Talk:Stucky (fandom)/GA1

GA review

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

Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one! I think I tidied the references on this one a while ago when it was up for DYK but haven't done any substantive editing to it other than that. Excited to dive in! —Collin^{t c} 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

This article is in great shape and a lot of work has clearly been put into it.

• 1a: Prose is easy to read and does an excellent job combining sources in a natural way. There are two places I'd like clarifications:

• There are several instances where it's unclear what type of work (book, comic book, film, etc.) is being referenced; would you mind specifying? (I'm looking at Captain America: White and Black Widow in the Response section, and Gay New York in Analysis and impact but there may be a few other instances where it's ambiguous.)
• In #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend, it's not immediately obvious that Marvel is a Disney-owned property; would you mind specifying this either with a note or in the text somehow?

• 1b: Great lead summary! All other required MoS elements complied with.
• 2a: Strong reflist with consistent ref style.
• 2b: Much higher than GA-standard attribution. Great work. Tumblr statistics come from Tumblr proper and AO3 source directly sources an AO3 statistic so no qualms with those.
• 2c: No original research concerns.
• 2d: Direct quotation appears to be solely quoted and attributed, no other close paraphrasing/copyvio concerns noted.
• 3a: Sufficiently broad.
• 3b: The only concern I have here is the inclusion of the {{tweet}} template which does not add meaningful information to the article not already covered by the preceding sentence explaining that the user made that tweet. Everything else is appropriately focused.
• 4: No neutrality issues.
• 5: Stable.
• 6a: File:Gwenpool Stucky Panel.png is FU and appropriately tagged. Evans and Stan images are freely licensed and attributed on their pages.
• 6b: Pics definitely relevant! I appreciate there being a source referencing the Gwenpool panels to justify their inclusion in the article.

All in all, this is very close to GA status and just needs a few touches to get there. Thanks for your patience waiting for this review. I'll give you a week although feel free to ping me whenever! Kindly —Collin^{t c} 18:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: Hi, thanks for your review. Issues have been resolved. Morgan695 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! This is a Good Article! —Collin^{t c} 23:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)