Talk:Doctor Death (magazine)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 09:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I'm happy to pick this one up for you: I've always enjoyed your articles when they hit the front page. I'll review this within a few hours. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think this is just a bit too short to take to FAC — I use 1,000 words as my cutoff for FAC, and this clocks in at 918 at the moment. Hard to find much to say about a magazine with only three issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See below.
	Very little to say on this: There are two red links in the lead – Harold Ward and All Detective Magazine: are these both viable subjects for articles? As a corollary, you have Ward red-linked in both lead and body; All Detective Magazine is only linked in the lead – you should probably have it linked in the body for consistency/sake of completeness. The lead has "published by Dell Magazines" (linked), but the body has "Dell Publishing started..." (unlinked). Maybe worth making it consistent and using the link. "two versions of Dr. Death:" semi colon instead of a colon? "is...extremely effective in setting the mood...it": are the stops as they appear in the original, or is there text missing (if the latter, then they should be spaced, per MOS:ELLIPSIS) – there are a couple later that should be tweaked too. Is there a reason Michael Cook's chapter is in double quote marks: ""All Detective Magazine""? If they appear in the original, we can tweak the title to a single ' so it looks less odd. (Ditto for the Lewandowski chapter too) That's it from me - a nice article that covers everything I would expect from a short-lived magazine, and done very well too.	I can't be at all sure that Ward is ever going to have an article, so I've unlinked that. Cook has a section on All Detective, though, so I think that's worth keeping. Made the links and text consistent per your suggestion. Can't believe I didn't see that myself in reading through. I think a colon is right -- here it introduces something which explains what has come before, per MOS:COLON. I don't think a semicolon would be wrong but I'd like to keep it this way if you don't mind. Ellipses fixed; they're my elisions. I just robotically stuck the quotes in the chapter parameter of the template and never noticed the bizarre output -- thanks for spotting that. Fixed. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	One minor formatting point: you have "Westport CT" and "Westport, Connecticut": these should be made consistent Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sources are reliable, no information is unsupported
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information supported by citations
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no concerns
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only one image, correctly licenced
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Very pertinent image, suitably handled
	7. Overall assessment.

All good from me on your changes (or your rationale not to change the colons). I'm happy that this is certainly at GA level. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]