Talk:Goodman Beaver/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I'll be glad to review this one. I'll do a close readthrough of the text, noting any initial issues, and then begin the criteria checklist. Looking forward to working with you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

• "in which he crams every panel with as much humorous detail and throwaway gags as his pen will allow" -- is Elder still active? This sentence moves from past, to present, to future tense, which is a little disorienting. Maybe just lop off the "as his pen will allow", which is a bit metaphorical anyway (is he really limited by the capacity of his pen?)

  Done. He died in 2008, and I've fixed the tense and dropped "his pen would allow". Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• " throws a modern spin" -- modern is ambiguous here since it presumably means 1960s, not 2010s-- would "1960s spin" be an acceptable way to describe it?

  Done. Changed it to "modern 1960s spin". Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "which simultaneously satirizes Cold War tensions[16] and sets out to deflate the deluded ideals of do-gooders." -- is it the parody or the original show that does these things? The parody, I'm assuming, but it's a bit ambiguous in the sentence.

  Done. Rearranged the sentence. I think I gotten rif of the ambiguity now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Shortly after, Kurtzman began working for Hefner again, which some consider ironic in light of the Faustian theme of "Goodman Goes Playboy", as Little Annie Fanny is often thought of as a compromise—virtuosic in its visuals, but lacking in content in comparison to the Goodman Beaver stories." -- consider breaking up this long sentence.

  Done. I've broken it into three sentences. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• " They placed sixty-fourth " -- is "they" Elder and Kurtzman, or the GB stories specifically?

  Done. The GB Stories. Kurtzman actually place five times on the list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This article looks very strong on a first pass, so I'll go straight to the criteria checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Criteria checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall very strong. Spotchecks of available sources show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Great selection of relevant panels from the comic.
	7. Overall assessment.