"Executive producer Tara Butters described the fact that other people underestimate Carter as her 'superpower'" sounds a bit confusing. Despite the mentions to Captain America, this series is largely devoid of super powers. Better skip the specific terms used in the quotation, and simply point that she takes advantage of that. If she was nominated for an award, clarify if she won it or not.
It may be a better approach to clarify that Edwin Jarvis, the original character from Marvel Comics, is a butler; which was adapted in the films as an artificial intelligence, and here in a closer version to the original design.
Also, "It was revealed that...", but was it? Did they mention events that took place half a century afterwards at some episode? Or is it simply implied?
It may be better to clarify that the Jarvis introduced in Public identity was set several years in the past and working for Howard Stark. As written, it would seem as if the MCU had another, human, Edwin Jarvis set in the present day (unlike Agent Carter, Iron Man 2 is set in the present, except for flashbacks).
The third paragraph is very confusing, with all those quotations inside quotations. It may be better to describe what Fazekas said, instead of a copypaste.
"...a character who was always intended to die...", why "always"? Leave it just as "was intended to die". If the sentence is talking about the casting of the character, it is already clear that his death was in the original script for the series.
"Because of a lack of "rich comic book history to draw from", Whigham...", the quotation is unnecesary here. Rewrite the sentence to point the small character development in comics, and keep the reference.
Do we really need the sections "introduced in..."?
This was an issue tied to the way we were doing the overview table, but I have removed that based on recent discussions had for
MOS:TVCAST, so the "introduced in" headers have gone as well. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The first issue where Madame Masque was introduced in comics is too specific information, of no interest to the readers of this article, who want to know about the TV series.
"a nod to that" is another quotation that should not be used, it is too short and does not provide meaningful information. It says something that should be put in article's voice, with a more natural sentence.
Thanks for the review Cambalachero, I have gone through and responded to each of your points. Let me know if there is anything else you think I should do. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I have restored the table and subsequent recurring headings. I believe Adam was thinking/referring to
MOS:TVCAST, but that section is in regards to cast listings on main, season and episode articles, where tables should be avoided. That does not apply to list of character articles, such as this. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
16:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I was specifically going off this new line in TVCAST: cast tables "should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons or where cast changes are minimal". It was something that I disagreed with in the discussion, but consensus was against me. I personally would like to keep the table. As an explanation for the "introduced in" headings Camba, we settled on using them, just as we do in the guest section, so we aren't listing all 19 main or recurring characters twice, in both the overview table and TOC. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
02:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
But again, that part of the MOS is talking about parent, season and episode articles, not list of character articles. That part of the MOS, currently, is
WP:TVCHARACTER. So I feel the table should stay and shouldn't be an issue. Also for the "introduced" headings, those are a quick delineator to distinguish when characters first appeared - in the films, the first season or the second season. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
03:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Personally I don't think articles beginning with "List of" have anything to do with the Good Article Reviewing process. But the article looks well written and it is more of an article than a list. I honestly don't know what to think in this situation.
Carbrera (
talk)
23:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC).reply
As far as I know, a list is a number of items formatted as a table, a bulleted list or similar; and a stand-alone list article would be an article where the list takes all or most of the article (such as
List of current United States governors). Other than a small table, all the entries here are in sections of pure prose. --
Cambalachero (
talk)
23:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"Executive producer Tara Butters described the fact that other people underestimate Carter as her 'superpower'" sounds a bit confusing. Despite the mentions to Captain America, this series is largely devoid of super powers. Better skip the specific terms used in the quotation, and simply point that she takes advantage of that. If she was nominated for an award, clarify if she won it or not.
It may be a better approach to clarify that Edwin Jarvis, the original character from Marvel Comics, is a butler; which was adapted in the films as an artificial intelligence, and here in a closer version to the original design.
Also, "It was revealed that...", but was it? Did they mention events that took place half a century afterwards at some episode? Or is it simply implied?
It may be better to clarify that the Jarvis introduced in Public identity was set several years in the past and working for Howard Stark. As written, it would seem as if the MCU had another, human, Edwin Jarvis set in the present day (unlike Agent Carter, Iron Man 2 is set in the present, except for flashbacks).
The third paragraph is very confusing, with all those quotations inside quotations. It may be better to describe what Fazekas said, instead of a copypaste.
"...a character who was always intended to die...", why "always"? Leave it just as "was intended to die". If the sentence is talking about the casting of the character, it is already clear that his death was in the original script for the series.
"Because of a lack of "rich comic book history to draw from", Whigham...", the quotation is unnecesary here. Rewrite the sentence to point the small character development in comics, and keep the reference.
Do we really need the sections "introduced in..."?
This was an issue tied to the way we were doing the overview table, but I have removed that based on recent discussions had for
MOS:TVCAST, so the "introduced in" headers have gone as well. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The first issue where Madame Masque was introduced in comics is too specific information, of no interest to the readers of this article, who want to know about the TV series.
"a nod to that" is another quotation that should not be used, it is too short and does not provide meaningful information. It says something that should be put in article's voice, with a more natural sentence.
Thanks for the review Cambalachero, I have gone through and responded to each of your points. Let me know if there is anything else you think I should do. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I have restored the table and subsequent recurring headings. I believe Adam was thinking/referring to
MOS:TVCAST, but that section is in regards to cast listings on main, season and episode articles, where tables should be avoided. That does not apply to list of character articles, such as this. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
16:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I was specifically going off this new line in TVCAST: cast tables "should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons or where cast changes are minimal". It was something that I disagreed with in the discussion, but consensus was against me. I personally would like to keep the table. As an explanation for the "introduced in" headings Camba, we settled on using them, just as we do in the guest section, so we aren't listing all 19 main or recurring characters twice, in both the overview table and TOC. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
02:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
But again, that part of the MOS is talking about parent, season and episode articles, not list of character articles. That part of the MOS, currently, is
WP:TVCHARACTER. So I feel the table should stay and shouldn't be an issue. Also for the "introduced" headings, those are a quick delineator to distinguish when characters first appeared - in the films, the first season or the second season. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
03:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Personally I don't think articles beginning with "List of" have anything to do with the Good Article Reviewing process. But the article looks well written and it is more of an article than a list. I honestly don't know what to think in this situation.
Carbrera (
talk)
23:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC).reply
As far as I know, a list is a number of items formatted as a table, a bulleted list or similar; and a stand-alone list article would be an article where the list takes all or most of the article (such as
List of current United States governors). Other than a small table, all the entries here are in sections of pure prose. --
Cambalachero (
talk)
23:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply