Talk:The Secret Origin of Felicity Smoak

The Secret Origin of Felicity Smoak has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 13, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Television: Arrowverse / Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Arrowverse task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Comics: DC Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Quotebox

{{quote box}} Great big purple quotebox. Why?

It is not clear why any one review should be highlighted. WP:UNDUE
If a review should be highlighted it is not clear why it should be this review from Den of Geek
It is redundant, the Critical response section paraphrases the quote, there's no need to have both the quote and the paraphrase
Other Arrow episode articles don't do this (I checked ten or so), why here, why for this quote?
Also why purple? (Why not green? Or the same color as the Infobox? Or no color.)
Template:Quote box documentation suggests that even if it was a good idea to have a quote this isn't the right template
MOS:BLOCKQUOTE says "Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged."

I merged the quote back inline as a normal part of the Critical response section,[1] but my change was reverted. The person who reverted the change User:Autumnking2012 was the same person who added the Quotebox[2] in July 2019, but I hope he will look closely at MOS:BLOCKQUOTE and reconsider. -- 109.76.154.4 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per all the points you've listed. There is no need to single out this particular review, especially considering neither the reviewer or the website are that reputable. I was actually meaning to remove it myself but never got around to it. - Brojam (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed quote box again.[3] -- 109.76.154.4 (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

109.76.154.4 As you say, I added the quote box originally. I did this whilst editing this article alongside Green Arrow (Arrow episode) (which carries a similar quote box in the critical reception area) for GA review. As part of this process, I went through many GA's and FA's to work out the sort of style that was considered to be of a higher standard. In the process of this, I discovered many episode articles that included a quote box in this section, including for example The Stolen Earth, which is listed as an example at WP:Television episodes, Box Cutter (Breaking Bad), The Chase (Desperate Housewives) and The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones). At FA level there are obviously not really any episode articles, but in television there is for example South Park (season 13), Parks and Recreation (season 1) and True Detective (season 1) all featuring similar quote boxes. Obviously, I am mindful of WP:Other stuff, but the reason I am listing the above is to demonstrate my process for introducing this feature in the first place. To address your points above:

One review is highlighted in a quote box to give an overall impression of the critical response. This is very clearly a quote, not a statement in WP:Wikivoice. The purpose is to reflect the consensus position of the reviews. I don't see any particular grounds for considering Den of Geek an disreputable source for TV reviews, it certainly isn't mentioned at WP:RSP.
The reasoning for choosing this review is that the given quote reflected the general consensus of the reviews across the section, in a clear quote.
It would be out of context to quote a review that is not mentioned within the body of the section. The summation given of the review is as brief as possible. I would also argue that the quote is too long to be appropriately absorbed into the body of the text.
As stated above, the same device is used at Green Arrow (Arrow episode). That article and this one are the only two non-crossover Arrow episodes assessed to GA, at neither of which was the quote box considered a problem.
I am unclear as the issue with the template, other than the inclusion of colour.
I agree that the colour is unnecessary. I originally copied the template from another article. Am happy to remove colour.

Apart from the colour issue, I don't see anything at WP:BLOCKQUOTE that suggests this shouldn't be here. As this discussion is still ongoing, I have reverted back per WP:StatusQuo removing the colour. The quote box has been in the article for 9 months, there is no rush to remove it. Also, FYI, she not he (if in doubt, they suffices!) AutumnKing (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a basic principle of graphic design and layout these quote boxes and other types of callout boxes are distracting (especially on a smaller screen such as a mobile device), and they break the flow. I still think it looks terrible. Removing the color avoids issues of MOS:ACCESS and basic readability and hides the inherent flaws. I found it hard to believe that this edit was reverted once, and even more difficult to believe that it was reverted twice after Brojam agreed it was bad and discouraged by various Wikipedia rules. I had hoped Brojam would remove it. I supposed I could always ask for a WP:3RD opinion.

There's really no need to highlight any one review, even if it really does as claimed and "reflect the consensus position of the reviews". It's strange for a supposedly "Good article" to serve as such a bad example. There are so many other broken things I could go try to improve instead (and I did) but I still think this was a bad decision and may yet revisit it, but I still hope someone else will look at the guidelines and see that it should be removed. -- 109.76.195.38 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]