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

Reviewer: Bruce1ee (talk · contribs) 14:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this nomination – I'll follow up here with my findings in the next couple of days. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a first pass through the article and a little copyediting. Before I start the review, I do have one query: the last sentence of the first paragraph in the "Style and analysis" section ("At the same time, Spiegelman writes, the images") – that doesn't look complete, did you accidentally truncate the sentence? —Bruce1ee^talk 15:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the edit history, and it looks like I forgot to add whatever it was I'd intended right from the start. I'm not sure what I'd intended, but I think I've filled it out with something appropriate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting and nicely written article, but please have a look at my comments below. I don't have access to two of the three sources, so I've assumed good faith. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead

• Is there no book cover available that you could use in the infobox? His two previous wordless novel articles both have covers. The existing infobox image could be used to illustrate the "Production and publication history" section.
  • I was weighing it in my mind and thought the original cover was not all that exciting—reprinters seem to agree, as they've all opted for different covers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOVSTY says a 1st edition cover is prefered for the infobox, but I don't feel too strongly about it. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • A 1st edition is preferred to a random later edition cover unless the latter cover is strongly associated with the book; whether a cover---or any image---is used at all is a matter of editorial discretion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, I don't feel too strongly about this. If you'd prefer to leave the lead image as it is, that's fine with me. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the lead adequately summaries the body of the article, except for the "Synopsis" section. I feel it needs one or two sentences to summarize that section.
  • Does it look better now? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any changes to the article. Where did you make them? —Bruce1ee^talk 05:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks fine, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Background

• "...in a style inspired by Masereel's, but with a greater cinematic flow.": I take it "Masereel's style" is implied here – when I read that I find myself asking Masereel's what? Perhaps you could add "works" or "novels" after "Masereel's", but I'll leave that up to you.
  • Does "that of Masereel" work? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article hasn't been updated. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That works, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Style and analysis

• There's a bit of repetition in the last sentence of the first paragraph ("... the compostion, mood, and detail of the images ...") and the first sentence of the next paragraph ("Ward's images offer a diversity of textures, moods, detail, and composition ..."). Perhaps a little rewording may help.
  • Rewrote the first sentence. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article hasn't been updated. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks better, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reception?

• I see this section is absent, although some reaction is present in the "Style and analysis" section. Is there simply not enough information available?
  • I think it's unlikely there were no contemporary reviews, but the earliest I've come across is one in an issue of Prints from 1937 that I can't access. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll get to the rest of this by the weekend—I'm a little pressed for time at the moment. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, take your time! —Bruce1ee^talk 09:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how I lost all the changes; they should be made now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I see them now. Everything looks ok now and I've promoted the article to GA. Thank you for responding to my queries, and for all your hard work on the article. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No Close paraphrasing/copyright violations found.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I've assumed good faith for two offline sources: Spiegelman and Beronä.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images appear to be correctly tagged; non-free image has a valid FUR.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Promoted to GA.