Talk:Enemies & Allies/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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.
  • [1]
• "writing supporting novels in establish franchises" — Should be "established".
  • [2]
• "like Star Wars and Dune." — I think "like" should be replaced with "such as", "including", or something else that sounds less casual.
  • [3]
• "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.
  • [5]
• "Anderson commented on the difficulty in writing comics as prose, 'in the comics. . .' " — Can you insert "stating" or some variant after "prose"?
  • [6]
• "Year One-style Batman" — "Year One" should be in quotation marks.
  • [7]

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).
  • [9]

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)

Good job overall. -- James26 (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)