Talk:Joey Manley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will be doing this review as part of a Discord GAN trade deal with Mable. As this nomination's subject is outside my usual line of expertise, it may take a while for me to do this review, but for now, my main suggestion is that the article, particularly the Early life section, may need more footnotes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue the review soon, but as a suggestion, I think it might be a good idea to add footnotes to specific statements, in order to avoid confusion and make it clear which statement cites which. For example, the "Work in webcomics" section has only two footnotes, and at first glance it's not clear which statements are sourced to which sources. And speaking of that section, there's a minor typo: there's no period before reference 3. Finally, shouldn't "Joey Manley stated that he did not believe that an optimal business model for webcomic exists" be "an optimal business model for webcomics exists"? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the preliminary comments. I fixed the two typos you found. As for the citation usage: all text written beyond one citation and before another is sourced to the second citation. So in the "Work in webcomics" section, this text: "To learn more about webcomics ... such as Harvey Pekar and Will Eisner" is all cited to one source. If you want, I can duplicate the citation usage, but I believe this can end up looking quite messy. It is a trade-off. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: have you been able to make any progress on this review? I won't be able to actively edit from Thursday to Sunday. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at the article and didn't really see many issues other than the footnotes thing which I raised above. I can do the full review in a few hours, if you wish. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally very much appreciate it if I could get the final fixes in by Wednesday, if that turns out to be possible. I'll be asleep in an hour, but I'll be sure to apply any specific comments tomorrow. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
As I mentioned to you on Discord, I have concerns with how the referencing is done in some parts of the article, particularly with the first paragraph of the "Work in comics" section. There's a long block of text before you get to your first reference, and though I know all of the content up to that part is cited to that reference, it might still be a good idea to add at least a few more footnotes in that part, particularly in the first mentions of his podcasts and Modern Tales. As the article is not a BLP, this suggestion is technically optional and not a major point against the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwigs detects quite a bit of close paraphrasing, particularly with the TCJ obituary. In addition, the statements regarding Snake-Boy Loves Sky Prince: a Gay Superhero Teen Romance are not discussed in reference 5 but instead in reference 3 (and indeed, the statement is one of many that appear to be close paraphrases). The nickname "the subscription guy" is not mentioned in the source provided. The quotes are adequately referenced and verified, however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
According to some sources, it appears that he was awarded the title of Kentucky colonel. Did this really happen? If so, could this be added to the article? Also, has there any more post-death retrospectives or coverage that could warrant a "Legacy" section? Finally, perhaps some content about exactly why all the sites closed down could be included in the article. I know the reasons are elaborated in each website's article, but perhaps even one sentence could be added here? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Considering the nicheness of webcomics in general and the lack of coverage it gets in more mainstream media, the reliability of the sources used is accepted in good faith. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article is close to passing, but the amount of close paraphrasing is too close for comfort here. The other issues are relatively minor and don't really prevent this from passing, as long as they are adequately clarified. The paraphrasing is the major issue here and this needs to be resolved before I can pass this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than editing my responses into the template, I'll respond to each of the points here: ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2B) I have attempted to increase the number of footnotes I use within a given paragraph, but I have difficulty judging where they are placed best. I know they typically fit well after a quotation, but I actually don't even have that many of those. I hope the way I implemented them works, though feel free to make suggestions for improvements.
2D) It seems like ChrisBike (talk · contribs) beat me to it with the Snake-Boy reference (thanks for fixing that for me, Chris! ^_^ ). There was a typo in "subscriptions guy", which is why you weren't able to find it. I've attempted to change up some of the paraphrasing.
3A) I completely missed the fact that he was a Kentucky General, in part because I didn't know it was an actual title bestowed upon him. With this information, I created a Legacy section. I would like to know what you think of it as it stands now. I might be able to expand upon it, but I worry that adding more quotes from colleagues and friends will introduce a certain amount of POV to the article that you don't have to worry about with larger industries.
3A part 2) I changed the structure of "Works in Webcomics" so it is more chronological and so it gives more information about the fate of Manley's projects. I believe this addresses your concern, but it may create other issues, so I'll bring it up in a separate bullet point in case you have any comments.

Thanks for the work Mable. I think all of my concerns raised above have been addressed, and thus I'm happy to say that I am passing this nomination. Good work. As this has now been promoted, I'd suggest you nominate this for DYK within seven days. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, Naruto! You certainly helped me improve the article, and I am happy that it has reached this lovely status! I'll think about whether or not I'll nominate it for DYK ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]