Talk:Anya's Ghost/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 08:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

I made a few tweaks (mostly MOS:LQ stuff)—feel free to revert anything you disagree with. A couple things:

Any reason to accent fiancé but not émigré?
"cheats on Elizabeth with her consent"—doesn't "cheat" imply "without consent"?
"Anya goes to the library without Emily to research the killer, and learns that Emily had no fiancé, and had in fact murdered a young couple in their home after the man rejected her, and then died running from the authorities."—lots of ands. Probably best to break up the sentence.
"Anya having lied to Sean"—lied about what?
her rough draft and "tightened the roughs up just enough so that I could ink them".—many editors insists (particularly at the FA level) that all quotes must be followed with an inline citation.
- You might want to consider how this sentence reads aloud—the switch from "her" to "I" is somewhat jarring.
"with a custom font"—custom designed for Brosgol?
"Coloring was done in Adobe Photoshop."—in the passive this could be read as if someone other than Brosgol did the colouring. I assume she did it herself?
"deep violet palette"—quotes require attribution, not just citation. Is this Brosgol's voice or that of the author of the article cited?
The artist chose the colors "for no other reason than I like purpley-blue and I think it feels right for the story".—same thing with "the artist" switching to "I".
"there's a full year on the end for printing, and marketing, and all of that which comes with a book publisher"—if this is typical, is there any reason to mention it here? Particulalrly as a quote?
Is it a good idea to have the ISBN in the infobox? It'll change from edition to edition (hardcovers and and softcovers hhave different ISBNs, for example). The infobox is meant to give general factoids about the subject, but this is far too edition-specific.
Is Portrayal of women in American comics really an appropriate "see also"? A body would assume this would show up in a book that had attracted comment on its portrayal of women.
Normally inline citations are kept out of the lead (unless it's citing something particularly controversial), as normally what's in the lead should be cited in the body. Anything there that you don't have in the body should be put there. I'd recommend a short background on Brosgol, especially if you intend to take this article further.

I accented fiancé because I knew that without accenting, the genders of the people involved are ambiguous. I actually stole "emigre" from one of the sources I cite in the article, and that source didn't accent it. I've added the appropriate accent marks.
In this context, dictionary.com defines the verb as "to be sexually unfaithful". This is definitely what Sean is doing, but it doesn't mean he's being unfaithful to his implicit or explicit relationship agreement with Elizabeth.
Yeah, I can see that. Let me know what you think of it now.
Darn, I don't have the novel at hand to answer that. I've commented the whole parenthetical for now.
It's my practice to provide inline citations only and always when the source changes. That quote is attributable to the same source as the rest of the paragraph, and if I cite the quote additionally, it'll just be the same superscripted [10] as ends the paragraph. If there's a guideline or protocol that requires it nonetheless though, I'll add it.
- Oh yes, most definently I see that. I've replaced the first person "I" with a "[she]".
Yes, actually. I've touched that up.
I do have a hard time with passive/active speaking and writing. Let me know how it looks now.
Awkwardly attributed
I re-phrased Brosgol's "purpley-blue" quote.
(a) I don't know if it's typical; I can't make that explicit determination from the quote. (b) Even if it is typical, knowing what ate up the time between finishing the cover art in 2010 and publishing in mid-2011 would be warranted.
Well, in the roughly 5.5 years since mid-2011, only the one edition has been published. Also, if the ISBN weren't supposed to be in the infobox, then there wouldn't be a variable for it in {{infobox book}}.
The "see also" of portrayal of women in American comics was in the article when I came at it, and I didn't want to step on anybody's toes by removing it. I just assumed it was appropriate. Would you prefer it removed?
The only things cited in the lede currently are the novel's genres and its format. I don't have the time right this minute to extract them from the lede and better incorporate them into the prose, but I'll work on it soon. As for a short background on the author, yeah, I could see that working. I'll look at the sources I have and work from there. Again though, it won't be right now. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "cheating", "sexually unfaithful"—we want to avoid misreading and ambiguity, so why not go with some wording like "has relations with other girls"?

Re: citing quotes—I realize that, but like I said, if you plan to take this to FA, you'll find them insisting on cites following quotes, even if they're redundant.

Re: Infobox—you'll find a lot of editors take exception to the idea that, just because there's a field to fill in, it should be filled in. For example, there was a huge RfC about the "religion" filed in {{infobox person}} that deprecated "religion" except in cases where religion is a defining feature of the person (a priest, say). A lot of these fields (like ISBN) are cruft from when the infoboxes were created many years ago (2005 in the case of {{Infobox book}}) and probably shouldn't even be there.

I'd remove portrayal of women in American comics as being out of scope, but it's not a big deal.

Actually, none of these remaining points are really a big deal, but things you should definitely keep in mind—dealing with them would improve the article. As far as I can tell, the article meets the requirements for GA, and I'm 'passing it. Congratulations! Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etc

References all look legit, well-formatted, and used correctly. All text outside the summary is properly cited.
Only one image, properly tagged and sized for fair use. It's be nice, but not necessary, to have some other graphics in the article, especially given the topic falls within the visual arts. Whatever.
The article overall appears reasonably comprehensive and balanced. The reviews seem weak on the less "positive" end, but a quick web search confirms there isn't really much to balance that out.
Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent; thank you.
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but I can't think of any libre media that would be appropriate to use. I'll keep it in mind.
That's pretty much the same conclusion to which I came. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]