Talk:Avengers assemble scene/GA1

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 Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 07:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I'll be reviewing this. Never seen the entirety of Endgame, but I've watched clips here and there so this'll be fun. Pamzeis (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Thanks for taking on this review! I think everything has been addressed. -- ZooBlazer 17:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Resending a ping to let you know I've addressed things. Sometimes sending multiple pings at once makes none of them work, so just wanted to make sure you were aware. -- ZooBlazer 05:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

The organisation of the lead is a bit confusing to me. It seems to go from the fictional context of the scene, to the real-life context (para 1), to more fictional stuff, then to the production. I'm wondering whether it's easier to keep the fictional stuff in the 1st paragraph (i.e. the plot and characters) and the real-life stuff in the second paragraph (the context, production, reception, etc.)?
Fixed -- ZooBlazer
wanting to make the portal design attributable to Doctor Strange — parts of this bit, such as the word attributable, kinda feel clunky tome. Is it possible this can be reworded?
Done -- ZooBlazer 17:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, the lead looks great!
say the line in the MCU — "MCU" is not defined here
Fixed -- ZooBlazer
their idea for Evans — who is "their"?? The Russos or Markus and McFeely?
Fixed -- ZooBlazer
acknowledging that the idea was not without its downside — seems to agreeing that the idea had a downside, which is stating an opinion in wikivoice
Added the direct quote -- ZooBlazer
thought it would be more interesting, — it's a bit unclear what "it" is here
Fixed -- ZooBlazer
creating a lot of energy in the theaters, they thought a lot of people may not have even heard the line the first weekend of the film's release — sounds a tad unencyclopaedic to me; can this be copyedited a bit?
Done -- ZooBlazer
The portals would have been prohibitive to generate and render — is there any reason why that would be worth mentioning?
Removed -- ZooBlazer
Drax and Mantis were together, Strange's return was filmed separately due to him floating — run-on?
Fixed -- ZooBlazer

with Benedict Cumberbatch filming his part on a green screen — maybe clarify who Cumberbatch plays for those unfamiliar with the MCU actors?

I feel like it is established? - Strange's return was filmed separately due to him floating, with Benedict Cumberbatch filming his part on a green screen. -- ZooBlazer
After the "assemble" line, the actors ran forward towards just a small group of people in motion capture suits that represented Thanos' army so that the actors had an eyeline — "just" and "so that" sound a bit uncyclopaedic
Fixed -- ZooBlazer
Once the face-off began, the battle transitioned from CG to real, on-set stunt work. — this bit kinda comes outta nowhere and I thought it was still talking about the before-and-after at first
Flipped the sentences -- ZooBlazer

More to come...

Due to Rogers being down and out as everyone returned, the theme had to be almost celebratory according to Silvestri. — is a bit awkwardly worded, IMO
and the scene is considered to be one of the best in Endgame as well as the MCU — by whom?
I'm not a big fan of the way the reception section is done ATM. It seems to be just quotes after quotes, critic after critic. Other than that, I feel like there's a bit of padding, with around three sentences devoted to each critic, and the article seems to be regurgitating critical opinion, instead of summarising it. WP:RECEPTION might offer a bit of help here. Pamzeis (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First concern is fixed.

For the second,I think I'll ask @ZooBlazer on how he'd like to handle this.

For the third, I have went ahead and rewritten it so feel free to let me know what you think. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Dcdiehardfan. I think everything should be addressed for now. -- ZooBlazer 02:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Version reviewed

Sources all seem reliable for what they're used for
for fn 16, can you clarify why it says via Empire?
From the article Further making the moment better was Silvestri's score, but apparently, they had a different theme for the portals scene — with french horns and choir singing as the composer told The Empire Film Podcast -- ZooBlazer
and the scene is considered to be one of the best in Endgame as well as the MCU — I feel like a sweeping statement like this one would need far better sourcing—you can say Vogue and MovieWeb consider it one of the best, but this bit makes it look as though it's a really common statement. Also think the sourcing may make it not-lead-worthy. Pamzeis (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted wording/removed from lead. -- ZooBlazer
(edit conflict) There seems to be a bit of close paraphrasing in the article that's not covered by WP:LIMITED, e.g:
- Article:
  how powerful and epic the MCU can be at its best
- Source:
  how powerful and epic the Marvel Cinematic Universe can be at its best
- Article:
  The simulation team had to find a "recipe" that would make the portals be recognizable as Doctor Strange's, but they had to be optimized because
- Source:
  our simulation team had to find a recipe that would recognizably be... we need to know that this is Doctor Strange’s portals that we're seeing here. They need to feel like the same because they've been seen on a more human scale in the past, but they all had to be optimized because

Other[edit]

I feel like the first few sentences of the "Background and development" section could be trimmed, such as the bits about Thor and Giant-Man as they have absolutely no bearing on what ends up in the scene
That's all about the background/origin of the line in the comic, which I feel is relevant. The details are minor on Thor and Giant-Man in the article, just one mention of their history with the phrase. -- ZooBlazer
That's fair—I still don't think the bit about Giant-Man is necessary, but it seems too minor to be a pressing issue. Pamzeis (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the second paragraph of #Creating the scene relevant? It seems, to me at least, to be discussing an entirely different scene that's not mentioned anywhere previously (so it kinda comes out of nowhere)
@Trailblazer101: I think you added this in the early stages of the article so I'll let you address this how you see fit. -- ZooBlazer
I ended up just removing the paragraph for now, but if you feel it should be kept or altered, feel free to revert, Trailblazer101 -- ZooBlazer
That's alright. I thought it could have been useful early on, though I don't think it has much relevance at this point. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the quiet delivery of the line, Tom Holland revealed that he was unable to hear Evans say "assemble" due to their distance from each other, which resulted in him running forward screaming by himself after hearing the "Avengers" part of the line. — I feel this should be left out as WP:TRIVIA, unless it caused some kinda disruption that changed the scene or something
Removed -- ZooBlazer

Think that's it from my end—putting the article on hold for now! Pamzeis (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: I think I've addressed the last few things. Reception is the thing I'm the worst at when writing articles, but I made an attempt to clean it up. -- ZooBlazer 07:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis I've also taken a crack and fixed some stuff. I'm not going to definitely declare anything resolved since of course, that's up to the nominator but I've also went ahead and edited the VFX details regarding Dr. Strange's portals in an attempt to resolve the WP:LIMITED issue and also did further CE regarding the Reception. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Second look[edit]

and an allusion to it in Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), audiences speculated — grammatically, this would mean after an allusion to audiences in Age of Ultron, audiences speculated... (because the "it" is tied to the word "audiences")
director Joss Whedon wanted to ensure the latter's scenes were preserved and not altered in the future — without context, this doesn't make any sense, and the way it's written now, it sounds like it's the reason the line was not included.
Various iterations were filmed — according to the article, only two iterations were considered and the final product was done in one take

Mostly very minor issues—we're almost there! Pamzeis (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis I've cleaned up all three issues I think. -- ZooBlazer 03:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Anything else that needs done? -- ZooBlazer 07:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Third look[edit]

I've made a couple edits to the lead—think we're all good to go now. Pamzeis (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above 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.