Talk:Gods' Man/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 02:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. On first glance the article looks well-prepared and informative, and being familiar with the quality of the nominator's previous work, I have no doubt that this will quickly be promoted as a GA. Within the next 24 hours, after a few closer readings, checking the citations and images, I'll be able to give a full review. Thanks!--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

First impressions and questions

The writing is excellent, the sources are solid, the images clearly tagged. So most of the GA criteria are met or exceeded. My questions are largely concerning the organizational structure of the article, and a two question about image selection.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Organizational questions

• I have always been sceptical of using the name "Overview" for a section header--coming from the belief that the lede is the overview.
  • Renamed' to "Content", which was suggested for another of my articles. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Section header: Would "Plot synopsis" be more accurate/contextually informative?
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Section header: Would "Writing history" or something be more accurate than the general "background"
  • The "Background" contains more general background information than just the history of the book, so if the section were to be renamed, I don't think "Writing history" would be the best choice. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Understood and justified.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• I think that the content of the section titled "Style" might be more logical if combined with the content from the first paragraph in "Overview".
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• As a suggestion for addressing the above, I would reorganize the article's sections as: Lede, 1-Plot and interpretation (with sections 1.1 -"Plot synopsis", then the combined 1.2 - "Style"), 2-Writing history (formerly "Background"), 3-Publication history, 4-Reception and legacy, and then the notes/references/external links as presented.
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Image selection questions

• The caption for Frans Masereel (1919) Die Sonne self-portrait.jpg should clarify that this is a self-portrait panel from The Sun, and not God's Man.
  • I've added "pictured" to the caption. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Are any images available from Gods' Man that you could include to show Ward's art?
  • I guess I was thinking the cover was sufficient to show the style, without loading a short article up with lots of Fair Use images. I guess an actual page would be best, though. I think virtually every page of the book has found its way onto the internet, so it's just a matter of choosing.
    I've chosen File:Lynd Ward (1929) Gods' Man - surrounded by wineglasses.jpg, as it's mentioned in the article body. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Excellent choice.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• Third paragraph of the "Reception and legacy" section: In 1973,[23] cartoonist Art Spiegelman created a four-page comic strip called "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" about his mother's suicide.[24] Is there a reason why fn.23 is located there instead of at the end of the sentence? I would find the placement of the footnote at the end of the sentence more logical and for better flow.
  • The details (year & page count) were from different sources, so I split up the refs, in case I end up cutting & pasting around and forget the information was combined into one ref. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I would have put it as [23][24] at the end of the sentence, not combined it. But I see the logic behind your reasons.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Review and criteria analysis

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Writing is of an excellent, informative quality.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Sufficient compliance with the MOS policies and guidelines per criteria 1b, pending the nominator's responses few questions above regarding the article's organizational structure.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Article has a suitable reference section that complies with MOS and other relevant guidelines.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Article is well-sourced using appropriate citation style

   C. No original research:

   No evidence, indication or suspicion of any original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article address the major aspects of the subject sufficiently and informatively.

   B. Focused:

   Article is focused and in keeping with WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article appears entirely neutral, and there is no evidence or indication of POV or related concerns.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article appears stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   3 images included in article. Two images are appropriately tagged as public domain. One image (in lede/infobox) of the book's cover is non-free content with an appropriate rationale for use.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The fair use NFC-book cover image is relevant to the subject. Both of the public domain images are relevant to the inception of the work and its legacy, but I have a pending question above regarding whether images from the article's subject are available. (18OCT13) - Nominator added an image from the book which is a permitted use of non-free content.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   An excellent, informative and compelling article that meets or exceeds the GA criteria. Good Work.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.