Talk:John R. Tunis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To kick off, this looks a nice large article, with lots of interesting information about an inspirational author with a fascinating life. However, it is not about the topic of the content but the manner in which it is formatted so I will check it against the criteria for obtaining Good Article status. Therefore I would like to comment:

• Clear and concise, I would say so.
• It generally conforms to the MoS, with sections and layout etc; I would advise more links to ther articles but otherwise it is OK.
• Referencing: with around 65 in total, this looks as if there is many good sources backing up the statements in the content. A closer look revealed there is not a single reference in the "Fiction" or "Selected non-fiction" sections. Although we all know a simple Google Books search would tell us anyway, not that we would suspect anybody to be inserting false information about which books he has written, a simple link via a cite template to an online list of his books would be sufficient. The life, career, "themes" and "legacy" sections are adequately sourced. While on the subject of section titles, I'd recommend a bit more variation in the first few; you see, "Early years", "Early career" and "Later career" one after another is a bit repetitive, (and if I may say so, boring) and follows the pattern of a word ladder. I think it would be best to spice it up a bit to some titles less similar.
  • there was no single list which included all of the works listed (thus citing one to verify all would have been false), so I cited them individually. Regarding the section headings, did the best I could. I don't think section titling needs to be inherently interesting, but I do think information chunking is important.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Fine for refs on quotes, cite templates all used correctly, no maintenance tags or bare URLs, original research clean.
• Also fine for being broad in coverage. Everything is relevant but not too expanded.
• There is no evidence about it following a POV and not being neutral; giving due weight to each as it were
• Stable: we come to an interesting one here because the first section on the talk page actually gets straight to the point of an edit war, but it is resolved rather quickly. Neither editors are involved with the article now, and it was more than a year ago. I deliver a verdict of stable, yet firm.
• Images, to put it bluntly: more more more. There is a single image of the man in infobox at the top, and that's all. That's it. Perhaps find a free one of him as a child (surely the copyright's expired by now) or the cover of one or more of his books somewhere. To provide adequate illustration, massive great walls of text are not the way.
  • Please see here for a discussion about images in this article. In short, the image of Tunis in the infobox was only the second of two found by two different people who looked hard and the other image was not nearly as good. I have added one fair use image, which is all the article could sustain (all his books are post 1923, so there are no free images for them I know of). I can't think of anything else that could be added and meet fair use, other than the purely decorative, such as baseball-related free images, but adding decorative images that are not specific to an article is quite frowned upon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

An alright article in all, with some interesting characteristics. Another thing I just want to note is that it previously passed a DYK nomination last July, so it is capable of achieving. I am not going to pass or approve just yet, but give you an on hold for 7 days verdict to let somebody work on the issues I have pointed out above. I'll come back on the 31st October, see what's changed, and deliver a conclusion. Well done, this will be great if it passes. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 17:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review Rcsprinter123. I have interlineated my responses to the issues raised in the text above. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes are alright. Passing article. Rcsprinter (state) @ 17:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)