Talk:MIND MGMT/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Sorry you've had to wait so long for a review, and thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Looking at the lead, it looks like this article may be in need of at least minor updating ("and will receive a second printing in April 2013.") to meet GA. Before continuing, I'll ping your page to see if you're still active here. Thanks again for your work on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed three that jumped out at me, and have some additional sources and updates I hope to add this weekend. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! My editing time may be limited till Monday or Tuesday. My daughter's having a minor surgery tomorrow; nothing serious, but I'm planning to pamper the heck out of her. I'll pick it up and give it a top-to-bottom read and commenting then, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, snatching a little time here. Here's a few issues to get you started:

"Although originally assisted by Diana Schutz, Brendan Wright was named the series editor" -- was Wright originally assisted by Schutz? Or Kindt was originally assisted by her? If the latter, this should be rewritten.
"The series will return to a monthly schedule in January 2013" -- update -- did this happen?
"Writing for iFanboy, Paul Montgomery said "“Kindt’s aesthetic won’t win over every reader, [but] his watercolors lend perfectly to the story’s themes and tone”." -- this appears to need an inline citaiton
The film section should be rewritten so that the statements won't go out of date in the next few months or year (per WP:REALTIME). Consider phrasing like "As of (date), it was in preproduction" or "On [date], it was announced that Ridley Scott would produce".
"has shared the complete outline for the story with them" -- who is the "them" here--Richardson and Goldberg or Scott, Richardson, and Goldberg? Or the company generally?

Thanks again for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All have been addressed. Still need to update the plot, but everything else is updated. Hope the surgery goes well! Argento Surfer (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Already on the other side of it, and all is well. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just let me know when your update is finished and I'll take a last look. This is probably close to promotion, but I have a few last checks to do when you're ready. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All ready to go. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Lyme, Meru, Perrier, Dusty, and Duncan be a "quintet" rather than "quartet"? Or does one of them stay behind?

Doh. Yes, they would be. I've fixed that and included more reception and the film into the lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See minor clarification point above.~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~The critical reception and film should be briefly noted in the lead to give a better summary of the article.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	It's a bit difficult for me to assess the reliability of some the comic-related resources, but I'm glad to defer to you here as one of Wikipedia's experts on this topic. None of the claims seem particularly controversial or troublesome, so I don't see this becoming an issue here in any case.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Two small notes above--otherwise, this looks ready to pass. Thanks again for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]