Talk:Alex + Ada

Alex + Ada has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 26, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Drive-by comment re: critical reception of the artwork.

Don't have either the subject knowledge or the time to review this for GA at the moment, but I saw it on GAN. Looks pretty good overall, but I am suspicious of the sentence beginning Luna's simplistic artwork.... I am for some reason unable to access the sources at present (probably my connection), but are they two reviews that happen not to like the artwork? If we have two reviews that state they don't like it, then name the two reviewers inline, or find another source that directly states that this is a "frequent point of criticism", as the balance of sources at present seems like the majority (three sources, including the article's two principal sources) like it.

I know with films this problem is easy to fix, as RT and other review aggregators regularly pick out points that reviewers tended to like and dislike -- can something similar be done with comic books?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 19 and 20 were reviews that did not like the art, but even the reviewers who did like it (1, 4, 21) described it as "simplistic" or something synonymous. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alex + Ada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 00:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Please remove any of the following unused parameters, not unless valid and cited information can be added to them:

"schedule"
"format"
"1shot"
"date"
"main char team"
"issn"
"pencillers"
"inkers"
"letterers"

"colorists"
"editors"
"creative team month"
"creative team year"
"CEheader"
"subcat"
"altcat"
"nonUS"

Done Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Paragraph 1

"They began work on the series in January 2013, and 15 issues were published by Image Comics between November 2013 and June 2015." --> "The duo began work on the series in January 2013, before publishing 15 issues through Image Comics between November 2013 and June 2015."
"The series has been collected into three trade paperbacks." --> "The series has since been collected into three trade paperbacks."

Paragraph 2

"The series received positive reviews from critics who compared it to other popular science fiction stories, although Luna's artwork was sometimes criticized." --> Why was Luna's artwork sometimes criticized

Done Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history

Development

"Jonathan Luna had previously created comics with his brother Joshua, but was exhausted after six straight years of work." --> No source
"Inspired by a TED Talk, he decided to take a sabbatical." --> No source

Both of these points came from the same source, which is at the end of the paragraph. Do you want me to cite each sentence?

No, that won't be necessary. Thanks anyway; I understand now. Carbrera (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Inspired by a TED Talk, he decided to take a sabbatical." --> "Inspired by a TED Talk, he decided to take a break from working." (Not everyone may know what a sabbatical is.)
What year was Star Bright and the Looking Glass published in?
"Beginning January 2013, they discussed the project for three or four months and created an outline for the whole story.[1][4]" --> "After initializing the concept in January 2013, the two discussed the project for three or four months before creating an outline for the whole story.[1][4]"

done Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Luna wrote the first draft of issue one, then the two worked together on rewrites.[4]" --> "Luna wrote the first draft of issue one, while the remaining issues were written by both of them.[4]"

Rewrote for clarity. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publication

"The series has been collected into three trade paperbacks, each containing five issues." --> No source

Source added. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

All good! :)

Woo hoo! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Paragraph 1

Please remove the wikilink to "Comic Book Round Up"
"Customer reviews have also been favorable, with scores of 4.22/5[11] and 4.4/5[12] according to Goodreads and Amazon respectively." --> Not necessary; please remove both of the statements and sources accordingly
Rest is great!!

Done Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please change "Reflist" to "Reflist|30em"; thanks

End of GA Review:

On hold for seven days to address the issues I have mentioned above. Thanks for the review and good luck! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

All addressed except for the first couple points in development, pending clarification. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for addressing everything! It all looks great and will be passing now! Fantastic work! Carbrera (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]