Talk:Dennis O'Neil/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 00:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, 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:
· · ·

Happy to be challenged on any of my review comments. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

What makes Talent Pool a reliable source? It really doesn't look like one.
My reading of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Grand_Comics_Database is that Grand Comics Database is not considered a reliable source.
What makes manwithoutfear.com a reliable source?
"There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting" (WP:NYPOST)
What makes walruscomix.com a reliable source?
What makes bailsprojects.com (Who's Who of American Comic Books 1928–1999) a reliable source?
What makes hahnlibrary.net a reliable source?

Copyvio Check

The article was created on July 4, 2004. Looking at the archived copy of the FortuneCity page, https://web.archive.org/web/20040620031401/http://www.fortunecity.com:80/tatooine/niven/142/talentpo/tp19.html from June 20, 2004, there seems to be an unacceptable level of plagiarism - see Earwig's Copyvio detector.

Examples of exact phrases re-used:

"he would accompany his father or his grandfather to the store for some light groceries and an occasional comic book"
"he suggested that O'Neil take the Marvel writer's test, which involved adding dialogue to a wordless four-page excerpt of a Fantastic Four comic"
"left-wing creation that effectively took over Green Lantern's book to use him as a foil and straw"
"Following the lead set by Bob Haney and Neal Adams in a Brave and the Bold story that visually redefined Green Arrow into the version that appeared in comics between 1969 and 1986, O'Neil"
"took away her powers, exiled her from the Amazon community, and set her off, uncostumed, into international intrigues with her blind mentor,"
" alienated readers. In Justice League, he had more success, introducing into that title the first socially and politically themed stories, setting the stage for later work on Green Lantern/Green Arrow."

Example of slightly amended wording:

Wikipedia: "The available jobs writing for Marvel petered out fairly quickly, and O'Neil took a job with Charlton Comics under the pseudonym of Sergius O'Shaugnessy. There he received regular work for a year and a half from Charlton's editor Dick Giordano."; Talentpool: "The available jobs writing for Marvel petered out fairly quickly, and O'Neil, wishing to continue as a writer, took a job with Charlton Comics under the grotesque pseudonym of Sergius O’Shaugnessy. There he received regular work for a year and a half from Charlton's editor, the now-esteemed Dick Giordano."

FlairTale I'm going to pause the review to give you a chance to repond to what looks like a big copyvio problem. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail

FlairTale After further consideration, I'm going to quick fail this. Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria gives five reasons why an article can be failed without further review (known as a quick fail):

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
It contains copyright violations

The second of the GA criteria is that "A Good Article is... verifiable with no original research:...

d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism."

Given the examples highlighted above, I believe the article is a long way from meeting the requirement about containing no no copyright violations or plagiarism. I'm happy to discuss this further on the article's talk page. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.