Talk:Revolver (DC Comics)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Haukurth (talk · contribs) 10:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been taking a look at this article and would be happy to formally review it. Haukur (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lede[edit]

The third paragraph of the lede would benefit from being expanded: "Critics drew comparisons between Revolver and popular films and novels. Opinions were mixed in regards to both the story and the art." There's space for a couple of examples of the most salient comparisons and opinions. Haukur (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Argento Surfer (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reception[edit]

I've mentioned a couple of reviews which I think the article would benefit from citing. Haukur (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I included some commentary from PW, but the ProQuest source requires login credentials. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. I've sent you something, do you have it? Haukur (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have it. Can you provide the information needed to cite it? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proquest gives me this: Olson, Ray. The Booklist; Chicago Vol. 106, Iss. 19/20, (Jun 1-Jun 15, 2010): 49. Haukur (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added - thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Kindt's art is an acquired taste according to Wired,[4] but other reviewers disagreed." > Did multiple reviewers comment on accessibility in particular? Haukur (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That particular piece was supposed to segue into the next few sentences. I have rewritten it to make this more clear. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're getting at – but not every other review had unqualified praise (PW in particular) so maybe "other reviewers offered less qualified praise" or some other wording altogether? But I do really appreciate the way you write the reception section so that it hangs together and isn't just A said X, B said Y, C said Z. Haukur (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like your wording better. And thanks for noticing my effort! Argento Surfer (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues[edit]

Many of the references are missing a final dot at the end after the retrieval date. Haukur (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated these. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if unfilmable should have a redlink. The word occurs close to 100 times in mainspace and there seems to be enough literature on the concept to satisfy GNG. We already have medium specificity which 'unfilmable' is a subcase of. I'm not, of course, insisting that you write a whole new article just to satisfy this review, just thinking out loud here. Haukur (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review[edit]

I've read through the prose and suggested places where it could possibly be improved. Note that I am not a native speaker of English; I try to be careful but I may make mistakes.

"the page number is incorporated in the text" > Would 'into' be better?

"the character PK Verve is uniting element" > Is he 'a' uniting element or 'the' uniting element? Also, the comma before 'and' earlier in the section is not necessary.

"Sam wakes with a hangover" > Would 'wakes up' be better? There are a couple more instances where I ask myself this.

"Helping his boss, Jan, evacuate, the two are confronted" > A bit of a comma feast but maybe okay.

"Sam wakes the next morning alone, and his injuries have vanished." > I think this comma really should go.

"He and Jan become close in one world while remaining distant" > For me 'they remain' rather than 'remaining' would flow slightly better.

"The man suspected of being the mastermind of the bombings" > Maybe "The man suspected of masterming the bombings"?

"he learns that both of them are alternating worlds" > Maybe "alternating between worlds" would be clearer? I had to read this twice to get it.

"crash one day, and was alive the next." > Another comma I would omit.

"to commit terrorist acts as vengeance in the other." > In the other world?

"Sam meets with the military, and takes a tracer" > I would omit this comma.

"Sam wakes in the calmer world, and stops entering" > Have I woken up in an alternative world where every 'and' has a comma before it? :D

"He abandons his former lifestyle, and convinces Maria" > Comma is back.

in an age of omnipresent media"[18] > Need a full stop in there.

"the Beatle's "schizophrenic" 1966 album" > the Beatles'

These are mostly minor quibbles and I do feel that the article is engagingly written. At least it's had the effect of making me want to read the book. Haukur (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These were all excellent points, and I believe I have addressed them. I'm glad you're interested in reading the book - I think it's a good example of how comics can tell stories in unique ways. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The references[edit]

The 'cracking' link isn't working for me. Can we add an archive link? Is Dean Manness the author of the review? Haukur (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is there a citation to this article for one sentence in the plot summary? Is the point unclear enough in the book itself that it needs some analysis to shore it up? Haukur (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text is all readable here: [1] Nothing wrong with citing archived links. Haukur (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for locating that - I was having trouble getting wayback to work. The citation in the plot summary is indeed for a point unclear in the text. The comic doesn't directly say which world Verve is from, but Kindt confirmed the theory. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional citation information for that PW review: Vol. 257, Iss. 20, (May 17, 2010). Haukur (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link at reference 13 doesn't seem to hit its target.[2] Maybe the archives could help us out again. Haukur (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DC eliminated its Vertigo imprint recently. I've updated the url to match the new address. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pass result[edit]

I find that the article is well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable and appropriately illustrated. By the power invested in me by the GAC process I hereby declare it a Good Article. Pleasure working with you, Argento Surfer. Haukur (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]