Talk:The Fade Out/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 12:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks fairly interesting; I've reviewed a lot of comics articles here on Wikipedia, but I can't say that they're ever anything I've gotten into in the real world. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "fronting" mean?
 * Since Gil has been blacklisted, Charlie presents Gil's screenplays as his own, similar to Front organization. I've added a link.


 * I wonder if the lead could have slightly more about the development and reception? Not absolutely essential, but I don't feel that it summarises the article as well as it might at present.
 * I expanded some. Is there anything in particular you had in minde to add?


 * "he was drawn to the false personas everyone had to put forward to succeed" This strikes me as non-neutral; it's a view of how people behaved prevented as uncontroversial fact. It may well be accurate, but I think it could be presented a little differently.
 * That line came from a quote. I added "he felt" to it.


 * Could we have a link at the first mention of noir? I assume noir fiction does the job?
 * done.


 * "contract January 9, 2014", "digitally August 20, 2014", "distributor level the day of release"; "released September 24, 2014". I would use on, here; is this a British/American thing?
 * done.


 * "the story because they were not sure how many issues were needed to tell the story" Repetition
 * fixed


 * I think I've fixed the area where it is an issue, but, first, you should avoid contractions, and, second, you should be aware of MOS:LQ.
 * Thanks. Sometimes those slip through.


 * "they have developed" Had?
 * fixed


 * "they have developed a following, and partly because retailers have become more" Should the haves perhaps be hads?
 * yes. fixed.


 * "to use the page" Could you specify which page you're referring to, here? Presumably, page 2?
 * done


 * "he sexually abused her as a child actor" Ambiguous; presumably, she's the child, not him?
 * clarified.


 * Could you expand on the "Criminal Comic Blog"? Are we certain it's a decent source?
 * The writer is definitely a biased fan, but he's reliable for reporting the existence of second printings and special covers. I found a new source for the EW claim.
 * You could just cite the books directly; I think I'd prefer a primary source than a blog in this case.

Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I wouldn't object to the plot section being a bit more detailed. That said, if you are happy with it how it is, than so am I.
 * I tried to pare it down to bare essentials only. There are lots of subplots and minor twists, but they are all interwoven and none stand out as more important than others.

In places, I thought the narrative of the article a little jumpy, and one-line paragraphs aren't ideal, but the article doesn't need to be perfect for GA purposes. I wonder if there might be some other sources out there (Googling throws up the recent book Ed Brubaker: Conversations, which may have something) and some of those you cite aren't perfect, but, again, they seem OK for GA purposes. A decent article. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The jumpiness is a side effect of my research process, and sometimes it's hard for me to see it until I've had some time away from it. I was unaware of that book, I'll look into it.
 * Thanks for the review! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've had another quick look through the article, I'm happy that this is basically where it needs to be for GA purposes. Nice work; a solid article which will be useful for readers. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)