Talk:Lazarus (comics)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs) 18:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article, please be patient as I make my initial pass. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2017 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Very well written. One minor quibble; names that are introduced in lead should probably be re-introduced in the body.

   I added first names for Rucka and Lark. Those were the only two, right? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

   Yes. Also I know its stated in the infobox but is there anyway to clarify in the lead that the series is still ongoing. For some reason, I just assumed it was completed so the word tense in the production section threw me off at first.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

   Does this work? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, I made some tweaks as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Did not verify every claim but random spot checks show no original research. Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a remarkable 10.7% likely violation.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Although not GA dependent, I suggest adding a "Characters" section with sourced descriptions. If not, no worries.

   I'm not opposed to this, but I'll need to re-read the series before I can start on it. Aside from two, maybe three of the characters, I doubt I'll be able to find anything but primary sources for the descriptions. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

   Like I said, no biggie.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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):

   File:Lazarus promotional image.jpg has FUR but the comparison between Lark's promotional image and his published artwork is not present in the article.

   I didn't add a direct comparison, but I did incorporate more comments to highlight the changes that are present. When I added it, I was intending the user to use the images to see the comparison him/herself. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

   Then you may wish to change the FUR to more accurately represent what is in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

   Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Kudos to Argento Surfer on a well-written, comprehensive, reliably sourced article on a topic I knew little about. I'd be interested to see what becomes of the Amazon adaptation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)