Talk:Enemies & Allies

Latest comment: 12 years ago by James26 in topic GA Review
Good articleEnemies & Allies has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Thoughts edit

MacLean25 I sent you two newspaper articles, hopefully they help flesh out this article. Also, I suggest a slight expansion of the lead to include summary of all sections per WP:LEAD. In that process, you should probably break up that second sentence in the lead, its really long and bulky. Also, a WP:Fair Use upload of the first edition cover would be extremely appropriate. I didn't read for grammer and style stuff, I more scanned the everything but the lead briefly. I think balance on sections seems appropriate. See if the two new sources help any, Sadads (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've incorporated the new sources and implemented the suggestions. maclean (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Enemies & Allies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: James26 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  

Minor:

  • "alien invasions movies" — Can you make "invasions" singular (in this instance and in the later one)? Reads less awkwardly IMO.
  • "writing supporting novels in establish franchises" — Should be "established".
  • "like Star Wars and Dune." — I think "like" should be replaced with "such as", "including", or something else that sounds less casual.
  • "which noted flat characterization but that it may be entertaining for comic book fans." — Insert "stated" or some variant after "but".
    • [4] I re-worked this sentence a little.
The revision included a typo ("being be"), and was a tad awkward, so I restored the previous version, as I may have been too hard on it.
  • Why is Colorado mentioned? I didn't grasp the significance.
    • Context. Book-articles include country of origin ("United States" & "American"), but if possible I try to mention something more specific.
  • "His latest novels in the Dune series were. . ." — "Dune" should be italicized, as it is earlier.
  • "Anderson commented on the difficulty in writing comics as prose, 'in the comics. . .' " — Can you insert "stating" or some variant after "prose"?
  • "Year One-style Batman" — "Year One" should be in quotation marks.

Bigger:

  • The "Background" section could begin with another brief overview of the novel (just above "At the time of publication. . ."). The beginning reads like a continuation of the lead, rather than an introduction to the article.
    • [8] Is this something like what you had in mind?
  • The suspicion between Batman and Superman, mentioned in the lead, could be noted again (particularly on Batman's part).
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  5. 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):  
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
  • Thanks for the review. I have included comments and links above to the fixes. maclean (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Good job overall. -- James26 (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply