Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews. If you removed a paragraph yesterday, then the tool wouldn’t have picked up on it today. Also I have no idea what is going on in The Defenders article.—] (]) 19:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
:::That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews. If you removed a paragraph yesterday, then the tool wouldn’t have picked up on it today. Also I have no idea what is going on in The Defenders article.—] (]) 19:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
::::{{re|TriiipleThreat}} {{tq|''That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews.''}} I went through a whole lot of abuse from Adamstom.97 and JohnWickTwo, the latter of whom I'm convinced was either a ] or a troll deliberately trying to undermine the GA process, for saying the article definitely had problems and should not pass GAN until those are addressed. Now I find out that the article had obvious plagiarism problems that should have caused an autofail, and you are wikilawyering over the fact that the doesn't recognize it? Were you guys (I don't know who originally added each of the above) ''trying'' to trick the tool by moving the words around so we use all the same words as the source but in a different order? The tool also seems to ignore segments that are only a single sentence long (?), making it useless for articles that cite a different source every other sentence. Segments of text like the above "Child development expert..." are clearly unacceptable, regardless of whether an automated tool recommended at GAN recognizes it. (apparently a more reliable, semi-automated tool) attributes it to F1f93 with ; if he's responsible for all of this (and -- thank you for asking, and sorry for not explaining up front; I saw you had edited the page 37 times and assumed you were following the GAN) then I think this might need to go to ]; I hope I can count on your assistance in tracking down all the plagiarized text -- F1f93 has made almost 46,000 mainspace edits, and while reverts and edits marked as minor are probably the vast majority of those (I'm estimating about a quarter are marked as minor, and a quick search of very recent non-minor ones indicates about 40-50% include "revert" or the like in the edit summaries, but I can't find an efficient way of checking more comprehensively) this is still a very '''''BIG''''' problem for the project, particularly for the articles he edits a lot -- his are all MCU-related. ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
::::{{re|TriiipleThreat}} {{tq|''That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews.''}} I went through a whole lot of abuse from Adamstom.97 and JohnWickTwo, the latter of whom I'm convinced was either a ] or a troll deliberately trying to undermine the GA process, for saying the article definitely had problems and should not pass GAN until those are addressed. Now I find out that the article had obvious plagiarism problems that should have caused an autofail, and you are wikilawyering over the fact that the doesn't recognize it? Were you guys (I don't know who originally added each of the above) ''trying'' to trick the tool by moving the words around so we use all the same words as the source but in a different order? The tool also seems to ignore segments that are only a single sentence long (?), making it useless for articles that cite a different source every other sentence. Segments of text like the above "Child development expert..." are clearly unacceptable, regardless of whether an automated tool recommended at GAN recognizes it. (apparently a more reliable, semi-automated tool) attributes it to F1f93 with ; if he's responsible for all of this (and -- thank you for asking, and sorry for not explaining up front; I saw you had edited the page 37 times and assumed you were following the GAN) then I think this might need to go to ]; I hope I can count on your assistance in tracking down all the plagiarized text -- F1f93 has made almost 46,000 mainspace edits, and while reverts and edits marked as minor are probably the vast majority of those (I'm estimating about a quarter are marked as minor, and a quick search of very recent non-minor ones indicates about 40-50% include "revert" or the like in the edit summaries, but I can't find an efficient way of checking more comprehensively) this is still a very '''''BIG''''' problem for the project, particularly for the articles he edits a lot -- his are all MCU-related. ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
:::::I can't even look at my edit now since it was removed, but I'm pretty sure it was not as dire as you're making it out to be, because everything was basically in my own words or quoted when I pulled exact phrases. But sometimes there's only so many ways you can word something. An example, if a source said something like (for the VFX) "Our team contributed to ''Black Panther'', working with the production team on the visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles" are you going to make an issue out of it if the article stated " worked on the opening prologue and main-on-end titles for the film" because six of those words are "directly pulled" from the reference article? I'm withTriiiple on this, that you're trying to make an issue where there isn't one, especially in singling me out for no apparent reason. Taking specifically one of your example you're claiming is an issue: {{tq|Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.}}. To start, you're saying "Child development expert" is "{{tq|clearly unacceptable}}". Well, Giboa needs to be identified so doing "Child development expert Deborah Gilboa" or "Deborah Gilboa, a child development expert", is virtually the same thing (and something I'm guessing you'd take issue with too). The only directly pulled piece of info from that source is {{tq|make a huge impact on children's spirits}}, essentially 5 words. - ] (]) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
:::::I can't even look at my edit now since it was removed, but I'm pretty sure it was not as dire as you're making it out to be, because everything was basically in my own words or quoted when I pulled exact phrases. But sometimes there's only so many ways you can word something. An example, if a source said something like (for the VFX) "Our team contributed to ''Black Panther'', working with the production team on the visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles" are you going to make an issue out of it if the article stated " worked on the opening prologue and main-on-end titles for the film" because six of those words are "directly pulled" from the reference article? I'm feel like you're trying to make an issue where there isn't one, especially in singling me out for no apparent reason. Taking specifically one of your example you're claiming is an issue: {{tq|Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.}}. To start, you're saying "Child development expert" is "{{tq|clearly unacceptable}}". Well, Giboa needs to be identified so doing "Child development expert Deborah Gilboa" or "Deborah Gilboa, a child development expert", is virtually the same thing (and something I'm guessing you'd take issue with too). The only directly pulled piece of info from that source is {{tq|make a huge impact on children's spirits}}, essentially 5 words. I'm not denying there may be a few sentences that could use adjustments, things fall through the cracks sometimes, but at least this "Child development...." one doesn't seem to be an issue. - ] (]) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
GA icon symbolizing Good topic candidates on Misplaced Pages.
This article is a candidate to become part of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe films" series, a current good topic. A good topic should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Etavioncarroll (article contribs).
Starring
Considering the article is in process to being Good Article, I have a question; I added Sterling K. Brown, Florence Kasumba and John Kani, but they were removed. I confirmed that they are credited among the rest of the main cast before adding them. Or my understanding of a billing block is very different from everyone else? The films billing block was the one that credited major crew members and cast, not the one with a detailed list of actors and other crew members. Thank you all. — Nyanchoka : talk 2 me07:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The billing block, as referred to here, is the section of text at the bottom of the film's poster that details the main cast and crew for the film. Those actors are not included in that listing. There are obviously lots of different cast listings for films out there, so the consensus is to generally stick with this one across film articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Can we add that Rotten tomatoes lists it has the best reviewed film.
Also best reviewed superhero film in both Rotten tomatoes and metacritic. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
the film's way of endorsing the crushing of armed revolt against oppression
Source: a politically “woke” film that straight-up endorses the crushing of armed revolt
the film avoided black pain, suffering, and poverty, usual topics in films about the black experience.
Source: We’re not dealing with black pain, and black suffering, and black poverty” — the usual topics of acclaimed movies about the black experience.
Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.
Source: Child development expert Dr. Deborah Gilboa told TODAY Parents that seeing "Black Panther" could indeed make a huge impact on children's spirits. "Kids need role models
This was the most diverse audience for a superhero film ever, for which African-Americans generally make up 15% of audiences.
Source: Black Panther drew the most diverse North American audience ever for a superhero film. Generally, black consumers make up around 15 percent of the audience for such fare. (Note that the critical phrase "North American" has been removed, changing the meaning in a fashion that violates V, but putting it back would make its wording even closer to that of the source.)
Joseph said the film was a rare opportunity for underserved children of color to see a major black comic character brought to film.
Source: Joseph calls the release of "Black Panther" a "rare opportunity for young students (primarily of color) to see a black major cinematic and comic book character come to life."
encouraged others to create similar campaigns for their communities
Source: calling on others to start similar campaigns in their own communities
GoFundMe created a centralized page for anyone wishing to create a campaign for the challenge.
Source: GoFundMe has also created a centralized page so that anyone, anywhere can create a campaign for kids in their region to watch Black Panther.
Women in Entertainment Mentorship Program, which is executed in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Los Angeles
Source: The program, now in its ninth year, is executed in partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Los Angeles. (This is obviously not from the reviewed version -- I accidentally closed the tab with the July permalink and collected the quotes before noticing the anachronism resulting from my mistake.)
Some of these could probably be fixed easily, or are very minor and could probably be overlooked if it wasn't for the overall presence of so much closely paraphrased text (the last quoted example, for instance, is short enough that it probably couldn't be paraphrased all that much better than we currently do, and even if it could no one would notice if it weren't for things like us taking a source that says Child development expert Dr. Deborah Gilboa told TODAY Parents that seeing "Black Panther" could indeed make a huge impact on children's spirits. "Kids need role models and using it to write Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.I'm tagging the section as including an excessive amount of close paraphrasing, and the tag should not be removed until all the close paraphrasing has been removed. I will also be looking at the other sections, and if I find they have similar problems to this one, I will be opening a GAR (since, frankly, even just the above should be enough for the page to be delisted automatically). Hopefully this article -- which is, honestly, on my favourite film in my favourite film series -- can be saved, but it will require cooperation and consensus-building, not to mention serious critical source-checking, which was apparently lacking in the original GA review, which doesn't appear to have noticed this at all.
Earwig’s COPYVIO detector only returns two sources with an elevated risk of COPYVIO and one of those is an Misplaced Pages mirror, the rest are within the acceptable range. That said, the examples you listed can easily be corrected l.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
You can't rely on automated tools for this stuff. Any educated human can read the above quotes and see the close paraphrasing. "within the acceptable range" is an interesting turn of phrase, given that just yesterday an entire paragraph was lifted near wholesale (from a primary source published by one of the production companies) by Favre1fan93 (talk·contribs) (who it turns out was copy-pasting text onto the site as far back as 2012) and needed to be revdelled almost immediately. And there's the stuff that I found at The Defenders (miniseries). When 80% (?) of the article body is primary-sourced plot summary or a quote-farm, and the rest contains a significant amount of close paraphrasing, that is a very, very serious problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews. If you removed a paragraph yesterday, then the tool wouldn’t have picked up on it today. Also I have no idea what is going on in The Defenders article.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: That is the automated tool suggested for use during GA reviews. I went through a whole lot of abuse from Adamstom.97 and JohnWickTwo, the latter of whom I'm convinced was either a JoshuSasori sock or a troll deliberately trying to undermine the GA process, for saying the article definitely had problems and should not pass GAN until those are addressed. Now I find out that the article had obvious plagiarism problems that should have caused an autofail, and you are wikilawyering over the fact that the broken-ass tool doesn't recognize it? Were you guys (I don't know who originally added each of the above) trying to trick the tool by moving the words around so we use all the same words as the source but in a different order? The tool also seems to ignore segments that are only a single sentence long (?), making it useless for articles that cite a different source every other sentence. Segments of text like the above "Child development expert..." are clearly unacceptable, regardless of whether an automated tool recommended at GAN recognizes it. Wikiblame (apparently a more reliable, semi-automated tool) attributes it to F1f93 with this edit; if he's responsible for all of this (and this Defenders nonsense -- thank you for asking, and sorry for not explaining up front; I saw you had edited the page 37 times and assumed you were following the GAN) then I think this might need to go to WP:CCN; I hope I can count on your assistance in tracking down all the plagiarized text -- F1f93 has made almost 46,000 mainspace edits, and while reverts and edits marked as minor are probably the vast majority of those (I'm estimating about a quarter are marked as minor, and a quick search of very recent non-minor ones indicates about 40-50% include "revert" or the like in the edit summaries, but I can't find an efficient way of checking more comprehensively) this is still a very BIG problem for the project, particularly for the articles he edits a lot -- his top ten most-edited articles are all MCU-related. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't even look at my edit now since it was removed, but I'm pretty sure it was not as dire as you're making it out to be, because everything was basically in my own words or quoted when I pulled exact phrases. But sometimes there's only so many ways you can word something. An example, if a source said something like (for the VFX) "Our team contributed to Black Panther, working with the production team on the visuals of the opening prologue and main-on-end titles" are you going to make an issue out of it if the article stated " worked on the opening prologue and main-on-end titles for the film" because six of those words are "directly pulled" from the reference article? I'm feel like you're trying to make an issue where there isn't one, especially in singling me out for no apparent reason. Taking specifically one of your example you're claiming is an issue: Child development expert Deborah Gilboa felt the film would make a huge impact on children's spirits by offering positive role models.. To start, you're saying "Child development expert" is "clearly unacceptable". Well, Giboa needs to be identified so doing "Child development expert Deborah Gilboa" or "Deborah Gilboa, a child development expert", is virtually the same thing (and something I'm guessing you'd take issue with too). The only directly pulled piece of info from that source is make a huge impact on children's spirits, essentially 5 words. I'm not denying there may be a few sentences that could use adjustments, things fall through the cracks sometimes, but at least this "Child development...." one doesn't seem to be an issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Etavioncarroll (article contribs).
