Talk:Jonah Hex/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 05:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comment/questions

• 1b. The lead section is not consistent with WP:LEAD. It needs to provide a more thorough summary of the article so that it can "stand alone as a concise overview" of the article.
• 2b. In "Debut", which reference did this paragraph come from? (or how did you figure out that this was his first appearance).
• In "Debut", why is "full-story appearance" in quotation marks and the DeZuniga italized?
• In "Debut", please re-phrase this: "Hex all but dominated the new title right up until issue #38" to something more formal. Does "all but dominated" mean he did not dominate the title?
• Citation 4 is to "Manning, Matthew K. "1980s" in Dolan, p. 214" - this doesn't seem complete. What is the publication?
• 2a/b. The Scribd reference "The Chronicles of Jonah Hex (Part 2)" is self-published source and therefore does not meet WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Unfortunately it appears that author does not show his references either.
• The "All-Star Western vol. 3" section should have a citation to a reference that describes the series.
• Numerous external links seem to be dead [1]
• 1a/b. "In other media" should be written in prose, not a list.

Conclusion

• This article does not currently meet the GA criteria for the above noted reasons. Feel free to re-nominate it (or take it to Peer Review for additional feedback) after providing more thorough citations and references in the "Publication history" and "In other media" sections, and boosting the lead. maclean (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)