Talk:The Winter Soldier (story arc)/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 01:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

2. 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. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A few things need addressed before the article passes

 Done I think I did that correctly. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It was written by Ed Brubaker, and drawn primarily by Steve Epting - the comma isn't needed

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DUPLINKS
  since they're all linked in the plot section.

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• He noted that to reverse Bucky's death necessarily meant - I think a word is missing before necessarily

 Fixed I'm not sure, I think the word was meant as an adverb meant to further clarification altogether rather than conveying new info. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brubaker selected the name early in the pitch process, as it was name that "that could - another missing word and a double "that"

 Fixed Minor clarification -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason that the ref at the end of the production section isn't list defined like the other refs?

Y All web refs converted to LDRs -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Same thing with the refs in the releases section

Y All web refs converted to LDRs -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article isn't super long, but it is a bit quote heavy, so maybe try to clean that up a little where possible if you can.

 Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not absolutely necessary, but I recommend adding archives to the refs that are websites where possible.

Y -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Images look good and all have proper licensing
• Spotchecks: Check refs #7, #13, and #16 (as of this edit). All refs are used properly and the info in the article is supported by each of these refs.
• Earwig also found no big issues. The 2 biggest matches were quotes which are properly cited.

Overall great job. Just a some minor things need cleaned up. I'll do spotchecks once everything else has been addressed. -- ZooBlazer 01:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZooBlazer Hey there! It's good to see you here Zoo. I just decided to quickly pitch in and help decide to expedite the process here by going ahead and already take care of the above issues. Feel free to update me as the GAN progresses, both Zoo and the OP. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcdiehardfan Thanks for helping out! Everything looks good to go. I did the spot checks and checked Earwig. No issues came up, so I'm happy to pass the article. We didn't get to interact, but congrats @Morgan695! -- ZooBlazer 01:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]