Talk:Justice League (Smallville)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The first member to appear on Smallville was Bart Allen (Kyle Gallner), who was introduced in the season four episode "Run". How come Clark Kent isn't the first member? Y
Clark isn't the "first member" because Clark was not on the team originally. Clark declined to join the team when they were first formed. Maybe I can just put in "aside from Clark" or something similar to indicate that we're speaking directly about the other members of the team and not the one with whom the show is about? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In his first appearance, Arthur, who has the ability to swim at superhuman speeds and create energy blasts through the water, arrives in Smallville to stop an underwater weapon that Lex Luthor (Michael Rosenbaum) developed that is consequently killing the surrounding ocean life when it is fired. Rather long and complicated. "consequently" to what? Y
I removed the extraneous word and trimmed wordiness. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Alaina Huffman went in to audition for Smallville no one told her who the character was she was auditioning for. It was not until she landed the role that they told her she would be playing Dinah Lance/Black Canary. This is an example of overly cumbersome prose. You could just say something like, "Alaina Huffman auditioned for Smallville without being aware of which role was being cast, and was offered the part of Dinah Lance/Black Canary." This is one example of many throughout the article. Suggest a thorough copy-edit by a un-involved experienced copy-editor. You could ask at the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
I have taken your above example and utilized that. I will go through the article myself for a copy edit, but just to make sure you feel satisfied with any efforts I did put in a request at the Guild. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

''Later, they informed her of how major this character is to the DC mythology. is very poor grammar. Who are "they"? Done
Sorry, I totally missed this in your original assessment. How is this? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The writer also knew the television version would be a "smart-ass", which the writer said is partially inspired from the Flash that appears in the animated television series Justice League. Explanation needed. Y
Explanation of what exactly? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you mean? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better.

At the same time, Clark was wrestling with the same idea of telling Lana Lang (Kristin Kreuk) his secret. Clumsy. Y
I tried to clean it up and tie it in more to the previous sentence. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After creating Oliver’s Green Arrow costume, Cranstoun had the task up creating updated costume looks for Bart, Arthur, and Victor for the "Justice" episode. What is "up creating" supposed to mean? Y
"Up creating" is a typo....It should have been "of creating". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the team’s prominent appearances are on the television series, there has been additional media appearances based around marketing tie-ins. Confused tenses.
Still a long way to go to turn this into reasonably good prose. I think you are a little close to the subject matter to see it objectively. Better to get an univolved editor who has a proven track record of writing good plain English. This should have been done before you nominated the article. Sentences such as When DeKnight was crafting the episode "Run" for the first official appearance of Bart Allen he knew he had to give the character certain characteristics that embodied his comic book counterpart. DeKnight knew Bart had to be physically faster than Clark, because in the comic that is one advantage Flash has over Superman. are cumbersome, badly worded and unclear.Y

~~Another: With all of the characters exhibiting superpowers, with exception going to Green Arrow/Oliver Queen, ...; Overall, the reception for the characters has been mixed. Clumsy.~~Y

Try reading it out aloud to see how badly the prose flows.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Sources appear reliable enough for GA.

~~What do The WB, The CW, etc. mean in the citations to the series itself?~~Y
They represent the publisher of the material in the citation template. I've clarified the first instances with "Television Network" and included a link their respective pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~Broad, but over detailed and focussing too much on trivia in the sections Portrayals and Costumes. Trim the excess, focus on essentials.~~
Examples:

Approached by the producers, Phil Morris auditioned twice for the role of John Jones/Martian Manhunter, and then waited three weeks before he received the call that he had received the role. This happens to actors all the time, why is it important?
Well, I figured this was important to note simply because the producers came to him and yet he still had to audition twice and wasn't given the role until 3 weeks later. The prose could be tightened up still, but my reasoning for its importance is more based on the fact that in other instances when producers have approached actors (James Marsters for one) they gave them the role right there. They made Morris jump through some hoops first. If you still feel that it's "trivial" then I'll remove it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I won't make federal case of it. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following his season four appearance, Gallner stated that he had given up hope of appearing on the series again, because of the extended period between season four and when they called him to appear in the season six episode "Justice" My reaction on reading this is so what? Trivia. Done
Removed. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the actors had their own unique experiences with their costumes.???? Done
Removed. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the section Characteristics, someone called DeKnight, presumably a writer, suddenly appears in the narrative without any introduction.~~ Y
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
OK, this article needs a thorough copy-edit. The prose is not good enough at present. There is rather too much attention to minutiae in the sections mentioned above. This needs to be trimmed. If this can be fixed in seven days then it may pass GA, if not it will fail. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on the issues you brought up. I'm sure I can handle the copy editing if I go through it more finely than I did before. The issues with minutiae, are you just talking about wordiness within the sections (i.e. maybe too detailed about what they say), or are you saying that there is something completely irrelevant in the sections? (i.e. An example would be helpful so I can understand what you consider to be trivial, as it may be different from my definition). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of trivia above, but wordiness is a problem. Much of this stuff is routine for any television series, not particularly notable. Of course the actors did some research; of course the writers did some research; of course the designer did some research. That is what they are supposed to do. The poorly phrased prose doesn't help, either. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SMasters has done an official Guild copy edit on the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the grammar has been markedly improved. I note several points above, especially those relating to trivia have not been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of two of the trivial things you brought up. I'll try and go through again to see if I see any others, but what's trivial to me might be different for you and SMasters removed a couple of things they felt were trivial but apparently left others that they either didn't or just didn't notice. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just the one phrase, marked not done above. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice it before. I think I've fixed it. I blended it with another sentence, trimmed the overall wording, and identified that it was the producers (the source just says "producers") that told her about Black Canary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all in order now. i am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]