Talk:Winnie Winkle/GA1

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


 * Overview of GA Review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (no original research):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * Low volume of edit activity; no edit wars apparent.
 * 1) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (copyright tagged and captioned): b (appropriate use; lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Overall the article is good, and the prose is well-written. I've noticed a few points for you to take a look at, which I've listed below. I'll place the review on hold for 7 days so these can be addressed.

Well written requirement

 * "Winnie Winkle was one of the first influential comic strips about working women." Whom did it influence and what was it's influence? (According to reliable sources.)
 * I've removed "influential" for now until I can find a good source for it, and have added an extra source for the rest of the statement. Fram (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "It ran in more than 140 newspapers in 1939, and by 1970, it still ran in more than 150 newspapers" is phrased awkwardly.
 * Not improved yet, I hope someone (native English speaker perhaps) will change this into something better.
 * "In retrospect, it has been seen as one of the comic strips heralding the new, more independent role for American women after World War I" The tenses are mixed up here. Suggest "In retrospect, it is seen as..." or "It is retrospectively seen as". You could probably also swap 'the' after 'heralding' to 'a'.
 * Thanks, done.
 * "In Europe, the Sunday pages were translated, but the weekly strips ignored." The word "ignored" doesn't really fit, since you don't mean newspaper purchasers never read them.
 * Done.
 * Omit needless words. Examples: "Due to its originality and its  longevity" and "In France, it was known as Bicot and  was  published by..."
 * Examples given are corrected, I hope more people will run through the article with a critical eye to improve it further.
 * '"...one of the longest runs in the history of American comic strips." Perhaps "in American comic strip history"?
 * Yes, done.
 * "Major issues were the marriage of Winnie with engineer Will Wright in 1937" 'Major issues', under "Publication history", doesn't work effectively when discussing the work itself. Some suggested suitable alternative are "major stories" / "major plot elements" / "key plot(s)/(elements)", etc.
 * Done.
 * "The Baltimore Sun dropped Winnie Winkle early in 1941 because of her pregnancy." This refers to the character, the comic strip, and the publication entity; the phrasing is confusing.
 * Changed, I hope for the better...
 * The swapping between in-universe and out-of-universe style in the "Publication history" is jarring to the reader.
 * Changed, but if this doesn't really help, I suppose I have to divide this in twi small sections, one for the plot and one for the publication history?
 * "...assistants, including the young French author Robert Velter, who would return to Europe to create the famous series" Suggest 'and create' (or 'on his return to Europe') unless creating the lauded series was his reason for returning to Europe. You could also subtitute "France", if that's where he went; however, that's a question of style, and up to you.
 * Done.

Manual of Style requirements

 * You wikilink dates, like July 28, 1996. Avoid overlinking. Months and days of the week generally should not be linked; years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * I have not followed it in detail, but I thought that the date (de)linkiing issue was currently at arbcom and that it was undecided whether date linking was good (internationalisation and so on) or bad (overlinking, no use for unregistered editors), and that until then no dates should be (de)linked? Anyway, I am not fanatical about it, so if people prefer delinking, I have no objections. Fram (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Broadness

 * The first thing to jump out at me from reading the lead is that you don't mention why Winnie Winkle ceased after 75 years. Did the Chicago Tribune or another source comment on why it would make no further appearances, or why it had ceased?
 * I can not access the source completely, but will add it anyway: apparently the syndicate decided that the character was no longer a role model for the 1990s. Fram (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now found a better source for this (available online in full), with more info like the exact date of the final appearance. Fram (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

 * The two non-free-use rationales for the single image might be better combined. Can they be, while covering both articles in which the image appears?
 * There's a spelling error in the first one "Irreplacable".
 * The reference in the first rationale to the strip as "this classic comic strip" is slightly POV-ish.
 * You've given the publication date as "Published March 6, 1927". Is this the publication date of the specific strip used in the image?
 * (reviewer note) It would seem so. –Whitehorse1 08:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Work
Hi there, thanks for beginning the review. I nominated this article, but have gotten extremely busy since then. I'm trying to find other people to help work on the issues you brought up. BOZ (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now tackled most issues raised in this GA review (and thanks for doing the review), I have not done anything about the image yet (not my best area). Fram (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You've certainly addressed all my concerns. Great job on finding the source and information about its conclusion, Fram. I'm passing Winnie Winkle as a Good Article. –Whitehorse1 08:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Fram (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, thank you for the review. :) BOZ (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)