Talk:Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary

Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 28, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
May 3, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed
July 31, 2015	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Comics High‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Modify importance rating. I think that a strong argument could be made that if there were a list of the 10 most important works of underground comics, this book would be on it. ike9898 21:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed to Mid. The article doesn't give the impression of being about a high-importance topic, and the lack of sources doesn't help. Certainly doesn't look to be of the same level of importance, even within underground comix, as the works of Crumb, Spiegelman, Corben, Hernandez, ... or things like Freak Brothers, Fritz the Cat, Zap Comix, or underground comix as a whole. Fram (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to reassess the importance of this page (I don't want to be accused of a conflict of interest after having contributed a lot to the page), but "Certainly doesn't look to be of the same level of importance, even within underground comix, as the works of Crumb, Spiegelman, Corben, Hernandez, ... or things like Freak Brothers, Fritz the Cat, Zap Comix, or underground comix as a whole." ranks as one of the most ignorant things I've read this year. Crumb's whole autobio streak was a direct result of Binky Brown, Spiegelman claims there would have been no Maus without Binky Brown (and even wrote the introduction to the Binky Brown Sampler, and always made a space for Brown in Raw), Jim Woodring has only the highest praise for this work, the Comics Journal, in its Comics Journal#Top 100 Comics list ranked this single 44-page story ahead of Crumb's entire body of work from Weirdo in the 80s and 90s (and everything else Crumb did)...Jesus, how much more proof do you need of the enormous significance of this book?

The article itself is not well done. It needs a lot more attention. But the significance of the story itself is beyond dispute. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_ConTribs 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've finally gotten around to giving this article the attention it deserves. I'll be doing more work on it, but the bulk of it is done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 17:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

In general this is a really good article that I found interesting and enjoyable. There's not much to do with it. I have a couple of small points, however

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
First, a minor point: I wonder about the use of [sic] outside the context of a quotation. It would be very unusual in British English, but perhaps not in US English?
Reading the article through, I can't help feeling it's over-referenced. Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need the same citation cited three times in one sentence (as you do citation 5 in the final paragraph of "style and analysis"). It does make the article harder to read.
Sorry, but reviewers have insisted more than once that quotations must be followed immediately by inline cites, even if that means repeating them in the same sentence. This doesn't seem to be spelled out anywhere, but it does appear to be a common practice and expectation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have no doubt you are right about WP consensus, though it seems pretty odd to me. I know I'd get taken to pieces if I referenced one of my academic essays like that! Relentlessly (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
If you can address/discuss the above issues, this can pass, so on hold for a week. Relentlessly (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the reply above, this is done. Pass Relentlessly (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]