Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FL status, and would like some feedback from other editors first. Any suggestions for improvement and general comments on the quality of the list are appreciated.
Thanks, Fandraltastic (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comments
Comment It's comprehensive and well sourced, but I do have a couple of concerns:
- There seems to be an emphasis on the WP:INUNIVERSE structure of the series. The purpose of such a lists is for a reader to be able to look up a character and see who played them and in which films, but splitting the characters across two tables makes this difficult to do. For instance, to see which films Tony Stark appeared in I have to look him up in two different tables. I think the original layout was more accessible. If there is a problem with the expanding number of films perhaps you could try flipping rows and columns, so that characters go along the top and films down the side.
- Possible reliable source concerns:
- Moviefone Blog (#11) – Blogs are not permissable unless authored by published experts.
- Slashfilm (#17); /Film seems to have a solid reputation, but it still appears to be just a blog at the end of the day quoting another source.
- Cinemablend (#26) doesn't look reliable to me; our article states "It combines gossip from anonymous and unverified sources as well as news and reviews."
- iamROGUE (#32) – what makes this reliable? Who is behind it?
- The Hollywodd Reporter/Reuters (#34) – Citation problem: the citation should cite the work you got it from. In this case Reuters is quoting the Hollywood Reporter, so The Hollywood Reporter is not technically the source for our article, since we are getting the information form Reuters. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT on how to format these types of second-hand sources.
- HeyUGuys (#56 & #60) – Never heard of it, site is dead therefore unable to obtain RS status; not a good sign.
Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- First thank you for your comments Betty. As you can see on the article's talk page there were lots of discussion about the structure, though WP:IN-U didn't seem to be a problem. It is organized by film and phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which is only mentioned out of universe, not within the narrative of any of the films). I also thought that one table is better than two but it didn't seem possible as the franchise continues to grow. Switching the rows and columns only exacerbates the problem as there are more characters than films and the problem stems from the table's width not length. I suggested making the table scrollable but then we might run into accessibility issues. Any other ideas?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a problem with multiple tables as such (there is no other way to do it really), the problem is splitting characters over two tables. The way I would do it, would be to have all the characters introduced in Iron Man in the first table, and then in the second table all the characters introduced in the second film etc, but with names across the top and all the films (including those from phase 2) down the side. That means that the tables will keep expanding vertically but not horizontally, and readers would still be able to see all the films a character appeared in by just scanning a single column in one table. This would allow readers to search the list by both film and character and they can get the information from one table. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- That might work, great idea. I'll try formatting it like that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I reorganized it as per your suggestion. How does that look? -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here it is for discussion. It looks very disjointed, splitting characters seems like the lesser evil.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah it turned out with a few big, smushed sections and then a bunch of tiny ones. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I won't pretend my suggestion was any better because it disrupted the fluency of the list even more than the current format. Someone may come up with a better solution, although it may be the case there just isn't a perfect way of doing this. After all it is an ordinately large list. Either way, I don't think it will come up as an FL issue. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I think this is a case where there is no 100% perfect solution, and trying to find one is like fitting square pegs into round holes, haha. There are just too many cast members and too many films, with no end in sight for either, to try to ram them into one table, and splitting it up leads to either characters being spread over multiple tables or each film's cast being spread all over the place, almost at random. The current format seems like the best compromise, as it keeps the table(s) fluid and neat while grouping the films in the same manner the producers and studio have. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I won't pretend my suggestion was any better because it disrupted the fluency of the list even more than the current format. Someone may come up with a better solution, although it may be the case there just isn't a perfect way of doing this. After all it is an ordinately large list. Either way, I don't think it will come up as an FL issue. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah it turned out with a few big, smushed sections and then a bunch of tiny ones. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here it is for discussion. It looks very disjointed, splitting characters seems like the lesser evil.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a problem with multiple tables as such (there is no other way to do it really), the problem is splitting characters over two tables. The way I would do it, would be to have all the characters introduced in Iron Man in the first table, and then in the second table all the characters introduced in the second film etc, but with names across the top and all the films (including those from phase 2) down the side. That means that the tables will keep expanding vertically but not horizontally, and readers would still be able to see all the films a character appeared in by just scanning a single column in one table. This would allow readers to search the list by both film and character and they can get the information from one table. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- First thank you for your comments Betty. As you can see on the article's talk page there were lots of discussion about the structure, though WP:IN-U didn't seem to be a problem. It is organized by film and phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which is only mentioned out of universe, not within the narrative of any of the films). I also thought that one table is better than two but it didn't seem possible as the franchise continues to grow. Switching the rows and columns only exacerbates the problem as there are more characters than films and the problem stems from the table's width not length. I suggested making the table scrollable but then we might run into accessibility issues. Any other ideas?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks for the comments. As for the sources:
- The moviefone/slashfilm/iamrogue (which is a site run by Rogue Pictures) are blogs, but does the fact that the articles in question are interviews with the actors themselves not override that a bit, and lend them some credibility? If not, I can find other sources. The same goes for heyuguys, and the site is usually up, you should be able to use the archive since it's temporarily down, though.
- I am cleaning up the Reuters citation now, and will replace the cinemablend one.
- Thanks again, appreciate it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Rogue one actually looks ok at closer look because it is conducting the interview itself so is admissable as primary source. Moviefone and and /Film aren't conducting the interviews themselves; Moviefone and /Film are just reporting the contents of interviews, and any unreliable blog can do that, and it doesn't make them reliable. It seems to me though that it can't be hard to find reliable sources for actors appearing in films that have already been released. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I have replaced the Moviefone, /Film and CinemaBlend refs, and cleaned up the Reuters ref. Look good? -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- The replacement refs looked fine to me. I took the liberty of altering the HR/Reuters ref since my suggestion wasn't correct. Reuters was simply republishing this story in its capacity as an agency. When a site or source simply reproduces a story from another news outlet, there is a parameter called agency i.e. agency=Reuters you can set to indicate where you got the story from. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I have replaced the Moviefone, /Film and CinemaBlend refs, and cleaned up the Reuters ref. Look good? -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Rogue one actually looks ok at closer look because it is conducting the interview itself so is admissable as primary source. Moviefone and and /Film aren't conducting the interviews themselves; Moviefone and /Film are just reporting the contents of interviews, and any unreliable blog can do that, and it doesn't make them reliable. It seems to me though that it can't be hard to find reliable sources for actors appearing in films that have already been released. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks for the comments. As for the sources: