Talk:The Sandman (comic book)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be a solid article. I'll leave some initial comments within a day ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 17:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a question, in "Further reading", why refer only to the Preface of The Sandman Papers? It is a book of literary essays on The Sandman and seems all the essays would be relevant and informative on the subject. maclean (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest I have no idea, maybe that's a question for the nominator? ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 22:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * "Artists include Sam Kieth, Mike Dringenberg, Jill Thompson, Shawn McManus, Marc Hempel, and Michael Zulli" - be careful of over-mentioning and WP:OVERLINKING straight up in the lead. This should only include all the 'crucial' editors rather than a full list of staff credits
 * "It ran for 75 issues from January 1989 to March 1996" - the infobox says that two new publications existed in 2009 and from 2013?
 * "The Sandman is a story about stories and how Morpheus, the Lord of Dreams" - wait, is Morpheus still Dream? Seems confusing that he is two different names
 * "in a black-and-white Annotated edition" - why is Annotated italicised?
 * The lead is missing important chunks of information from the article, so this doesn't comply per the WP:LEAD at this present time. More specifically, it has no reception paragraph (what critics thought of it). This can be achieved by shifting content around
 * Some red links in the Creation section. If the people aren't significant, unlink!
 * The fifth paragraph in the Original series section is just a huge list of people, going against WP:OVERLINKING. It wouldn't hurt to cut down or remove entirely
 * Summary section completely unreferenced
 * Please make sure every paragraph in the Collected editions has a citation
 * I think the bullet points in the The Sandman library section can split through this GAN, but is it necessary to include the ISBN numbers in prose? Seems a bit listy
 * "It has been announced that David S. Goyer will be producing an adaptation of the graphic novel," - weasel words, and when was this announced?
 * The Television section should be in prose and not bullet points

On hold
Sorry for the delay. This appears to be a solid article so it wouldn't take much of a job to push this up to a GA standard. All I see her are a few prose problems and the lead is missing information - so it shouldn't be too difficult. I'll leave this on hold for seven days for you. ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 22:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Fixed some stuffs. Hope it's enough. Anything else?Bulls123 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's looking good, thanks for your improvements. I think we're good to promote this ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 17:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)