Talk:Ed the Happy Clown/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! This is third on my list currently, after Bahadur Shah Zafar grave dispute and The Hawking Excitation, both short(ish) articles, so it shouldn't be too long before I review. :) BenLinus1214^talk 18:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Wow, not the kind of article I was expecting! I thought it was just going to be some sort of children's character. Guess not! :)

• File:EdTheHappyClown4.gif is oddly placed in the infobox, unnecessary, and has a very scanty fair use rationale. Unless the cover of that particular issue is important, I would remove it. And besides, if you can illustrate its importance, it doesn't really belong in the infobox.
  • Yeah, I've ditched it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Rework the first part of the first paragraph of the lead. The first bolded term is the character, but the article really isn't about the character—it's about the series.
  • Well, this is where it was awkward: it wasn't originally a series, and didn't really get a canonical title until the 1989 collection came out. With the latest collection Brown has finally caved in to the "graphic novel" designation, so that's what I've now changed it to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Central to the plot are…" these examples are a bit too detailed, and "central to the plot" is a bit vague.
  • I really have to disagree on both counts: these are key elements in a plot that is difficult to summarize. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I guess that makes sense, but maybe we could compromise—how about "the plot contains many surreal characters, including…" BenLinus1214^talk 14:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• "The story is seen as…" by whom?
  • Note: I just changed it to "seen by many critics"
• I find your referencing a bit odd, especially for online sources. Shouldn't these typically be inline citations? It's okay as long as you show me a relevant MOS or other guideline that says its OK. Offline sources accepted AGF.
  • I don't understand—which references are not inline? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry. It's not that they're not inline, it's just that I've never seen this construction of listing online references at the bottom and then citing "Mackay 2005" inline. I've seen it used for offline references commonly, but not in this case. I guess it's okay, but I was wondering whether or not you could point me to an MOS about this? BenLinus1214^talk 14:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • You won't find anything about that in the MoS—the MoS doesn't regulate citation styles. What I can tell you is that the style is far from uncommon: for instance, every one of my FAs and GAs uses that style. I do it for a number of reasons:
        1. I can't accept the idea of a "Works cited" section that neglects to list any of the works cited.
        2. It separates interests: cited works from citations.
        3. It gives a clean, clean, well-organized overview of the sourcing of the article.
        4. It keeps the full citations out of the body of the article source, making it easier to navigate and edit the source.

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • Okay, that's fine. I was just wondering. BenLinus1214^talk 00:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• "dealing to a specialized audience" is a bit vague.
  • Changed to "with a clientele of dedicated comics fans". The point is supposed to be that the comics consumption went from being a part of the larger popular mass media to a fringe activity.Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• "creative rut" feels a bit informal.
  • How is "Brown was feeling himself in a creatively stagnant period"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• "The story unfold…" There's a grammatical error in this sentence, and I find the adjectives "twisted" and "dark" to be a bit non-neutral. Maybe "The story is told in a blackly comic manner interspersed with Christian symbolism.
  • Dropped. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Since you mentioned several Ed the Happy Clown volumes (or editions of the same volume) it's unclear what you are summarizing here.
  • Up until the "Endings" section, the summary summarizes material that appears in all three editions, the original serial, and the Ed series. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph, are you going to the unrelated gags or when the plots converge? It's unclear at first.
  • It jumps back and forth between different short strips, some of which feature Ed and some of which don't. It's hard to say exactly where they converge. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• I would like a better non-free content rationale for File:EdTheHapyClownCharacters.jpg. It seems useful, but a good rationale would be nice.
  • Note Expand it if you get to it, but it's honestly fine for now.
    • Actually, I've ditched the image. It's not really necessary, as there's already a picture of Ed in the infobox. 220.148.58.167 (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, that seems reasonable.
• Image has been removedYou list the characters in the image's caption, but you don't say in which direction you're going (i.e. clockwise from top left).
• Image has been removedSeveral characters in the image's caption do not have mentions otherwise here. Could you include a bit on that? Otherwise, this section looks good.
• "Christian elements especially…Chet's hand miraculously restored" this needs a backing inline citation.
  • Sorry? It's all cited ... ? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Is it all cited to footnote 16 or something? Because that's very difficult to tell because of the noted passage not having any footnotes. BenLinus1214^talk 14:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • It's fine now. BenLinus1214^talk 12:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Your linking to the Gospels by blue linking "of Mark" and "of Matthew" is a bit awkward. Maybe "of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew"?
  • • • Generally everything that preceeds an inline cite is supposed to "belong" to that inline cite. There are those who insist on duplicated refs for each sentence, but they're in the minority, and it's generally considered bad form (redundant, clutter). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I would find such repetition even more awkward. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "How about just "of the gospels of Mark and Matthew"?
      • The problem with that is that they then appear (WP:EGG-like) to go to the articles for Matthew the Apostle and Mark the Evangelist. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I guess it's fine. There's not really another solution.
• What's the "this" that R. Fiore is referring to?
  • The adaptations—does "these" make it more clear? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I just changed it to "these adaptations" BenLinus1214^talk 14:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of the analysis should probably contain more links.
  • Added links to Transgressive art and manga. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• What does "confronted himself" mean and how is this sentence relevant?
  • Is it clearer now? 220.148.58.167 (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps you should flip the "style" and "publication" sections—I feel as that "analysis" and "style" sections are more closely related and would flow better next to each other, while "publication" and "reception" sections are more closely related.
  • Done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• "got its start" is a bit informal
  • Changed to "began". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Is "Brown envisioned Ed as an ongoing character…" also cited to footnote 28?
  • Yes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• The "issues of Ed the Happy Clown table could probably use a citation of some sort.
• I guess you can use the Bell quote at the beginning of the "style" section, but put the "according to comics historian John Bell" first.
  • Done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Brown started to do Ed" is informal
  • Dropped "to do". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• At the beginning of the Reception section, there's also a passive, vague "was seen"
  • Note: I just changed it to was seen "by many critics"
• After the stuff cited to ref 49, there's a comma where there should either be a period or a semicolon.
  • No, it's supposed to be like that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I made a minor fix. BenLinus1214^talk 14:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Your link to defamation in the women's rights thing is a bit strong and really isn't in your source—it just says that they heavily criticized it. Also, the latter part of that sentence isn't in the cite given (at least, that I saw).
  • Where the source talks about women's groups etc. applies to everything he did before Louis Riel found mainstream success, rather than Ed specifically, so I've dropped it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• "In Yummy Fur #4 was…" probably better to put "In Yummy Fur #4, there was…"
  • I just changed this myself.
• "had just ejaculating" grammatical error
  • Fixed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Your illustration of the panel in question is very helpful, but there's a notice that says that no info on the resolution has been added. Also a very minimal fair use rationale.
  • Done. 220.148.58.167 (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• "A publisher discovered that boxes of its feminist publication…" what publisher? What publication?
  • Neither source says. 220.148.58.167 (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Because the other media section is all about the film except for one bit about the Live with Culture thing, you could put that in the reception section and then retitle it to the more accurate "film adaptation."
  • I'm not sure that works, as everything in that second paragraph is there because it relates to the unmade movie. 220.148.58.167 (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Alright, I'm done. This is a very good article about a very interesting topic. Just a few things to clear up before I pass. BenLinus1214^talk 20:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

All of your responses that I did not reply to are fine. BenLinus1214^talk 14:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Because you said you can't make any more responses soon, I'll try and do the rest myself. BenLinus1214^talk 00:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, there's some stuff that I can't do myself. Just respond whenever you can! :) BenLinus1214^talk 00:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have figured this out, but you weren't logged in when making those edits. :) Anyway, at this point, I feel that I can pass. Good job! BenLinus1214^talk 12:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: