Talk:Girlamatic/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2019 Wiki Cup. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * 1. these are my copy edits. Please review for accuracy.
 * 2. What does "when it was renewed in April 2004" mean? Was the site overhauled?
 * 3. What does "Girlamatic went quiet" mean? Did they stop open calls or did they stop all updates?
 * 4. "all of Joey Manley's websites" - I think the body needs a better introduction to Manley than this.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * no concern
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * While not required to pass GA, I recommend archiving source 19 (Friends of Lulu). Since the group is defunct, there's no guarantee the content will remain available.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern per Earwig's 18% return
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * I am not overly familiar with this expired webpage, but nothing is obviously omitted.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * no concern
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is in pretty good shape, but a few points need to be clarified before I can pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I shall be responding to all your concerns within the next four days, hopefully as soon as possible. Thank you very much for taking on this review, and I am glad to hear you consider the article to be in good shape. I did review your edits, and none of them ruffle my feathers too much. I do think the "the existing archive was made available for free"-change is not so good, as it creates an oddly long sentence and this information is unrelated to the two new webcomics that were added. A thorough response to all your comments will hopefully come soon. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ok, no hurry. If the free archive isn't relevant to the new strips, how would you feel about removing that portion from the section? I think it's covered fine in the history section. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The archive becoming freely available isn't currently described anywhere else in the prose (except for the lead). I suppose I could rewrite a small portion of the History section to include this information there instead, though I don't see it as a big improvement myself. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought the free archive was implied by "subscription fees were dropped entirely". It strikes me as somewhat random in the list of webcomics.
 * Ah, you're completely right! I forgot I wrote that sentence, and skipped over it when I was rereading the article today, it seems. I suppose the sentence can indeed be removed from the later section. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Here are my four responses to the comments provided above. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC) I'm satisfied. Nice work on this one, and I look forward to your next webcomic work! Argento Surfer (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1A2; "renewed in April 2004" – I do not know if the site had any kind of facelift. The source says that Girlamatic got eleven new webcomics in one go as it went into its second year, and describes it as a "relaunch" (and even "GAM 2.0"). I don't know how else to handle this event.
 * Interesting. How would you feel about striking "when it was renewed" and just saying that 11 new comics were added in April 2004?
 * Done. Seems like a fine solution.
 * 1A3; "Girlamatic went quiet" – I don't exactly know. Comic Book Resources stated that the website "has been so quiet lately that Comics Worth Reading blogger Johanna Draper Carlson wondered whether the site had gone completely defunct," and Diana McQueen herself said that "rumors of Girlamatic's death were exaggerated ... The comics have been updating regularly." This is practically all I know about the topic. What I expect is that no new media posts (such as blog posts or interviews) were created during this period, but that's my interpretation.
 * Since it's unclear, I recommend rephrasing the sentence to make it clear that CBR was describing it as "quiet".
 * Done. I hope the way I handled it works.
 * 1A4; "all of Joey Manley's websites" – Hopefully I improved this aspect.
 * I'm satisfied with the new additions
 * 2B – I archived the Friends of Lulu page as suggested.
 * Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Argento Surfer! I really appreciate the review! I haven't been particularly active lately, but I sure want to get a few more GAs going, and seeing this GA review going so well really invigorates me (I have had some bad experiences with reviews, sadly). You have no idea how much you have helped me out here :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)