Talk:The Death of Superman/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
All of my comments and suggestions are open to discussion. Once complete, I'll be using this review to claim points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Lead
- Publication history
- "1938,[2] to immediate success" - comma not needed
- "By 1992, they were only selling roughly 150,000 copies an issue,[11] despite the fact there were four Superman-focused comics being sold: Action Comics, Superman, The Adventures of Superman, and Superman: The Man of Steel. Therefore, a new Superman comic book issue debuted every week" - This reads a little awkward. I suggest restructuring something like this: "By 1992, there were four Superman-focused comic books being sold: Action Comics, Superman, The Adventures of Superman, and Superman: The Man of Steel. A new Superman comic was released every week, each selling roughly 150,000 copies an issue."
- "by increasing the romance" - doesn't sound right. "by advancing the romance" maybe? or "by increasing the romance tension"?
- "the writers had Kent proposed to Lane" - verb tense is wrong
- "each's writing team" - suggest "the writing team"
- "plan stories to occupy the comics" - suggest "plan upcoming storylines"
- " to combine the ideas.[16][12][15]" The citations should be in numerical order
- Overview
- The third row of the table has two cells swapped (issues & cover dates)
- "a different moniker " - these should be spelled out in the description
- "The Justice League International encounters Doomsday." - I think "Doomsday emerges (or escapes?) from an underground bunker and encounters the Justice League International" would be more clear.
- "tears the team apart," - I think "easily defeats them" strikes a better tone.
- while is used four times in the first paragraph of Synopsis. I suggest revising to remove at least two of them, but I have strong opinion on which ones should go.
- I think Guardian could be removed from the cast list and the summary, but that's up to you.
- I removed the first mention of him, but didn't cut him from the cast list because he's also present at Superman's "death".
- Mongul is not in the cast list. He should be added or introduced in the summary.
- "Jonathan meets Superman convinces Superman in the afterlife to come back," - I think two ideas got smashed together here...
- "Steel and Superboy are disproven, but" - suggest "disproven as the original Superman"
- "Hal Jordan returns to find Coast City destroyed." - It should be clear he returns from space, maybe from a mission in space, and that Coast City was his home town.
- " fights Mongul, shattering Steel's hammer across Mongul's face." - I think "defeats Mongol" is sufficient here
- "allowing Superman to regain his powers" - I think this should be "restoring Superman's strength" or the opening sentence of this paragraph should be "A powerless Superman", just to be consistent.
- The part about reconstructing Superman's costume seems superfluous - his black one isn't mentioned, nor any damage to it.
- Reception
- The last two sentences of the last paragraph of "At release" appear to be reversed. Info about later issues is sandwiched between info about #75.
- The industry's decline is covered some in the "later years" subsection, but the speculation bubble bursting at Action #500 was a hot topic at the time as well. Orders were high, but sales were low. I can dig up some sources on that if needed.
- I think the Simpson's episode should be identified as airing in 2001.
- The timing of Knightfall to DoS is pretty well documented. I think the mention of it following the success of DoS deserves a note
- Adaptations
- no concerns
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- no concern
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- no concern
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- "hiatus for three to four months" - You may decide this is better suited as a note than explained inline, but the hiatus was necessary to avoid spoilers because new comics are available to order by retailers 3-4 months prior to release. The hiatus made the "cancellation" of the Superman titles seem more real. I can help find sources for this if you need.
- Do you think the variants to #75 are worth mentioning? I count four (newsstand, direct, memorial, and platinum).
- Outside of the infobox, there's no mention of reprints and collections. Aside from the original three volumes, DC reissued the story in five volumes in 2016 (see note at bottom of this entry). I can look for some sources on announcements and sales if you need.
- I've read that Siegel was asked in advance if he was ok with the story. I'll see if I can locate that source.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- no concern
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- no concern
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- no concern
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The infobox image needs WP:ALTTEXT describing what is pictured. The promotional art needs alttext or an expanded caption describing the image.I added this.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Aside from some minor copyediting suggestions, there are a few points that I think need expanding (or not, if you have good reason to omit them). Awaiting response. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent work on this article. I'm satisfied that it meets GA criteria, and encourage you to aim for FA with it soon. With just a bit more expansion, I'd be happy to support it there. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Aside from some minor copyediting suggestions, there are a few points that I think need expanding (or not, if you have good reason to omit them). Awaiting response. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
