Talk:Walt McDougall/GA1

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

Reviewer: Margalob (talk · contribs) 21:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: -see comments.  Nothing much, just a bit of ambiguity
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: ...Not quite: see comments
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ...Leaning towards pass, see comments about 2-page image and about broadway image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: I'm putting this on hold. There are some minor problems, but nothing you can't fix.
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ...Leaning towards pass, see comments about 2-page image and about broadway image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: I'm putting this on hold. There are some minor problems, but nothing you can't fix.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ...Leaning towards pass, see comments about 2-page image and about broadway image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: I'm putting this on hold. There are some minor problems, but nothing you can't fix.
 * Pass or Fail: I'm putting this on hold. There are some minor problems, but nothing you can't fix.

questions-comments-concerns-problems-issues:
Lede:

Infobox is good, no problems there.

Walt "was one of the first producers of regular political cartoons in American daily papers." The sources suggest that he was THE first. Which is the case?

Biography

"Walt attended a military academy, and from the age of 16 was self-educated." At what ages did he attend the military academy? Was this before his self-education? I'd like more information, but it could be that none exists...

This isn't about you, but Insider Histories of Cartooning by Harvey didn't seem to have any page numbers on google books. Strange, isn't it.

"Several of his cartoons were influential in the 1884 presidential election." Which ones were, besides Belshazzar Blaine?

You call his cartoon both "The Royal Feast of Belshazzar Blaine and the Money Kings," and "Belshazzar Blaine and the Money Kings".

You differentiate the first color cartoon and the first color comic strip. This is kind of splitting hairs but... What makes The Unfortunate Fate of a Well-Intentioned Dog a comic strip? Also, are any images of it available?

What was his autobiography mainly about?

you say he died from a self-inflicted gunshot. Why not just call it suicide? I think some more information on his death, if you can get it, would be good.

this source says he spent the end of his life in seclusion. That isn't mentioned anywhere in your article. The same source, and some others you cited, mention that he drew a giant 2-pager cartoon, which you really ought to mention in the article.

Works

The images are all scanned at a very low quality. Not quite a make-or-break, but would be nice if you could get a high quality scan.

"The Possibilities of the Broadway Cable Car" is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. What makes it notable?

There in not an image of the Well-Intentioned Dog strip in your article, and by its title, I am very curious about what variety of unfortunate fate this poor creature encountered.

You say he illustrated his own novel and his children's books, but in the works section those appear merely as books that he authored. Could you clear that up? (Perhaps 3 categories here: authored, illustrated, and authored AND illustrated, or some other way of organizing it that I'm not thinking of.

See Also, Notes, Refrences, External Links

No concerns

Margalob (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

On hold
I'm putting this article on hold, and will check back on 18 November. If the issues I pointed out are fixed, I would say this is a solid Good Article. Margalob (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)