Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Marvel Cinematic Universe films/addition4

Marvel Cinematic Universe films (4th supplementary nomination) edit

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe films for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

Remove

Accolades received by The Avengers

This supplementary discussion is to add all of the 2018 MCU film releases, which have all been made GAs. It is also to remove the "List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film)", as it is felt be the active editors of these articles that, as we continue to add new film releases, an "accolades" articles is not really in the scope of this topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Everything looks good to me. - Brojam (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Black Panther has been delisted. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support has the quality, is part of the topic and hits all the marks. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the additions and the removal, which clarifies the scope. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors" article seems a little bit out of place.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to all of the included individual film articles, and is mostly a subpage of the main List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films age which follows WP:SUMMARY for it, just as it does for the film articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Can we not talk about this until the current copyvio concerns have been cleaned up? One of the main contributors to these articles is currently at CCI (and I've just been informed that CCI typically requires at least five examples, so I'm gonna go make sure it does that) and Black Panther (film) is currently tagged as having a large amount of close paraphrasing -- it's only one section, but that's because most of the rest of the article is a WP:QUOTEFARM. I see no reason to believe the rest of these articles aren't similar, since I picked Black Panther because (a) that's where a single instance of blatant copyvio recently occurred (I reverted it and got an admin to revdel) and (b) I really like that movie: neither of these are particularly "unique", and the editor in question is an established, respectable one, so we have no reason to assume that edits like the revdelled one haven't slipped through the cracks in the other articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that Black Panther (film) went through a lengthy review process where the amount of quotes was addressed before being passed. As stated on the articles' talk page, Earwig’s COPYVIO detector only returns two sources with an elevated risk of COPYVIO. The most significant is a Wikipedia mirror site (warning: do not visit that site, it redirects to unsafe spam) and the other contains a lengthy blockquote. The rest are within the acceptable range of tolerance. Hijiri appears to be operating from a zero tolerance stance whereas WP:CLOSEPHRASING says "limited close paraphrasing is appropriate".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hijiri88: Do you still oppose the nomination? GamerPro64 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI, most of the concerns that Hijiri raised on the article’s talk page have been addressed, hopefully to his satisfaction.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that FYI, most of the concerns that Hijiri raised on the article’s talk page have been addressed, hopefully to his satisfaction. is the same kind of IDHT "I've fixed the problems you painstakingly demonstrated to be problems after arbitrarily picking out a single block of text -- are you happy?" that happens quite frequently in these kinds of GAN/GAR/FAC/FLC/FTC/ETC discussions; another quick glance at the article the other day revealed more such problems. See below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do still oppose. I proposed a solution to the whole copyvio mess on Adamstom's talk page (essentially boiling down to "Adam and TT help clean up the mess, and I don't talk about it"), and he spat in my face. I see no evidence that the Black Panther article has been thoroughly swept of plagiarism, let alone the other couple-dozen articles involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The way I see it I will be closing this Supp nom as Promoted due to all these articles being Good Articles. If people do not think that any of these articles deserve to be GA, they should take it for a Good Article Reassessment and have others decide. Until then this discussion is done with until the next Supp nom. GamerPro64 19:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: It's simply unacceptable for you (or any closer) to overlook the massive textual plagiarism problem in these articles now that they have been brought up. GAR is a painful, frustrating process, and any nominator willing to take any -- or, god help them, all -- of these pages to GAR and subject themselves to that kind of grief would be recognized as a hero of Wikipedia. But it shouldn't be a prerequisite to not having a series of pages classified as "featured" when they clearly violate several of our core content policies that someone has to perform the tremendous feat of self-sacrifice of opening some or all of those GARs. The Black Panther GAN last year ignored the copyright problems, which is enough to automatically invalidate it (even ignoring the fact that the reviewer was clearly a troll, and probably also a sockpuppet); in an ideal world you or I or anyone else could simply choose to delist GAs that had invalid reviews, but that's not how the system works at the moment, so we have to accommodate for that by not making the damage worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I cleary see no issues and it looks good. Sheldybett (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote by user who was subsequently banned for socking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding copyvio This problem keeps getting worse the more one digs: Ant-Man and the Wasp, Black Panther, Spider-Man: Homecoming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]