Talk:Revival (comics)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review I shall do. Sagecandor (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 12, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This one is not quite ready yet, but almost there. The lede is a bit short, and the article is a bit long. Recommend expanding the lede to a nice four paragraphs of four sentences each, to summarize the entire article. Suggest trimming down the size of the plot summary section. I made a few minor copy edits myself as an executive decision as GA reviewer. The writing quality overall is good for Good Article per the WP:WIAGA criteria of 1a of "the prose is clear and concise". I'm pleased to see so much research and writing effort.

2. Verifiable?: I made some minor tweaks as GA reviewer to fix links to dismabiguation pages. The plot summary is described adequately from the book itself, with matter of fact wording, per WP:PLOTSUMMARY. The rest of the article is indeed meticulously cited throughout. Personally I'd like to see a bit more usage of WP:CIT templates, but maybe that's something you can do for WP:FA.

3. Broad in coverage?: Aside from issues with lede, above, article is indeed quite thorough. Covers Plot summary, Composition and development, Early inspiration, Production, Release and reception, Publication history, Reviews, Awards, 'Adaptations, Television, Film, Merchandise, that's a lot of research and work !

4. Neutral point of view?: I'd just say cut down on the size of the Plot summary section a bit.

5. Stable? The Good Article Criteria says: Stable. it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is stable.

6. Images?: One image used. File:RevivalComic1.jpg. Fair use. Good fair use rationale given.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Sagecandor (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: Before I begin pruning, do you have a particular length/word count in mind for the plot summary? Did any portion seem particularly wordy or unnecessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer (talk • contribs)

Maybe about 2/3 or 3/4 the current length. Sagecandor (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to be really tough. I've already condensed the plot considerably - the current summary is 705 words, averaging 15 words per 22-page issue. The line "Others believe they can absorb the revivers’ immortality by ingesting their flesh, leading to an active smuggling business that moves body parts of revivers and other recently dead individuals" covers about 8 issues by itself. I've also completely omitted several subplots and supporting characters. Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Length doesn't give a standard or target word count, it only says that the major events in the work should be described. If you still think the length is excessive, I'm willing to cut. I just don't know where. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer:Lede looks MUCH better, and I'll accept your helpful explanation about the plot summary, which I see you also cut down a bit. This one is good to go as good. Sagecandor (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Uninvolved Editor

What I notice is that there are almost no citations in the Plot Summary section. "Cut down the plot summary" is not an NPOV issue, and after reviewing it, the length of the section looks acceptable. I didn't review it closely for grammar, but it seems concise and generally well-written (or close to it.) Since when is "the article is a bit long?" a GA criteria? - I understand that like all things, it can be, if the length is so excessive that it is detrimental to the article (then it probably needs to be split) but that isn't the case here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PLOTSUMMARY. Plot summaries don't have to be cited. Sagecandor (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOTSUMMARY is an essay, so it does not really help me gauge whether this would meet GA criteria. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read MOS:FICTIONPLOT. Sagecandor (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(editconflict) It seems the relevant policy is MOS:PLOT, and there may be problems with the language being "in universe" but I don't think the plot summary is disproportionately long, it is as long as the production section, it appears to be approximately 1/4 of the article. MOS also says all sources, including primary, need to be cited? Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System:Please stop following me to unrelated GA Reviews where you were not previously engaged. This appears spiteful. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When a source may not be needed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for that link. I would still ask and make sure that applies to GA review. Have you compared with other GA articles?

P.S. Any editor can comment on any review. You can not ban editors from discussion pages because your GA review didn't go the way you want. That's not how Wikipedia works. The "out of universe" policy is kind of complicated. I would ask one of the experienced fiction reviewers for advice about how it is applied to GA reviews, or even a second opinion, before closing. I'm no expert on it myself. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But you are coming here after a recent dispute with me. It makes it appear that you are acting out of spite. Please just let's leave each other alone. I know if the golden rule were reversed, you would not want me to do the same to you. Sagecandor (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not "following you" I'm not checking what articles you edit, I'm not interested in following you to the articles you edit, but I am active in GA review and I saw this discussion opened. And yes, I am concerned that earlier today I reviewed an article you wrote that was overlinked, and that had repeat links, and now I see you are reviewing what I would consider one of the most delicate areas of GA, which is fiction, and additionally adding section headings to an article unilaterally while you are reviewing it. I am commenting on it here, but don't worry, I have no intention of following you around. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It gives the appearance of impropriety on your part. It appears spiteful. We only finished a dispute mere hours ago. It looks like retribution on your part. And petty. Please, just stop. Sagecandor (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The GA review is really not the place for a discussion like this. I am here to give my opinion on the progress of the review, nothing more. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that GA Review is not the place for you to take out your frustrations on me, so please stop and leave me alone. Sagecandor (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To address the issue raised here - there is a cite comic template I could use in the plot summary to reference specific events to specific issues. However, this is commonly used on articles about characters like Superman or Spider-Man who have appeared in multiple comic titles across decades, not a self-contained finite series. The comic project does not have a specific guideline in this area, and I have been willing to add them upon request in the past. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute user's characterization in above header as "Uninvolved"

I request that the user above change his header so it does not say "Uninvolved".

Hours ago, we had a dispute on another page.
He shows up here to take the opposite position on multiple of my opinions.
This is not neutral. This is following me. This gives the appearance of impropriety.

At the very LEAST he is NOT "Uninvolved".

I ask that @Seraphim System: disengage.

I ask that he leave me alone.

I ask that we both leave each other alone.

And I ask that he correct himself to show that he is NOT, quote, "Uninvolved".

Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this is the place, and I apologize that this was dragged out here. Earlier, I declined to pass one of Sagecandor's articles, and he disputed it. I apologize to the nominator and other editors that this has spilled over to another review, I find it extremely disconcerting. I was only trying to comment that I thought the plot summary looked about the right length. It was concise, and readable and I did not believe it needed to be cut. I'm happy to see that after the discussion Sagecandor has decided not to impose this as a requirement for passing the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you !!! Sagecandor (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers adding new subject headings mid-review as a "minor tweak"?

I would also comment that I would not consider adding a new section heading to be a "minor tweak" that is appropriate as a GA reviewer. A minor tweak, in my opinion, is adding a comma, or a period, or moving ref tags outside the period, or fixing a verb tense. Section headings are something I have seen edit wars start over—I would be interested to hear if other editors think it is appropriate for a GA reviewer to unilaterally change these mid-review, as this is a line I am vary wary of crossing myself while reviewing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wiki. Anyone can edit it. Sagecandor (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I was told when I started reviewing was only uninvolved editors can review an article. As I said, I would not consider changing section headings to be "uninvolved." If I was editing in ARBPIA, and an editor changed a section heading, and then there was a dispute that ended up in AE, I would not consider that editor uninvolved. I would consider an editor who fixed a typo, or added a comma to be uninvolved though. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not dispute resolution space. We are all here to build an encyclopedia in main article space together. Sagecandor (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System:Please stop following me to unrelated GA Reviews where you were not previously engaged. This appears spiteful. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]