Talk:Goofus and Gallant

Goofus and Gallant 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: August 21, 2017. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Goofus and Gallant appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a critic of the didactic comic strip Goofus and Gallant observed that the "obnoxious" Goofus may appeal to children more than the "do-gooder" Gallant?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Goofus and Gallant.

Wikipedia

Comics: Strips 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.
	This article is supported by Comic strips work group.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goofus and Gallant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In Reception, Claudia Mills and Harold Schechter should be introduced as "Author and philosophy professor" and "Author and professor of literature and pop culture" respectively.
Provide examples of some of the other philosophers mentioned in the last line of Other uses.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
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:
The entire first paragraph in History is sourced to two sources at the end. The citations should be split to make it clear which elements came from which source.

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Top earwig results are due to properly attributed quotes. AGF on the print sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
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:
File:Goofus and Gallant - October 1980.jpg has two NFU rationales, each one says the image will "only be used" on one article, but they list different articles (this one and Highlights for Children). These need to be updated.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass pending minor corrections noted above.
Thanks for the review Argento Surfer! I believe I've addressed all your concerns but please let me know if there's anything else you feel needs improvement. Best, BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, and nice work on this article. Pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]