Talk:Enemies & Allies/GA1

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

Reviewer: James26 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "alien invasions movies" — Can you make "invasions" singular (in this instance and in the later one)? Reads less awkwardly IMO.
 * 
 * "writing supporting novels in establish franchises" — Should be "established".
 * 
 * "like Star Wars and Dune." — I think "like" should be replaced with "such as", "including", or something else that sounds less casual.
 * 
 * "which noted flat characterization but that it may be entertaining for comic book fans." — Insert "stated" or some variant after "but".
 * I re-worked this sentence a little.
 * The revision included a typo ("being be"), and was a tad awkward, so I restored the previous version, as I may have been too hard on it.

Bigger:
 * Why is Colorado mentioned? I didn't grasp the significance.
 * Context. Book-articles include country of origin ("United States" & "American"), but if possible I try to mention something more specific.
 * "His latest novels in the Dune series were. . ." — "Dune" should be italicized, as it is earlier.
 * 
 * "Anderson commented on the difficulty in writing comics as prose, 'in the comics. . .' " — Can you insert "stating" or some variant after "prose"?
 * 
 * "Year One-style Batman" — "Year One" should be in quotation marks.
 * 
 * The "Background" section could begin with another brief overview of the novel (just above "At the time of publication. . ."). The beginning reads like a continuation of the lead, rather than an introduction to the article.
 * Is this something like what you had in mind?
 * The suspicion between Batman and Superman, mentioned in the lead, could be noted again (particularly on Batman's part).
 * 


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Thanks for the review. I have included comments and links above to the fixes. maclean (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job overall. -- James26 (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)