Talk:Jack of Fables/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 02:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Very well written. Great structure and layout. This is almost like a featured article except for maybe the intro would have to be expanded out a bit more to go into a little more depth about Themes and style. Can you expand that a little bit more in the intro?

2. Verifiable?: Nice use of citations in the plot section even though you don't have to. Problem in Theme and style section -- Everything after "Examples of these characters include Mr. Revise ..." doesn't have a citation for it.

3. Broad in coverage?: Great job with thoroughness, just only problem here would be then summarizing that thoroughness back up top in the intro again.

4. Neutral point of view?: Both the article and the intro include negative criticism as well as positive reception, so this shows the editors involved in improving the page were mindful of WP:NPOV, so good job here.

5. Stable? No ongoing edit wars going on, no talk page conflicts.

6. Images?: Good job with picture rationales for the picture pages.

Just respond to the stuff above and shouldn't take much.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Sagecandor (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I see the nominator hasn't been active since 20 October 2016. The points above are so minor that I'm going to just pass it at this point in time, and hopefully the nominator or someone else will come by in the future and improve on it even more. Sagecandor (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Hey man. Sorry for the late reply. It's been such a long time that I have only recently found out that the article was now being reviewed (HOORAY!!). I'll be editing the article soon enough. Thanks for taking your time reviewer. Godzilladude123 (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Finished editing the page. I expanded upon the introduction to include more of the themes and styles as well as the collected editions, and I also added citations in the themes section as well. Godzilladude123 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)