GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am going to complete a review momentarily. I will start with general comments as I skim through the article. Once those are addressed I will take a deep dive into specifics. Comments will be below the reviewers template below momentarily. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Please ping me when the above are addressed and I'll continue my review. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm so sorry for responding to this so late. Thank you so much for taking on this review! Unfortunately I'm up against a major school deadline. I'm hoping to address these points on Monday, but that's after the 7-day hold, so I understand if the article fails your GA review. Just wanted to let you know I saw this and intend to make some edits. KRKwrites (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KRKwrites: I'll keep this open if progress is made in the next few days. If not, I'll close it and the article can be renominated when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I finally found some time for this and made several edits. Will address these points one by one :)
  • Lede -- Noted, I expanded the lede. Not sure how good the new lede is, but I guess it will be assessed in review.
  • "Careers" -- I ended up just restructuring this. Now has fewer short paragraphs and I have removed the commentary/reviews. I also went back in to the "Artistry" section to provide more info about style.
  • "Black Nerd Problems" -- magazine with editorial staff, "Art Rocket" -- the link is to a tutorial created for the site by Abigail Larson, this source is only used to support "Larson has stated"-type claims, "Comic Book Realm" -- I'm less sure about this one, I just knew of it as one of the more well-known comic book price aggregator websites (even mentioned a few times in Comic book price guide) which is why I pulled from there. I just used it to verify credits. If there's a different source I should use for that instead, let me know.
  • Ref 2 -- jeez LOL, that's rotten luck. Between my creation of this article and now, this magazine apparently re-launched/came off a several-year hiatus and as a result re-launched their website. The old website is supposed to be available in an archived version but the link the new site provides for that is broken. I reached out to the magazine's staff to see if they can help with this.
  • MOS:ALLCAPS addressed.
  • Archived sources using IABot.
KRKwrites (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the article layout, I suggest:

This will align the layout with other articles on Wikipedia, making the information easier for the reader to find.

Other prose comments:

Source review

Image review

Please ping me when you are ready for another look. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article re-arranged as recommended
  • I provided a citation for the Kickstarter claim.
  • Ref 11 (now Ref 19): I added another source where Larson describes her general style as "angular". I can just take this sentence out if that would be better. It's not the most vital point to make, but it is pretty readily apparent when looking at her art.
Wikipedia authors cannot draw their own conclusions and add them to the article, as that would be considered original research. Instead, Wikipedia articles can only state what is said in the sources. If the sources do not state something, it cannot be in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 (now Ref 7): I created a new reference group for Larson's Choice of Games credits.
  • Ref 15 (now Ref 9): Okay so this one is a little bit tricky. You're right, Ref 9 does list her only as "artist". But if you read what she says about what she did on the show, it's character design (working on final character sketches, clothing, etc.), and then here and here on her personal website, she describes herself as a character designer on the show. I had already used the latter page on her site as a reference elsewhere in the article, so I just added another citation for it here. Does that work?
If she describes herself as a character designer for the show, then this can be used as a source. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:UPRIGHT - I just went in (in the visual editor) and changed it from a custom size to one of the default sizes, does that work?
  • MOS:ALT - done
Additionally, went back in with IABot and archived the newly-added links. :) Thank you!! KRKwrites (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments underneath the concerns above. Additional comments below:

Lede check:

Those are my thoughts. We are getting closer. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these points have now all been addressed! To avoid original research (the "vampires" point was just me looking at her gallery and seeing a lot of vampires, LOL) I switched "vampires" to "ghosts" and found a supporting source. Let me know if I missed anything, and thank you again! KRKwrites (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of my problems are resolved. I am going to pass this. Good job. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.