Talk:Marvel Swimsuit Special

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Kingsif in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marvel Swimsuit Special/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Starting review Kingsif (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Kingsif: Hi, just wanted to inquire about the status of this review. Do you know when you'll be able to continue? Morgan695 (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Morgan695: When I remember I didn't finish it - I had it on a watch so it wouldn't have been much longer, but thanks for the ping! Pasted review below, sorry for the wait! Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Kingsif: Hi, edits have been made. Morgan695 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Style edit

  • Lead could be a little longer, based on the overall length of the article
  • Development section written well - fluid and nice
  • Need a ref for "parody advertisements and fake interviews" sentence - I checked sources so I imagine it's in one of the nearby refs, but for ease, this warrants one at the end.
  • Not sure the Marvel Swimsuit Special #1 description should be presented as an 'e.g.' Perhaps replace as "One was the Marvel Swimsuit Special #1, which is set..." - or similar.
  • Coming off this, see coverage comment
  • Reception section good
  • Revivals section good
  • Needs attention one little thing

Coverage edit

  • Lead gives good coverage
  • Good coverage of development
  • May need some more coverage in Content, specifically having descriptions of the other comics as well as Marvel Swimsuit Special #1.
  • Good coverage of reception; perhaps a bit light on critics (only 4, though the series was prolific) but seems representative enough
  • Seems to use all available info about revivals
  • Needs attention one little thing

Illustration edit

  • Good use of table
  • Good idea to illustrate gender equality; good selection of appropriate images for it
  • Pass

Verifiability edit

  • Sources look good
  • Slight concern over Comicbook.com, but it seems reliable for what it is being used to source
  • Pass

Stability edit

  • History squeaky clean
  • Pass

Neutrality edit

  • Looks clear
  • Pass

Copyright edit

  • Check looks clean
  • All images fair use, with solid reasoning for each
  • Pass

Overall edit

on hold - see notes. Very close, just a few little things. Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Nice work! Kingsif (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply