Talk:List of Agent Carter characters/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cambalachero (talk · contribs) 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Peggy Carter

• Wouldn't it be "return to the character?

Reworded. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• "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.

Added some more context from the article for this bit, and clarified for the award. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Edwin Jarvis

• The first paragraph is too short. Try to add a line or two.

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• 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).

I have rewritten/expanded the Jarvis info to hopefully clarify all this. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jack Thompson

• wouldn't -> would not

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Sousa

• 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.

Rewritten. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger Dooley

• "...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.

Reworded. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• "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.

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Recurring characters

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)

See my response below regarding the table removal. These should also come back with the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Howard Stark

• The 4º paragraph is a single sentence of four lines. Please rewrite it into smaller sentences.

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ray Krzeminski

• No out-of-universe perspective. If there no significant information about this aspect of the character, remove it.

I've just found some stuff to expand his section with. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Miriam Fry

• Idem.

Also managed to expand this section a bit. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Whitney Frost

• 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.

Removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• "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.

Changed. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• You should mention Jarvis' significance as a character within the TV series, not his relation with characters from other films.

Fixed. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Those are the issues I have noticed so far. Cambalachero (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

I did not understand the removal of the table. Which part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television is against it? Cambalachero (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I also did not understand this. The table can most definitely be used, and should. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Alright, that was a misunderstanding on my part. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

@Cambalachero, Carbrera, and Adamstom.97: how are we conducting – let alone passing – this when the GA criteria say that stand-alone list articles cannot be nomiated for GA? This principle was upheld in a recent RfC with strong consensus. I think this review should be rolled back. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: You should take that up with the reviewers at WP:FLC—I nominated this list class article for Featured list back in August, but was told by several reviewers there that this was not appropriate for FL and should be nominated for a GA instead. The discussion took place at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Agent Carter characters/archive1. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Pinging the participants of the FLC discussion: @Crzycheetah, The Rambling Man, and PresN:. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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).

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)