failure remains to be seen. There wasn't much to The Oath but I left the general premise in the PH section. Also we decided early on to stick to the core issues.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
19:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Titles involved Is it worth adding a column for month of release here? I think it would help clarify chronology some since the main series lasted seven months but some tie-ins were only one issue.
That's kind of difficult to do with the way the table is set up. It is divided per series, not per issue, meaning a single row could include multiple issues. I am not sure but there could be breaks in some of the production schedules and that is still not indicative of in-universe chronology.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
17:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Collected editions - as discussed above, tie-in collections should be included if the table is kept. A column should be added to specify HC or TPB. Do you know if the collection will include any bonus content? If so, that should be mentioned as well.
Critical response CBR only reviewed two issues? I'm not sure they're worth keeping in the professional review table. Does the sales chart include the second printings? There are sources that discuss the title's performance. Additional context for the sales figures could be included from them.
hereare a
fewIfound that may have information worth adding. Others can be found through Google.
It seems the new owner of CBR has stopped producing reviews like they once did. So I reformatted the table to just include the aggregate scores, which in hindsight is probably more representative. I think the sales data is sufficient as is. The chart only includes the issues' first month of release, which the industry uses to gage popular response kind of like opening weekend box office figures. In many cases, the issues are still on sale and probably will be for a very long time so final numbers (including additional printings) are very difficult to report.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:WHENTABLE, what's the benefit of having the collected edition information in a table? This single line could easily be discussed in prose, perhaps with additional detail on its bonus content and sales numbers once released. If you do add this content, the section should be relocated under the Reception section.
I believe that is intended for ongoing series with numerous volumes. Are you planning to expand this section with tie-in collections like
Secret Invasion#Collected editions? If so, the table is a good idea. If not - do you think their omission impacts the completeness of the coverage?
Argento Surfer (
talk)
18:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I expanded it to include all of the new limited series that tied into the storyline (See
Diff). All of the content is listed in the "Materials collected" column and I'm not sure if the format is worth adding, whether its hardcover, paperback or Kindle.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
CBR, Newsarama, and IGN are
WP:OVERLINKed in every citation. They only need to be linked in the first reference (6, 17, and 34). Marvel.com is also overlinked, but NOT linked in its first appearance (2). Cites 5, 15, and 17 have unnecessary ALLCAPS.
Earwing
shows some high confidence plagiarism, but this is due to quotes in the reception section and common phrases ("writer Brian Michael Bendis", "Civil War II issue x"). No issues present.
Oliver Coipel is mentioned as the artist in the Reception section and credited in the citation for issue zero, but he is never mentioned anywhere else.
Caption is fine. Needs
WP:ALTTEXT. This image was added January 2016. Now that the series is finished, do you still think this cover best represents the whole series?
I have made edits to this article and got a
second opinion to confirm my contributions were not significant enough to disqualify me from doing this review.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Publication history "According to the official synopsis..." This quick, promotional synopsis seems like an artifact from before publication. I think it can be stricken entirely, and the first two lines about the retreat and Bendis' quote can be combined with the following paragraph. You link Invincible Iron Man, and I know it's the title, but that article doesn't mention anything about a second volume. Neither does
Iron Man#Later volumes, actually. I think
Iron Man#All-New, All-Different Marvel is closest to what you're looking for? Ideally the other two would be updated, but I can't penalize this article for the failure of others. I'll leave it up to you if/how you want to address this. "Marvel also released a prelude..." The world also was used at the end of the previous sentence, and the wording is a bit clunky. I think "In May 2016, Marvel released additional prelude stories in a FCBD edition by... and a zero issue by..." The quote from Alonso would work nicer higher up, closer to the mention of the retreat. Why mention the May release of FCBD and 0, then jump back to March announcements? The May material should be moved lower. A month should be specified for C2E2 (it was March). You mention a delay for issue 5, but I think the publication schedule should be discussed more. There were 9 total issues released over 8 months, and one of them was late. Was this supposed to be twice-monthly?
Made all of the suggested edits (See
Diff), except for the removal of the premise, which I think adds context and understanding to the rest of section, especially if readers read the PH section before the plot section. The early issues were released bi-monthly, but that soon fell behind. I think that I covered all the delay information that was readably available from reliable sources.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
19:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Works for me.
Plot The paragraph beginning "Captain Marvel asks Banner..." seems disjointed. I think the first half (ending "immediately arrested.") belongs with the previous paragraph, and the rest belongs with the next paragraph. In the PH section, the character was called "Captain America." In the Plot section, he's called Steve Rogers. Either is fine, but should be the same in both places. The bit about Ulysses' vision of old Wolverine and telling Medusa about it seems extraneous. The events don't actually happen, and the response to them is "in vain". That should be cut. "Cosmic entity" should link to
Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics). Was anything from The Oath worth including? It was mentioned as being the epilogue.
Rearranged paragraphs, made consistent use of Steve Rogers, and wiki-linked "Cosmic Entity" as suggested (See
Diff). I left the bit about Ulysses' vision with Wolverine as it seems that plotline is opened ended with the superheroes failing to stop the fight. The consequence of their failure remains to be seen. There wasn't much to The Oath but I left the general premise in the PH section. Also we decided early on to stick to the core issues.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
19:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Titles involved Is it worth adding a column for month of release here? I think it would help clarify chronology some since the main series lasted seven months but some tie-ins were only one issue.
That's kind of difficult to do with the way the table is set up. It is divided per series, not per issue, meaning a single row could include multiple issues. I am not sure but there could be breaks in some of the production schedules and that is still not indicative of in-universe chronology.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
17:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Collected editions - as discussed above, tie-in collections should be included if the table is kept. A column should be added to specify HC or TPB. Do you know if the collection will include any bonus content? If so, that should be mentioned as well.
Critical response CBR only reviewed two issues? I'm not sure they're worth keeping in the professional review table. Does the sales chart include the second printings? There are sources that discuss the title's performance. Additional context for the sales figures could be included from them.
hereare a
fewIfound that may have information worth adding. Others can be found through Google.
It seems the new owner of CBR has stopped producing reviews like they once did. So I reformatted the table to just include the aggregate scores, which in hindsight is probably more representative. I think the sales data is sufficient as is. The chart only includes the issues' first month of release, which the industry uses to gage popular response kind of like opening weekend box office figures. In many cases, the issues are still on sale and probably will be for a very long time so final numbers (including additional printings) are very difficult to report.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:WHENTABLE, what's the benefit of having the collected edition information in a table? This single line could easily be discussed in prose, perhaps with additional detail on its bonus content and sales numbers once released. If you do add this content, the section should be relocated under the Reception section.
I believe that is intended for ongoing series with numerous volumes. Are you planning to expand this section with tie-in collections like
Secret Invasion#Collected editions? If so, the table is a good idea. If not - do you think their omission impacts the completeness of the coverage?
Argento Surfer (
talk)
18:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I expanded it to include all of the new limited series that tied into the storyline (See
Diff). All of the content is listed in the "Materials collected" column and I'm not sure if the format is worth adding, whether its hardcover, paperback or Kindle.--
TriiipleThreat (
talk)
17:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
CBR, Newsarama, and IGN are
WP:OVERLINKed in every citation. They only need to be linked in the first reference (6, 17, and 34). Marvel.com is also overlinked, but NOT linked in its first appearance (2). Cites 5, 15, and 17 have unnecessary ALLCAPS.
Earwing
shows some high confidence plagiarism, but this is due to quotes in the reception section and common phrases ("writer Brian Michael Bendis", "Civil War II issue x"). No issues present.
Oliver Coipel is mentioned as the artist in the Reception section and credited in the citation for issue zero, but he is never mentioned anywhere else.
Caption is fine. Needs
WP:ALTTEXT. This image was added January 2016. Now that the series is finished, do you still think this cover best represents the whole series?