Talk:The Defenders (miniseries)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll start this right when I finish Slingshot, so expect comments soon. JOEBRO64 23:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• The first sentence is kinda a mouthful; I feel like the part about it being based on Marvel Comics characters should either be split into a separate sentence or simplified
• ... and is the culmination of a series of interconnected shows from Marvel and Netflix. I understand what this means since I know how the MCU works, but to a general audience this could be read as saying it's the literal end of the series.
• The limited series stars... "limited" is unnecessary

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Development on the miniseries began in late 2013... strike "on the miniseries", as we know what's being developed

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Third-party analysis indicated that the miniseries was the least-viewed of the Marvel Netflix series strike "of the"

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd link binge-watching at the "binge" in ... third-most "Binge Raced"

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Cast

• Hijiri88's comment below does make some sense, I just wanted to hear your thoughts first
• A blind pro-bono lawyer in Hell's Kitchen, with his remaining senses enhanced, who is secretly a vigilante. This is minor but I think this sentence could use some reshuffling and some more background for clarity. How about something like A pro-bono lawyer and vigilante in Hell's Kitchen who, as a child, was caught in a freak accident that left him blind but enhanced his remaining senses. Also, neither of the sources say he's blind, a lawyer, or a vigilante.
• ...pairing the latter with Cage is an homage to the Heroes for Hire comics... Typo: "an" should be an "a" (also, just to be sure, is "the latter" Danny Rand?)

  Done. Yes "the latter" was Rand, but I've just made it "Rand". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• ...with the ability to call upon the mystical power of the Iron Fist... What's the Iron Fist?
• What's a "finger" of the Hand? I think you should clarify this
• ...who is the Black Sky, a weapon of the Hand. How is the Black Sky a weapon of the hand?
• Sigourney Weaver, who portrays the latter... I think "Alexandra" is better here; there's no repetition issue since it's a different sentence

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd replace one of the "described"s in the second/third sentences of Alexandra's section

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Development

• In October 2013, Deadline Hollywood reported that Marvel... Which Marvel? Marvel Studios? Entertainment? Comics? Television?

  The source never actually clarified, but from context, it is Marvel Television. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Link "Disney" to The Walt Disney Company

  Adjusted the wording here, so link no longer necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd add "(MCU)" after you mention the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as you use the acronym throughout the article

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Writing

• Just clarification, is "the latter" in the second sentence Loeb?

  Yes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Goddard noted that each of the individual series have different tones from one another, and said that combining them for the miniseries created a different one again. Copyediting suggestion: "Goddard noted that each of the individual series have different tones from one another, and said that combining them for the miniseries created a different one again."

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• ...but in general The Defenders don't have a "Defenders Tower" or matching costumes, for example. This sentence reads as unencyclopedic, I'd revise it

  I've reworded. Let me know what you think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Choosing an antagonist for the miniseries was another challenge according to Ramirez. There should be a comma after "challenge"

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Loeb did not want a villain like the alien invasion from The Avengers... An alien invasion can't be a villain, just the aliens are villains

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• The final image of The Defenders, in which Murdock wakes up with a nun by his side, is an homage to a panel from the "Born Again" story arc. I'd add that this is a Daredevil arc and it was released in 1986

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Casting

• ...expressed interest in appearing in The Defenders "on the bad side"... The quote can be paraphrased to "as a villain" (or something similar)

  If I recall, the quote was kept to avoid WP:ANTAGONIST. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• ...before Loeb contacted the actress about the project. I'd replace "the actress" with "her", as it's simpler and more direct

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Design (and related subsections)

• Clarkson was also inspired... Cut "also"

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• For Cage's scenes he was inspired by Harris Savides work... → "For Cage's scenes, Lloyd was inspired by Harris Savides' work..."

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• ...designing for The Defenders or for the first season of... Second "for" is unnecessary
• Is there a way to possibly merge the title sequence into another part of the design section (I'm thinking the first paragraph)? One-sentence subsections are discouraged

  I've moved it between the existing paragraph right under "Design" and above the "Cinematography" subsection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Filming

• The Defenders began filming on October 31... A show can't begin filming, I'd revise to "Filming for The Defenders began on October 31"

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• These caused a lot of issues... WP:EUPHEMISM

  Reworded let me know if this is better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• and solved their on-set issues. See above

  Simply removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• ...so much so that... Second "so" is unnecessary

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Music

• The citation in the second paragraph doesn't need to be repeated, per WP:OVERKILL.

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Aren't track listings discouraged? This might just be something with the video game project, as there we consider it something that doesn't make sense and isn't interesting to a general audience

  MOS:TVPRODUCTION allows them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

MCU tie-ins

• The Defenders is the final miniseries... isn't it the only miniseries? I'd cut "mini"

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Marketing

• A month later, Netflix and Marvel released an official trailer for the miniseries. Bin "official", in this context no one's going to assume it was unofficial

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Italicize Comic Book Resources

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Critical response

• Rotten Tomatoes has updated its numbers for the series: it's at 77% now with 96 reviews and an average of 6.52/10

  I think someone else got to this, but none the less, done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Italicize /Film

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• [Sciretta] noted the use of color throughout the episode to differentiate the characters. I'd change "note" to "praise". "Note" should only be used when stating an objective fact, not an opinion (i.e. "He noted it was raining" is OK, but "He noted the game was fun" is not)

  I used "highlighted" instead. Is that fine for you? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Italicize io9

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Katharine Trendacosta for io9 had positive thoughts, appreciating... I'd simplify to "Katharine Trendacosta for io9 appreciated" for concision

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is minor (you don't really need to do anything about it if you don't feel it's important) but general style is to spell out numerals from 1 to 9, so stuff like "He gave the miniseries 3 out of 5 stars" should be revised to "He gave the miniseries three out of five stars"

  It isn't listed as an exception in MOS:NUMNOTES, but I felt it was, since in publications it is common for "star" ratings, when denoted as numbers, to use the numerals, over writing the numbers out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Italicize Collider, Uproxx, and IGN

  Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• USA Today's Kelly Lawler was more critical of the series, awarding it 2 out of 4 stars, feeling Rand was the "undeniable handicap" of the series, having hoped that "The Defenders would shy away from Danny and his petulance, but unfortunately, Iron Fist is integral to the larger plot." This is a bit of a run-on, I'd revise it

  Split after "2 out of 4 stars". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• She also noted the pacing issues... Again, "note" should only be used for objective facts. Same thing goes for Krupa's comments

  Both changed. Let us know if you have issues with the options chosen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

References

• Some of your news websites are not italicized. I noticed Screen Rant, IGN, Comic Book Resources, Refinery29, Untapped Cities, Uproxx, TVLine, and ComicBook.com, but I could have missed a few.

  I think I got them all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Archive your Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic rankings

  Since RT and MC generally change (though for this now probably unfrequent), archives are usually left off for this reason. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I've responded to some of the comments. Waiting to see what Adamstom.97 would like to do for some (they are offline currently), but will circle back and address them later if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

OK sounds cool. Should finish this by next Monday. JOEBRO64 19:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to hit the rest of these soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Sorry for the delay, I ended up not being on here for much of this week. Will definitely get to these comments ASAP. And Adamstom.97 is back on too, so we can both knock these out and any other concerns you may have. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am back on as well. Since I missed most of the discussion and it all got a bit messy, I was wondering if you would be able to give a quick rundown of your feelings at the moment and what of the above issues are left to be addressed? Just to make it easier for me to join in at this point. Also, I want to note that the below discussion is effectively abandoned at this point due to the user retiring from Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Any of the bullets I have not responded to through "Music" I'd like your thoughts on. Anything after "Music" I just did not get around to addressing, but most likely will shortly after I make this comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have addressed the two left in the lead and will try get to the cast list soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm gonna bring up the same issue here I raised at the original GOTG2 GAN (and recently on the talk pages of both Avengers 3 and 4: the citations for "Actor X plays Character Y" should be attached to the statements that they verify, not to unrelated character bios created by Wikipedians based on the show itself. This issue was not addressed in the first GOTG2 GAN, and was enough to fail it, the follow-up GAN should not have ignored the reason for the previous one's failure, and this GAN should not pass without its being addressed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Further comment Article needs a thorough source-check for close paraphrasing. The data excludes viewing that occurred on Netflix's connected TV or mobile apps. is too close to the source's The data excludes viewing that occurs on connected-TV platforms or Netflix mobile apps, and I don't doubt that a lot of the other non-quoted, non-unsourced-plot content is similarly plagiarized. See also the recent close paraphrasing mess at the Black Panther (film) article, which was largely written by the same editors and whose topic is part of the same megafranchise. It may not be too hard to check given how much of this article is just direct quotes from primary sources, but that presents its own problems. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Marvel has "a wonderful concept" behind why the group would form in the MCU and why they would be called the Defenders is lifted almost word-for-word (with the ordering switched around and the "this world" changed to "the MCU") from 1:03-1:14 of this video. it was announced that Marvel Television and ABC Studios would provide Netflix with live action series centered around Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist, leading up to a miniseries based on the Defenders is probably too close to the source's Disney will provide Netflix with live action series and a miniseries featuring Marvel characters Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, and Luke Cage. Are all these "Marvel Cinematic Universe" articles messes of close paraphrasing? Do they all need to be GARred? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector only picked up a YouTube video that copied Wikipedia and some quotes. IMO there's not really much of an issue with plagiarism here. Maybe some quoted material could be paraphrased, but other than that there's not much. JOEBRO64 20:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Earwig's copyvio detector can be easily tricked. It clearly cannot detect plagiarized content for which no transcript exists except on Wikipedia, but the Quesada bit is much, much too close. Your "opinion" doesn't really matter here, since copyright policy is about the most absolute rule on Wikipedia, and cannot be ignored. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Five words that are the same is not plagiarism. I don't really understand why you're suddenly making absurd accusations of plagiarism against an editor whose contributions to this site are overwhelmingly constructive (seriously, barging in on an ongoing GA review they happen to be involved with and digging through their edit history all the way back to 2012? That's the literal definition of WP:HOUNDING...) JOEBRO64 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: As someone who was literally hounded off the project for much of 2013, I find it pretty damned offensive that you would accuse me of "the literal definition of WP:HOUNDING" for noticing that an editor had a recurring copyvio problem, and going back to their early edits to see how long it's been going on. If you find an editor who doesn't understand our content policies, particularly something as important as text copyright, it is a service to the project to do the necessary digging to find out how serious the problem is, not hounding. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about: ArbCom have been pretty clear on this matter, and if it weren't completely tangential to this Good Article review I would go into more detail: instead I'll just ask that you retract the above gross personal attack against me. As an aside, I've "barged onto" like four of these GAs over the last two years, as is my right as a frequent contributor to these articles, and I didn't notice the copyvio until like I week after I commented here about an unrelated issue and was completely ignored. Presenting this as you do is completely out of line, and the optics of your passing this GAN after having viciously and unjustifiedly attacked someone opposing it as you have done here, without even an attempt at apology or retraction (I notice you've apparently logged in three times since I pinged you above) would be simply atrocious. I can live with a GA having copyvio (it's the project's loss, not mine), but I don't think the project would accept a GA that was promoted under these circumstances, by a reviewer so desperate to pass it that he would attack anyone questioning the article's quality in this manner. There's literally nothing stopping you from saying you're sorry and retracting the above remark: this isn't the US legal system where your "admitting to wrongdoing" would give me evidence to use against you; rather the opposite is the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(Was busy yesterday, didn't have time to respond.) I didn't mean for you to take that personally (I've never interacted with you before and I didn't join Wikipedia until 2016) so I'm sorry I offended you. But I wasn't commenting about you, I was commenting about your tone and actions (not a personal attack), which aren't really coming across well. You should've remained calm and brought it up to Favre first, not go "AUGHHHHH COPYVIO!!!", dish it out on numerous talk pages, and then accuse editors defending Favre of bad faith and personal attacks. I'm not desperate to pass this article either—if you looked at this discussion's history, you'd notice there were some pretty bigs gaps between when I was reviewing and when I wasn't. JOEBRO64 20:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I made some copyedits, and wanted to leave a tip—in:

Marvel's The Defenders, or simply The Defenders, is an American web television miniseries ...

it's best to drop the "or simply" bit:

Marvel's The Defenders is an American web television miniseries ...

as the shortening is obvious and trivial. It kind of insults the intelligence, and introduces noise into the lead, which should focus on getting to the point. I would've taken it out myself, but I've run into editors who object, so I'll leave it to the maintaining editors to decide whether to take my advice, as whatever you do won't affect promotion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Curly that the "simply" part is unnecessary as it's obvious. I don't think it's significant enough to prevent this article from passing if Adam and Favre disagree, but, as Curly says, this doesn't really help JOEBRO64 13:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally also agree that it isn't necessary, but at this point I would be against removing it because this is consistent across the entire MCU topic (which covers a lot of pages). I would want to have a discussion about removing the wording from all related articles rather than just making the change here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no rule or guideline that suggests straightforward editorial decisions must be consistent across articles—certainly not for something as trivial as this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

While it isn't much and may be obvious, "The Defenders" is the WP:COMMONNAME of "Marvel's The Defenders" (which is its WP:OFFICIALNAME). Hence there should be a note of such as we have in the lead, similarly to Dr. Strangelove, The Butler, or the like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur, and a total misunderstanding of WP:COMMONNAME, which is about titling conflicts. But whatever—I was giving a tip on reader-focused writing. If you don't care about improving your writing, I'll take my advice elsewhere. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Adamstom.97 and Favre1fan93, just wanted to check if you're still planning to go on with this? JOEBRO64 23:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the effort you have put into this @TheJoebro64. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to furhter commit to this review, and don't know when I next will be able to continue here. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• TheJoebro64, it's been over three weeks since the above reply; Favre1fan93 edited on three days in February (and not since February 21) and didn't take the opportunity to reply here. Under the circumstances, without anyone to address the issues you've raised, it's probably time to close the review, which has been open for over two and a half months, and not had any edits to address the review for the past month and a half. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset, makes sense, but I just want to see if @Adamstom.97 and Favre1fan93 have anything to say first (even if they haven't edited in a while, I don't want to catch them off-guard). If they don't I'll close the review within the next two days. JOEBRO64 19:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @TheJoebro64, you can go ahead and fail this review if you wish. I just don't have the time to carry on with it, and I also don't feel that comfortable with continuing this given how messy it ended up getting here. If you are still interested in helping out, I'm sure I will renominate in the future when I have more time and am feeling better about the whole situation. Thanks, and sorry for dragging it out for so long. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• No problem, I totally understand. Let me know when you renominate, I'll be more than happy to take another look. JOEBRO64 02:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)