Talk:Miles Morales/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This looks good to me. It seems to cover the topic really well, and is well written. Just a few issues to address, but I think this should become a GA quite easily. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead needs a little work, per WP:LEAD. Each part of the main body is not really represented in the lead at the moment, for example the background to his "taking over" or some of the character history, or critical reaction. ✅
 * "Despite Morales' role as Ultimate Spider-Man in the comic book series, he is not the lead for the Ultimate Spider-Man animated TV series that debuted in April 2012 on Disney XD." A little clunky. What about "Although Morales features in the Ultimate Spider-Man comic book series, he is not the lead character in the Ultimate Spider-Man animated TV series that debuted in April 2012 on Disney XD." ✅
 * Forgive me if this is an obvious one, but what makes Latinrapper.com a reliable source? (Even if this cannot be established, I'm fairly sure that the inclusion of the interview makes it reliable for our purposes).
 * Similar for ifanboy.com.
 * "African American": I'm never sure if this should be hyphenated. ✅ (The current Wikipedia article has it as African American)--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC))
 * "the plans were revived and the character Miles Morales was created": I'm not sure that this is supported by the reference. It's sort of implied, but not that the plans had ever been halted and then revived. ✅
 * "unbeknownst to him": Why not just "unknown to him"? ✅
 * "Days later, after the Prowler's nephew,[12] gradeschooler[11] Miles Morales is bitten by the spider during a visit to Davis' apartment, develops superhuman abilities similar to those Peter Parker had,[12] though he only confides in his best friend, Ganke,[13] because his father, Jefferson,[14] who displays a dislike of superhumans, and forbids Miles from associating with his uncle Aaron, Jefferson's brother, because Aaron is a thief, as Jefferson used to be": Ouch. Horrendously long sentence which doesn't really make sense after "Davis' apartment". Needs fixing. ✅
 * "at the hands of the Green Goblin, who is revealed to be high schooler Peter Parker": As written, this suggests that Parker was the Goblin. ✅
 * "was met with mixed results by audiences": Maybe "mixed reactions" would be better. ✅
 * Reception first paragraph: This uses "some say" too much. It should be more precise: who is saying? Press: which newspapers. Critics? Commentators? Anyone specific.
 * Taking a look at the sources in question, it appears that there are no specific people, they are just referencing reaction in general from internet commentators and comic fans..--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * May be better to say something like "critics" or "commentators" here then, as "some" is too woolly really. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "wrote the character should be based on the quality of its stories rather than his appearance or ethnicity": This is supported by the ref but does not quite make sense. Maybe "the character should be judged on the quality of its stories rather than on his appearance or ethnicity". ✅
 * Is there any other reaction. The original novelty has presumably worn off now. How are the stories and character being received.✅ (Added two reviews from Newsarama and IGN on the first issue that discussed Miles --CyberGhostface (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)) And, to balance the "conservative talk show" angle, were there any other prominent commentators who spoke out in support?
 * I've looked around and couldn't find any major liberal commentators who spoke about Morales (just Colbert and Stewart mocking some of the dissenters). If anyone could help in this matter that would be appreciated.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this unstruck, but not a problem for passing. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Images all have appropriate licences and non-fair-use rationale seem to be in order. No Dablinks and most links ok. However, ref 24 is dead.
 * Ref 24 is still dead. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All sourcing looks good: only 2 queries above, but even if reliability could not be established, the content of the interviews makes them reliable enough to use safely, I think.
 * I haven't struck these, but am happy to accept them for the moment owing to their content. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I will place this on hold for the moment, but I can't see any reason it shouldn't pass. My only slight concern is that the critical reaction section is up to date and comprehensive enough, but not a big issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I'll try going over these when I have some spare time, but if anyone else wants to work on this in the meantime, go ahead.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add ✅ marks as I do each one if that's alright with you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I expanded the Lead, Cyber, as per your request on my talk page. Hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, it does. :)--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC

Just a couple of issues left; the "some" issue and the dead ref. Then I'll pass. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, which reference specifically is not working for you? I just went through all of them and they all showed up for me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's now ref 25. You can see for yourself using the external links checker at the top of this page. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I replaced the ref for 25 with another source.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

All good now. Passing now, well done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)