Talk:Pride & Joy (comics)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cirt, just FYI, I did the first GA review for this article back in October or whenever, so if you have any questions about issues from that review you can contact me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay thanks, will take a look at that review. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

One image used in article:

File:RunawaysMarvelComics.jpg = Image page checks out okay. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Inspection of article's edit history shows no major issues going back over a month. Talk page is also unremarkable except for some great positive collaborative work amongst editors. :) On to overall review next... Cirt (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion from Rjanag

(Feel free to move this to wherever you want; I figured I would try to just leave it below your actual review.)

The article has had major improvement since early November when I reviewed it. Writing style is cleaner (as far as I can tell from my quick skim), the Characters section has been trimmed, the Plot section seems more focused, Reception has been beefed up, a Style section has been added, and there seem to be better references. I have only noticed a few minor quibbles:

In the Characters section, some of the links are not intuitive; at the end of each sentence there is something like [[The Wilders|mob bosses]]. Maybe something more along the lines of [[The Wilders|His parents]] are mob bosses or His parents, [[The Wilders]], are mob bosses would be better.
At least one instance of duplicated wording: ""Pride & Joy" sets up the main concept of the series, which involves children versus their parents.[4]" appears in both the end of the intro and the end of the Plot section. I haven't noticed others yet, but I would say keep an eye out for it.
A couple places where I think the word choice is awkward, particularly in citing reviews. For example, I made two replacements. This would be another good thing to keep an eye out for and point out during the review.
The Production section still seems to focus heavily on changes in character concepts/designs, which I remember criticizing a bit at my review. I'm not sure it's a problem anymore, though; there seems to be enough other stuff in that section to balance it out, and it's not really bothering me right now.

Hope these comments help, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. As for the production, that's also something we discussed lightly, and decided to keep it there. It's mainly there to describe how the characters themselves went through subsequent developments. -- A ^talk/_contribs 15:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rjanag (talk · contribs) for sharing these comments, will do the review itself soon. Cirt (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 13, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Indeed - I can see just from reading it, and from the talk page discussion that there has been some copyediting going on here. Of course, going forward, it can't hurt to solicit additional previously uninvolved editors to do some copyediting by posting to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, WP:GOCE, and thinking about going for a peer review.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. I'd recommend that named-works in the Reception section should be italicized.

3. Broad in coverage?: Would like to see a little more in the Film subsection, but there might not be more on that yet.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone.

5. Article stability? See above.

6. Images?: See above.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Success! Thank you, very much Cirt - and to everyone who contributed with the article :) -- A ^talk/_contribs 16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and it was mostly through A's work that this one succeeded this time around. :) BOZ (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]