Talk:Eerie (Avon)/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It seems like a remarkably complete article for one so short. I will list a few comments for you to address below. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Is there no more that you can say about the script or the art work? I notice that some of the creators were well known? Were they known for a particular style.
 * Is there anything more you can say about the history? How this individuals ended up collaborating together, etc.? Why it was a one shot comic, and why it came back in 1951?
 * Can you outline its business history more clearly, why published etc? Is this all Avon Periodicals published? Why it morphed into a science fiction comic?
 * Can you include more information about it, more detail?

Excellent questions but, sadly, there is little published information about this book&mdash;most surprising since the book is recognized as the first true horror comic book and the one that established the genre. It may be the creators weren't aware of their contribution to comic literature at the time and simply neglected to document anything about it. Avon is defunct so there's little chance of researchers recovering anything there. I suspect the book did poorly on the stands (which may account for it being a one-shot), and I suspect the fifties series was discontinued following the Senate hearings of September 54 but that's OR. In the early fifites, many, many comics titles "morphed" into different titles because of postage costs. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Prose issues:
 * a dagger-toting - this wording sounds to flippant or informal to be encyclopedic

Rephrased: "ghoul-like creature clutching a dagger and..."ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * an adult attitude - is this a common phrase to use for "adult content" or what?

'''Phrase taken directly from source. Deleted.''' ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * outrè trappings - great phrase, but again, not encyclopedic and probably would benefit from being explained.

Rephrased: "gore and violence generally found in horror fiction." ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Headlights (comics) goes to an unreferenced article, so perhaps you should explain more in the article the effect/impact/implication of this.

'''Rephrased: "Large-breasted". ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the article provides a wonderful glimpse into an era of horror comics, and although I will probably be criticized, I believe this fulfills the GA criteria.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Congrats! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: