Talk:Silver Age of Comic Books/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion 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 March 6, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Could use a bit more copyediting with regard to flow - consider soliciting a previously uninvolved editor for copyediting, perhaps from WP:GOCE and/or a post to the talk page of the relevant associated WikiProjects.
The phrase "Silver Age" appears in four out of the ten subsection headings in the table of contents. This is a bit awkward, there isn't really a need to repeat the name of the article like this in subsection headers - perhaps find a shorter name for these headings?
Top 20 Silver Age comics - This section seems a bit scant - perhaps it could be changed to something like Best lists, or something, with some input as to "best of" the era from other secondary sources/comic critics/reviewers as well? I have a feeling something like that must exist out there in sources, or that this can't be the only "best of" list about the Silver Age in a secondary source.
There are a few short paragraphs and a couple one-sentence paragraphs. These should be merged somewhere.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to WP:RS/WP:V sources. Generally as a personal preference I try to avoid having a cite at the end of a paragraph because at times it can be ambiguous that this actually means that source refers to the prior paragraph as opposed to just the prior sentence, and instead place cites in articles I work on at ends of sentences.

3. Broad in coverage?: Quite.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a clear and neutral tone, like a historical account.

5. Article stability? I noticed a good amount of recent changes going on in the edit history, but after a glance at the talk page it seems this is all positive and collaborative in nature - am I correct in assuming there are no stability problems or ongoing conflicts?

6. Images?:

Three fair-use images used in article, adequate fair use rationales on image pages. Passes here.

Nice lede. :)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top 20 comics section. It's not an opinion list, like X thinks these are the best, and Y thinks these are. It's just based on price, so there isn't really any other list. The book it comes from is the only reliable source for comics prices as far as I know. I put it in there becuase we used to have an uncited list.[1] I wanted everything to be cited, so I used the only list there is, basically. I just looked for some other type of list and couldn't find one. I could put "list" in the section heading, or remove the section if you want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a cite is at the end of a paragraph which has only one cite, do you want it repeated at each sentence in the paragraph? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no conflicts. People from the comics project has been working on it a bit is all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're just trying to improve the article. BOZ (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a copyedit. Hopefully it flows better now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I put a reference after each sentence. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tapping up sources for an outside copy-edit. Hopefully one will pan out. Hiding T 09:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a look - let me know or revert me if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me. Hiding T 12:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Looks like a bit of work/copyediting from different editors has been done recently. Please post here below when the latest pass of copyediting is finished. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might help us if you let us know if you feel there are still issues with the article? Hiding T 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just that it looked like from comments already made above that multiple editors may still be in the midst of copyediting efforts. Cirt (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hiding asked Eyeserene, who said they might have time to look at it, but that their plate was pretty full. Casliber and I have done two pretty thorough copyedits already, so I think it's ready to go. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll give it another review. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene is now going to town, so you may want to hold off. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay no worries, keep me posted at this page. :P Cirt (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cirt - maybe I should have checked here first :P I've done butchering the article now anyway - I hope it's helped, and I apologise in advance for any typos or inaccuracies I've introduced. It's a fascinating article about something I knew precisely nothing, so thank you for the opportunity to work on it, and all the best with it's further development. EyeSerene^talk 21:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great job! Thanks EyeSerene.

Cirt, I think we're ready for the second evaluation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, will do soon. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass

Thanks to all that worked on the copy-editing, improvements, etc. Cirt (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your suggestion of getting outside copyediting help really paid off. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, glad it was a helpful suggestion. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Good work, all. :) Thanks for the review, Cirt. BOZ (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]