Talk:Al Williamson/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems with quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
Not sure what to do here, as I don't have specific dates. --Scott Free (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Lead: His first marriage, to Arlene Williamson, a professional letterer and colorist, ended with the latter's untimely passing. Suggest replace with the latter's untimely passing. with the date of death, thus removing POV wording.
 * 1) **Is the untimely passing phrase used in the print source or could it be implied from it? Also note that this is not mentioned in the article.  The lead is a summary of the article, so it needs some expansion. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible. Please read WP:LEAD.
 * 2) *The lead remains unaddressed Jezhotwells (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, only the fact of death is mentioned. Untimely was meant as a temporal description based on inference. Mainly a photo of Williamson and his second wife, with his children from his first marriage. Untimely threrefore referring to the socio-cultural notion that if a mother dies before her children have reached adulthood, then her death is considered premature in regards to her role of child rearing. But if it's just a case of one word, I have no objection to it being removed.--Scott Free (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Early life and career: Consistency - Wallace Wood or Wally Wood?
 * 1960s: In 1960, little work to be found in the comic book field due to a downturn in the industry, he went to work as an assistant to John Prentice on the Alex Raymond-created comic strip Rip Kirby for a three-year period. Grammar, surely needs something like: ''In 1960, with little work to be found in the comic book field.
 * Later career: Since 1998, there have been five career retrospective books published, of which Williamson has cooperated with the production. Grammar!
 * Awards: 1989 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards - Nominee - Best Art Team: (Daredevil [Marvel] - with John Romita Jr.) 1991 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards - Winner - Best Inker 1996 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards - Nominee - Best Penciller/Inker: (for Flash Gordon [Marvel Select/Marvel]) 1997 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards - Winner - Best Inker: (for Spider-Man and Untold Tales of Spiderman #17-18 [Marvel]) 1998 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards - Nominee - Hall of Fame 1999 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards - Nominee - Hall of Fame 2000 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards - Winner - Hall of Fame: (Voter's choice) 
 * Harvey Awards 1988 Al Williamson, for Daredevil (Marvel) 1989 Al Williamson, for Daredevil (Marvel) 1990 Al Williamson, for Daredevil (Marvel) 1991 Al Williamson, for Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser (Marvel/Epic) 1993 Al Williamson, for Spider-Man 2099 (Marvel) 1994 Al Williamson, for Spider-Man 2099 (Marvel) 1995 Al Williamson, for Spider-Man 2099 (Marvel) Punctuation needed!

I went through - smoothed things over - wikified - I think it could stand some more work, but I hope the basics have been covered .--Scott Free (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC) #::*1970s: Samples of his sketches also began appearing in various 'fanzines' of the period (Heritage, Squa Tront).[original research?] Care to address this? Not sure what to do here - the whole 'fan' movement thing in comics has some historical importance for that field. I added references and removed a phrase. --Scott Free (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Aces! Will get on it tonight. --Scott Free (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * Many of the cartoonists mentioned in the Early life and career have WP articles, please wikify - also other words like Tarzan. I have started off but look carefully at other candidates, also magazine titles, etc. I recommend you find someone to thorughly copy-edit this artcile for style, punctaion and wikification.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * I tagged one dead link, assume GF for print, other refs check out Still one dead link Ref #29, if you can't find something remove the statement.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All sources RS in context.
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I see that several images have been removed. As all those remaining are non-free, I recommend no more be added.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above concerns to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK nearly there - one dead link to be sorted and some expansion of the Lead to encompass the whole article, remains on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I see that several images have been removed. As all those remaining are non-free, I recommend no more be added.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above concerns to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK nearly there - one dead link to be sorted and some expansion of the Lead to encompass the whole article, remains on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK nearly there - one dead link to be sorted and some expansion of the Lead to encompass the whole article, remains on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) **OK, I made a few copy-edits to complete Boz's work. I am happy to pass this as a good article as it satisfies the criteria now. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Nothing seems to have been done to address the lead as mentioned above. The lead should be a succinct summary of the entire article. If the lead mentions his retirement and his wife Cori then the article should give more detail and vice versa. It needs to be about three paras wrong. Read Jezhotwells (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Scott - let me know if you need help with this part; I think lead writing is my specialty. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hellz yeah...thanks ... need...help...with...lead - I have no kind of feeling for lead work - Lead on, MacBoz! (A little paraphrase from MacBeth,there:-)--Scott Free (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've had a chance to read through the article and I will work on the lead probably tomorrow or Sunday. There is definitely some work to be done, but I think I have a good idea of where to go. Throughout the article there is a lot of listing what he worked on from one thing to the next, so I will have to sift through that to get to the juicy bits; I definitely saw some things in there that I'd like to mention in the lead. Also, I think I'd like to break it up into most likely three paragraphs. Note the previous work I did for Alex Raymond, a subject mentioned frequently in this article. BOZ (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Let me know here when you're done. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly done with it; I'll like to get some input from Scott, especially on the intro paragraph. BOZ (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm tickled that we seem to have passed GA sometime between my contributions last night and when I came here this morning &mdash; Yay &mdash; though I still do see patches that need touch-up, plus the image issues. I'll try and address those later today. Anyone else want to jump in pool? I'd say the water's fine! -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)