Talk:The Death of Superman/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria All of my comments and suggestions are open to discussion. Once complete, I'll be using this review to claim points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * "An loose animated" - should be "A loose"
 * Whoops. Fixed. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Publication history
 * "1938,[2] to immediate success" - comma not needed
 * Removed. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "By 1992, they were only selling roughly 150,000 copies an issue,[11] despite the fact there were four Superman-focused comics being sold: Action Comics, Superman, The Adventures of Superman, and Superman: The Man of Steel. Therefore, a new Superman comic book issue debuted every week" - This reads a little awkward. I suggest restructuring something like this: "By 1992, there were four Superman-focused comic books being sold: Action Comics, Superman, The Adventures of Superman, and Superman: The Man of Steel. A new Superman comic was released every week, each selling roughly 150,000 copies an issue."
 * I've implemented your suggestion. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "by increasing the romance" - doesn't sound right. "by advancing the romance" maybe? or "by increasing the romance tension"?
 * I've changed it to "increasing the romantic tension", which I think sounds better. JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "the writers had Kent proposed to Lane" - verb tense is wrong
 * Fixed. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "each's writing team" - suggest "the writing team"
 * Done. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "plan stories to occupy the comics" - suggest "plan upcoming storylines"
 * Done. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * " to combine the ideas.[16][12][15]" The citations should be in numerical order
 * Done. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Overview
 * The third row of the table has two cells swapped (issues & cover dates)
 * My, that's embarrassing. Fixed. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "a different moniker " - these should be spelled out in the description
 * I've explained them in each bullet, which I think should work. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Justice League International encounters Doomsday." - I think "Doomsday emerges (or escapes?) from an underground bunker and encounters the Justice League International" would be more clear.
 * You're right. I've implemented this. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "tears the team apart," - I think "easily defeats them" strikes a better tone.
 * Done. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * while is used four times in the first paragraph of Synopsis. I suggest revising to remove at least two of them, but I have strong opinion on which ones should go.
 * I think Guardian could be removed from the cast list and the summary, but that's up to you.
 * I removed the first mention of him, but didn't cut him from the cast list because he's also present at Superman's "death".
 * Mongul is not in the cast list. He should be added or introduced in the summary.
 * Whoops. He's in the list now. JOE BRO  64  23:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Jonathan meets Superman convinces Superman in the afterlife to come back," - I think two ideas got smashed together here...
 * Oof. Fixed. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Steel and Superboy are disproven, but" - suggest "disproven as the original Superman"
 * Implemented. JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Hal Jordan returns to find Coast City destroyed." - It should be clear he returns from space, maybe from a mission in space, and that Coast City was his home town.
 * Done. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * " fights Mongul, shattering Steel's hammer across Mongul's face." - I think "defeats Mongol" is sufficient here
 * Implemented. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "allowing Superman to regain his powers" - I think this should be "restoring Superman's strength" or the opening sentence of this paragraph should be "A powerless Superman", just to be consistent.
 * I've used your second suggestion. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The part about reconstructing Superman's costume seems superfluous - his black one isn't mentioned, nor any damage to it.
 * I've mentioned it the black costume now. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reception
 * The last two sentences of the last paragraph of "At release" appear to be reversed. Info about later issues is sandwiched between info about #75.
 * Revised the sentence order. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The industry's decline is covered some in the "later years" subsection, but the speculation bubble bursting at Action #500 was a hot topic at the time as well. Orders were high, but sales were low. I can dig up some sources on that if needed.
 * I've added information on this to the "At release" section. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the Simpson's episode should be identified as airing in 2001.
 * I actually meant to do that but didn't... done. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The timing of Knightfall to DoS is pretty well documented. I think the mention of it following the success of DoS deserves a note
 * Done. This was in the Visual Chronicle book but I had forgotten to include it. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Adaptations
 * no concerns
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * "hiatus for three to four months" - You may decide this is better suited as a note than explained inline, but the hiatus was necessary to avoid spoilers because new comics are available to order by retailers 3-4 months prior to release. The hiatus made the "cancellation" of the Superman titles seem more real. I can help find sources for this if you need.
 * Do you think the variants to #75 are worth mentioning? I count four (newsstand, direct, memorial, and platinum).
 * I do think the variants are indeed notable, so I've mentioned them. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Outside of the infobox, there's no mention of reprints and collections. Aside from the original three volumes, DC reissued the story in five volumes in 2016 (see note at bottom of this entry). I can look for some sources on announcements and sales if you need.
 * I've added a collected editions section. I've also added something the Visual Chronicle said about DoS being the bestselling trade of all time. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read that Siegel was asked in advance if he was ok with the story. I'll see if I can locate that source.
 * Added this to the article. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * The infobox image needs WP:ALTTEXT describing what is pictured. The promotional art needs alttext or an expanded caption describing the image. I added this.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Aside from some minor copyediting suggestions, there are a few points that I think need expanding (or not, if you have good reason to omit them). Awaiting response. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on this article. I'm satisfied that it meets GA criteria, and encourage you to aim for FA with it soon. With just a bit more expansion, I'd be happy to support it there. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)