Talk:Superman/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 04:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm taking this one! This is clearly an important article, and one that has gone through a bit of history in terms of quality assessment apparently. I'll have a good read through this and the related talk pages and get on to the review as soon as I can. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Third party comment: As noted in the FAR, the 'Critical reception and popularity' section still needs work. I don't see how it currently passes GA criteria 1b regarding list incorporation. It should be converted to prose. A 'children' type list may be generated from similar types, but it should be describing what about (or why) the character generates such popularity. According to the reception, what do critics see as strengths or weaknesses of the character? (and the Smallville item should be deleted from the list as the awards are not regarding the character, but rather for acting, editing, music, etc.) Similarly, I think the 'In other media' has too many one-sentence paragraphs — I think there is a valid 'children'-type list in there that could better implement the summary style of Superman (franchise) per criteria 3b. maclean (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that In other media is still a work in progress. I am trying to obtain audience and revenue statistics for these shows. Kurzon (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As for Critical reception and popularity, I think we should delete it all. The awards mention in the bullet list are not all that insightful for describing the full scope of Superman's prestige and popularity. Something more useful would be sales statistics and revenues. For that, I plan to add such statistics in Publishing history and In other media because it's next to impossible to get a simple and accurate overview of the whole franchise. Kurzon (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting to this. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this article is up to the standard of GA and it looks like the improvements suggested during the FARs have not been implemented. There is still a lot of unsourced content in the article which needs to be sorted out. I am also concerned with the critical response section as it is one of the most important sections for most articles and needs to be much better than it currently is. Additionally, the article just does not appear to be stable. I suggest all the editors who are currently working on the article and discussing issues at the talk page ensure that these problems I have raised here be dealt with, and that they are all happy with the state of the article, before re-nominating it for GA. This is an important article, and it makes me sad that I cannot promote it to GA, but I am going to have to fail this review. Good luck with improving the article and getting it promoted in the future! - adamstom97 (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not expect this article to pass GA review. I applied for GA review in order to get feedback on this article, because the other editors who monitor this article haven't been giving any.  I hope that, with this review, these other editors will see the flaws in the article for what they are and give me license to fix them. Kurzon (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you do not do that again. You should only nominate an article for GA if you believe that it meets the criteria already. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted Critical reception and popularity because of the criticisms here. Kurzon (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , though I have not done the background research (and it is that that should guide the article development), here is some feedback. The critical response is important but should be included as part of a History section and what this article calls "Cultural impact" section. The "In other media" section should implement a Summary style of Superman (franchise) with a paragraph format to discuss the character's licensing rights and appearances. This section is currently plagued by sentences acting as paragraphs and paragraphs acting as sub-sections or lists. The "Fictography" section is another area that needs attention (some of this sounds like it should be part of a History section related to Editors and creative teams); it reads like a list of facts. I like the concept of this section, but its contents need to be grouped thematically into paragraphs and presented in a coherent manner (e.g. chronologically, narrative, theme-by-theme, etc.). The "Literary analysis" section (it could be re-named) is getting to the point where it could be split off into its own article and a summary style used here. There has been a lot on non-fictionl and scholarly analysis written about the character and more can be included here. maclean (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)