Talk:Love and Rockets X

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love and Rockets X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 21:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lead

   see below comment on "none of whom take the role of a central protagonist"

   There should be a sentence or two summarizing the reception.

   I don't really know what to say other than that it was "well received"---which is pretty boring. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   Background and publication

   It's unclear what Palomar is - both as a work and as the name of the village. The text should specify that each brother's work was separate, opposed to them collaborating like The Luna Brothers. Should Palomar (comics) be linked?

   It possibly should—I've been weighing how to deal with that for a while. Part of the problem is that the Luba et al. stories have continued after they left Palomar, but I doubt they should be separate articles ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   I wouldn't think so, but I'm afraid I can't be too much help here. I've only heard good things about L&R, but I haven't read any of it yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   "his characters[4] and their community,[5] and" I think this would read better as "his characters, their community, and..."

   Done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   "In issues #21–26..." The next paragraph says L&RX appeared in #29-40. Is the aside on Human Diastrophism important to this particular article? Poison River is mentioned twice before it's linked.

   You're right—I've cut it. RE: linking—fixed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   Synopsis

   "shares its name with the English band of the same name" - repetitive. "of the same name" could be dropped.

   Done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   that same sentence has two "..., which..." phrases. It would read better as two sentences, split after the first mention of the English band. The second sentence should be reworded something like "Within the story, the fictional band claims the English band stole their name." I think the parenthetical would be fine as a regular sentence, but if you want to keep it you'll need to move the whole thing inside the previous sentence or move the period at the end inside the parenthetical and capitalize "the".

   Fixed, I think. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   missing an "and" before "subcultural"

   Done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   Style and analysis

   "...simple shapes such large..." missing the word as

   Done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   Do you think "dialog balloons" should link to Speech balloon?

   Done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   Poison River is linked again here, and some of the material is duplicated from Background and publication. It doesn't need to be both places, but I think the part about it being more complex works better down here.

   Does it work better now? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   Yes.

   "Comics scholar Douglas Wolk..." This sentence cites [26] four times. It would read better with a single citation at the end. I'm not sure the comma is needed after "others".

   Many FA reviewers require inline cites after all quotations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   Ah. Works for me, then.

   When you say "The copy on the first collected edition", do you mean Copywriting#Book publishing?

   Yes. Linked. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   Douglas Wolk is linked twice. Unlinked last name is all that's needed for 2nd mention.

   Done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   Reception and legacy

   " for achieving to interweave " this sounds weird. "successfully interweaving" maybe?

   Done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   "Hernandez's concern ..." this sentence cites [22] three times. One cite at the end should suffice.

   See above about quotes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Why no infobox? It's not required, but Template:Infobox comics story arc seems like an apt fit.

   There've been issues with the implementation of infoboxes that have driven me away lately. I'd prefer to avoid them until all the issues are resolved. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   It's not relevant to this particular GA, but you've got me curious. Is there a talk page where I could read up on the issues? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   no concerns

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   no concerns

   C. It contains no original research:

   In Synopsis, you say "none takes the part of a main protagonist". Is this sourced from [18] with the following sentence? If not, I'd strike that part and reword it as "Forty of the large ensemble cast".

   Yes, it's in the source; I've reworded to "ensemble cast". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Strongest matches on Earwig are attributed quotes and common phrases.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No concerns

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No concerns

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No concerns

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   remarkably so

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   detailed rationales provided. You may consider using Template:Non-free comic in place of Non-free book cover in the future, but both work for this this particular article's main picture.

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

   Both images need WP:ALTTEXT. The caption for the second image doesn't sound right - "and is recurs " - I'm not sure if it's a tense problem, typo, or missing word.

   Done and done. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Preliminary review started. I will complete it after a full reading. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed the full article now. No major issues found. Pending response to comments above. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes look good. Did you overlook the comments on the lead and the question under original research?

Nice work CT. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)