# Talk:The Infinity Gauntlet

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Infinity Gauntlet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 09:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to take this one for review. On first glance, it is looking pretty good, but I'll take some time over the next few days to make my way through it and try give it a thorough review. I'll be back here then with some more feedback. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. You might find comments left here useful. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, after going through the article and reviewing the previous FA attempt it looks to me that this article is actually pretty close to FA quality, let alone GA. I'll try to give some helpful feedback for little bits and pieces here, and then hopefully your next attempt at FA gets a few more eyes on it. Here are some things to consider:
How were the "Main characters" in the infobox selected? If it was based on some official Marvel listing somewhere then that is fine, but if it is arbitrary / based on a reader's interpretation then you should probably just stick to saying Thanos (since his name is on the cover).
The first reference to Infinity Gems in the background section should probably be linked.
The table of tie-in comics could probably do with an explanatory caption or lead-in line, just to clarify its purpose. It's also unsourced, which I don't think is a big issue due to the nature of its content and WP:PRIMARY sort of applying to this sort of table, but it could be an issue in a future FA attempt. Perhaps consider adding a reference column that has sources for the info and the fact that they are tie-ins?
Similarly, I think you should consider finding sources for the character list.
Other than those, I really do think that this is a pretty great article that meets all the criteria, so I'm just going to go ahead and pass  this review. Well done. Take what I have said here into consideration if you are still serious about FA, and good luck! - adamstom97 (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Argento Surfer asked me for my two cents here. I've written four GA articles myself, one of which was from scratch, but I've never reviewed one before. What I did do was copyedit the Lead, since that's something I have a lot of experience working on with comics-related articles. I hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the commonality of these terms needs to be supported by a reliable source, not merely suggested by a couple of examples. The Screenrant article is a listicle with ten entries, and uses the term "epic" once, in the fourth list item. It is not clear why this specific word is relevant to the renewed attention the comics got from the (then unreleased) film. Using this as an example is inappropriate, as it's using a single source to imply that a minor point is both wide-spread and specifically significant. Using a source in this way is similar to editorializing, since it's something editors think is important which is not directly supported by cited sources. I dispute that the Triumph Books is even reliable at all, but it has similar issues. A couple of items of praise from obscure, dubious sources is basically filler. It will not help readers to understand the topic, and specifically will not help them understand the attention the books got before the movie was released. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The point of that sentence was to show that the reception in later years was still very positive. Those words (or synonyms) are common to the articles the sentence was talking about. Would you be happier if ref 77 was moved back to include that sentence as well? Then it wouldn't be just one ref per word. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Combining sources to suggest a point about its reception in later years is a form of WP:OR. This is especially bad when the sources are flimsy, such as many currently used in the article. Flimsy doesn't mean they cannot be used at all, but they need to be evaluated in context. If sources directly say something about its reception in later years, use those sources.
One of several problems with using specific sources for a general point is that it's difficult to exclude cherry-picking. All I would have to do, if I wanted to prove a point, would be to find a source saying that it's over-rated, or that it was a marketing stunt which didn't hold up, or something similar. I could use that to claim that "sources say its reception has diminished with time". Clearly that would be inappropriate, but this kind of thing is not distinguishable from citing positive sources to imply something about it's current reputation. To put it another way, citing a handful of examples is using subjective sources to make an objective claim.
The underlying problem is that there is no obvious reason to think reception would change in later years. Merely being supportable is not enough to explain why it belongs in the article. Any point about the change or lack of change of how this plot is viewed needs to be supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Except there is reason to believe the reception changed in later years. The first paragraph of the section starts out "Toward the end of the decade, interest in The Infinity Gauntlet began to fade.", followed by sourced examples of how fans lost interest in it. The third paragraph is about how the movie cameo raised its profile, and the sentence you want to remove shows that most writers fondly remembered the book 20 years after release. Highlighting the frequent use of "classic" or synonyms shows that IG is regarded as much better than average.
And the claim of cherry picking can be refuted by the article content. The whole fourth paragraph of the "later years" subsection is about negative retrospective opinions of the book. I'm surprised I have to point this out, considering you removed content from that paragraph. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it appears the article has other problems with vagueness, and with examples being used for original research. This is all using examples to form a timeline which implies a causal relationship. This is WP:SYNTH.
Interest in a specific set of books will almost always fade over time, especially a work as immediately popular as this one. It was popular, and people read it and talked about it, and then moved on. Saying that "interest diminished" may be useful for flow and readability, but it's a "water is wet" statement in isolation. The sequels and spin-offs and such had diminished sales, but this article isn't about those works and using this to reflect on the success of popularity of the original is also OR. Reliable, independent sources need to provide context.
A related issue here is conflating several very different things. The work's popularity, its financial success, and its critical reception are all independent of each other. Further, how "epic" or "iconic" these stories are is unrelated to these things. A story can, theoretically, be incredibly mundane and idiosyncratic and still be successful. Likewise, it is possible for something to be epic, iconic, and also poorly received. Using these words to imply something about the story's critical reception is editorializing. Using critical reviews to imply something about fan popularity is also editorializing. Essentially, these sources are WP:PRIMARY for their own opinions. A secondary source which specifically discusses the reception, and how the reception has changed over time, is necessary to make this point in the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe your concerns are unfounded, but I may be too close to the material to be objective. I have requested input from other editors - hopefully we'll get some additional thoughts. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, WhatCulture is also not a reliable source per past discussions at WP:RSN. The site routinely publishes WP:UGC with very little editorial oversight or fact-checking. This source is not suitable for factual claims. Further, saying that "sales rose" is far to vague. Sales rise and fall all the time. The significance of this mundane detail should be supported by a reliable source, and should be unambiguous. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This has been addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, it is nice to see this isn't an edit war about actual plot content. This being the case, I think this can be resolved easily enough. I take Grayfell's point about WP:OR, as when passionate about the subject material we want the information to have as much credence as possible. I also note some of the sources aren't what I'd call "credible" in the encyclopedic sense (ie. WhatCulture). If I can ask a respectful question, is there a need for this edit [[1]]? The comment about sales on the original story rising after the MCU films seems somewhat superfluous and not related to the content. In fact, while it may be possible to draw a line between a revitalized character, story line etc. and sales, is it necessary "after the fact"? I'd certainly mention with some careful wording that the MCU has been building up to this story line, but beyond that it seems unnecessary to mention anything else (unless there is eventually a new plot development, such as the multiple "snaps" attracting the attention of the cosmic entities). My 2¢ worth.
Regards Asgardian (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

First, WhatCulture is no longer used in the article. Second, the spike after the MCU appearances made the third edition of the soft cover the best selling graphic novel of 2018([2]. In a section talking about reprint editions, I think that's noteworthy. Finally, by saying you "take his point", do you mean that you agree that section needs to be rewritten? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)