Talk:Steve Purcell/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. ~~It clearly passes the GA criteria.~~ I have only a few comments to make. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose notes:

Purcell fed himself into a career with comic books while an undergraduate at the California College of Arts and Crafts in 1980 - this is too cute for an encyclopedia
developed by a small development team - repetition of developed
a further three Sam & Max comic books - easier to say - three more Sam & Max comic books
work to him creating his own full stories - was FAC calls noun+ing - to his creation of his own stories. See Noun plus-ing.
was appropriate[1]— *- according to Mos, references go after punctuation, even after a dash - was appropriate—[1]

Notes:

The article is obviously well written and well referenced. The prose, although very competent, is not what FAC would call "prose is engaging, even brilliant". There is a plodding quality to the narration.

Section needed on his work: I don't think an article on an artist is comprehensive without a section devoted to his work, just as if he were a musician or a writer. Not just, his career moves, but a description of his creative work, his comics, his gameplay, his films. What is missing is a sense of Steven Purcell as a creative personality; it would be great if somehow that Steve Purcell creative nature showed through more, as well as a sense of the characters he created. You relate who he worked for, but there is little sense of what he was creating or of his creative personality. Only under "Later work" does the reader learn that his characters had "moral ambiguity" and had to be toned down for children. And it is not until the last part on his personal life that the reader gets much of an inkling about what his comics are even about, how the two comic characters related to each other, which seems fundamental to understanding the two most important characters he created.

There also is no section on his "Critical acclaim" or "Impact" and influence" or any indication how he is regarded professionally.

Thanks for the review! I've dealt with the problems under the prose section. However, I'm presuming that the notes section is recommendations for FA, considering you already say the article passes the GA criteria and appear to be making these comments using the FA criteria, plus they would certainly take me longer than a GAN review would allow to sort out. Anyway, the prose isn't liable to get much better at present towards the FA criteria; I really don't consider myself a good copyeditor, so I'll pursue outside help for that. As for the creative personality, I imagine this will be dependent on the availability of sources for the earlier pre-1997 stuff, and that most likely be in print sources; I'll try to dig them up over coming months. I imagine its doable, but none of the online sources particularly focus on Purcell's own creative aspects in the earlier work to easily allow for what you recommend. Sources also present a problem for any attempt at an influence/impact section; again, none of the online sources I've come across really cover Purcell's artistic influence, he doesn't seem to be big enough for that level of coverage as you might expect from more high profile comic book authors like Mike Mignola or Bob Kane. Again, I'll have to try to search out print sources to see if such a section is viable, as it isn't on just online sources. -- Sabre (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I have struck out the statement that the article meets GA. An article on an article is not comprehensive when it neglects an adequate description of his body of work and any criticial assessment of it. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am curious if you can elaboration on the statement as this is almost the only reference to any kind of emotion on Purcell's part:
However, LucasArts abruptly canceled the project in March 2004; Purcell described himself as "frustrated and disappointed" at the decision, unable to understand why development, which had been proceeding smoothly, had been halted.

It has been suggested to me that, better than than having no "Critical appraisal" section at all, do a "rehash" or summary of that in Sam and Max. It is unfortunate that there is no more than that, as apparently what he is most known for is obtaining that idea from his brother, I have been told. So, that should be stated. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, I think I have a rough idea of how to proceed, but there's no way I'd be able to do it effectively during the time of a GAN. I'd recommend failing the GA at the moment, I'll make the alterations and resubmit it to GAN. -- Sabre (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fail, per request of nominator as he does not have time to complete needed additions. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]