Talk:Jack Kirby/GA2

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 05:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The style of the references is muddled; okay at the GA level, will need work if you want to go to FAC
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Some queries (below)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Comments
 * Do we need fn 1?
 * No. His life and death dates are reliably cited in article body. Footnote removed.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What makes fn 12 a reliable source?
 * If this would now be fn 11 because of the removal of fn 1, this is the Grand Comics Database, this is a 28-year-old nonprofit membership organization that aggregates published credits, plus credits uncovered in journalistic/academic sources as as Jerry Bails' Who's Who of American Comic Books, and collects them, similarly to the review-aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. Submissions go through a rigorous vetting process involving direct one-on-one work, where potential submitters start as apprentices overseen by an experienced editor. All submissions require published confirmation (which is usually simply aggregating the credits as published in the comics themselves, and artists' signatures). Wikipedia has justifiably relied on the GCD as a reference sources for at least the nearly 13 years I've been here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What makes fn 19 a reliable source?
 * If this is now fn 18 ecause of the removal of fn 1, this is Don Markstein's Toonopedia, an online encyclopedia founded in 2001 and run by the late Don Markstein, a professional journalist for numerous mainstream publications as well as a longtime editor of Comics Revue, a monthly anthology of newspaper comics, and Graphic Novel Review for Libraries, which is a self-explanatory professional library journal. He also edited books about comics, and is a recognized authoritative source on the subject. The journalism and publishing trade magazine Editor & Publisher lauded Toonopedia here. I could find other authorities that vouch for the scholarly reliability and widespread acceptance of Toonopedia if these facts are insufficient. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Link Brooklyn — Done. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Overlinked: Western comics, Fox Feature Syndicate, Timely Comics, Atlas Comics,  Adventure Comics, Topps comics, DC comics, comic strip, Manhunter, Black Panther, Paul Levitz, Gil Kane,  Copyright Act of 1976,  Boy Commandos, Manhunter, Sandman, the New Gods, Darkseid.
 * I think this has been done. None of these are linked more than once in a section, and are not linked in sections near each other.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  05:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove the hard-code image sizes. — Done. I only found one instance.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Should the work on Captain Marvel #1 be mentioned? — Probably, and I'll get to that tomorrow or the day after.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC). Done. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "which would be the family's home for the next 20 years, working out of a basement studio 10 feet in width" Prose a little odd here; consider rewording so that it is clear that Kirby is working, not the family. Also, use a conversion template to put the width in metric. (And any idea how long it was?) — Done. I could not find the length anywhere. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph of "Marvel Comics in the Silver Age (1958–1970)" needs a reference. — Done. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging some of the short paragraphs in this section. — Done. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You mention Kirby Krackle but the reader doesn't see it. Could we add this cover as an example? — Done. I used instead the same illustration already used at Kirby Krackle and for which FUR exists. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also: in the picture of Orion, note the use of the Kirby Kollage — Kollage covered later in article now with a separate image, do we still need to mention it here? Hiding T 10:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mention Funky Flashman — Done. Hiding T 10:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Link Marvel Treasury Edition. You could also explain what "Treasury format" is, but it's up to you. — Done Hiding T 11:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Final years and death (1981–1994): Citations required on two paragraphs here. (Consider merging the short ones.) — Done Hiding T 11:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is Destroyer Duck not italicized? — We're discussing the character, not the comic, so it wouldn't be italicised. Hiding T 08:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "According to an interview with Kirby's granddaughter, Kirby was a "liberal Democrat"" Any reason why we can't mention Jill's name (or that she was the daughter of Neal?) Mentioned Jillian but not Neal, it just seems clunky, is it important? Hiding T 11:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Jack Kirby Awards and Jack Kirby Hall of Fame were named in his honor." Obvious, but a reference is still required. — Done Hiding T 11:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hawkeye7 . Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to review this. I wasn't aware the article was under GA review, and now that I am, I'd like to give it go. Since most of the points in the review list are green but the review still failed, is it because the points under "Comments" were not addressed? If that's all it was, I would love the chance to address those points. Please let me know. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would say that you should go ahead and give it a shot... the review is on hold, rather than failed. BOZ (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work Tenebrae and Hiding! Hawkeye7, is there anything they missed? BOZ (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Good work. Some more issues:


 * Reference required for the last sentence in "Legacy"
 * Are we using a style whereby a book is fully listed on first reference, then subsequently referred to? If so, Ro appears in fn 19, but not defined until fn 26
 * Correct this, renominate, and I will pass the article.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On 'em!--Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, plus a couple other things I saw that needed polishing. Could someone else renominate this? I haven't done it before and someone else would probably do it more quickly and efficiently.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks Hawkeye7 for taking another look at this one! BOZ (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)