Talk:George Herriman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:George Herriman and fans.jpg
2. File:AugustineTreme14Jan2008AboveB.jpg
3. File:George and Mabel Herriman - Wedding - 1902-07-07.jpg
4. File:Musical Mose 1902-02-16 "Impussanates" a Scotchman, with Sad Results.jpg
5. File:Daniel and Pansy 1909-12-04.jpg
6. File:Krazy Kat 1918-09-07 panel 4.png
7. File:Monument valley.jpg = this one could use standardization with information template.

   Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

8. File:HMBeanieWalkerPubPhoto.jpg = fair use, rationale checks out on image page.
9. File:1937 1107 kkat brick 500.jpg = looks like this should be uploaded in PNG format instead.

   I thought I'd try this, but then I read Wikipedia:How to reduce colors for saving a JPEG as PNG. I'm not sure I'm confident that I could do this right. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

   Suggest you post a request for help at commons:Commons:Village pump, and hopefully someone will respond there. — Cirt (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

10. File:George Herriman and family - 1915.jpg
11. File:Herriman 1902.png
12. File:E. E. Cummings NYWTS.jpg
13. File:Sollies Ville - Chris Ware - P1200285.jpg

Aside from above notes, all images check out okay.

Next, on to stability review. — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Stability review

1. No ongoing conflict issues, upon inspection of Article edit history.
2. Don't see any outstanding problems upon inspection of article talk page.

Next, on to rest of review, — Cirt (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 12, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing style is pretty good, certainly good enough for GA quality. I would suggest going for a peer review post GA review, and also soliciting help from the folks at WP:GOCE, for copyediting with regards to keeping in mind improving overall flow and succinctness.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, to well-formatted references.

3. Broad in coverage?: Indeed is thorough and comprehensive, coverall major aspects of the subject matter.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written in a neutral and matter-of-fact tone that is in line with site expectations of NPOV.

5. Article stability? Stability passes, see stability review, above.

6. Images?: Images are fine, see image review, above.

 If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)