Talk:Graphic novel/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 10, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The article is in need of a copy edit to fix grammar and basic prose issues. It is not currently written in a professional tone, nor does it flow well. The history section reads like an unbulletted timeline, while the criticism section is a set of quote drops. The article also fails the basic WP:MOS of Wikipedia, with inconsistent reference formatting, a bad selection of WP:ELs, and the headers do not really meet WP:MOSHEAD. And what is with the "Quotes" section, which has one seemingly random, pointless quote?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The article contains large amounts of unsourced content, particularly in the definition and history sections. From the writing, it is clear that the article contains extensive OR, giving no source for the claims that the term is ill-defined, questioning the applicability to manga, etc. For the references that are there, source 4 is unclear and appears to be two references + a note. What makes #2, CMJ blog[1], a reliable source? #5, www.collectortimes.com, is a dead link. Source #7, to comicbookresources.com, gives a 404 error. What makes #9 and 10, both for comics.org, a reliable source? It states it is user edited, and gives no indication that its following fair-use laws. Source #14, [2], is being misused to support a claim. #16, artbomb.net, is not a reliable source and is blocked by browsers for distributing malicious software. #24, acmenovelty, is a fansite, user edited, and not RS. #28 to newsarama is a forum posting without clear information on the poster to confirm identity, validity of the posting, etc. Also fails RS. In the second reference section, Comicartville appears to be a self-published website of the author.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Extensive history, though of questionable reliability and validity. The definition section really doesn't give an actual definition, but tries to explain why the term is disputed. If one were to read this article, you'd really come away confused. It seems from the dispute, there are several forms of graphic novels, so perhaps this should be examined and covered more thoroughly to better show the multiple usages for the term (similar to what is done with poetry and drama). It would also be good to discuss in a broad sense its reception/sales versus other book forms and comics (for bound volumes), how they are distributed (are they sold the same as comics or books or both?) any social aspects, the graphic novel industry (financials, major companies, is it standalone? separate from comics and manga? or a smurge of the different forms?), etc.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
"Criticism of the term" is non-neutral in name and content; it drops a few quotes (most older) without giving both sides of the issues regarding the use. Should be retooled and perhaps smurged into Definition to expand into Usage. Article also almost exclusively focuses on American comics, and gives no international perspective nor does it go into non-American comics (such as manga, which are generally considered "graphic novels" by bookstores).
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
This article has an insanely excessive amount of WP:NONFREE images, almost all of which are a violation of Wikipedia policy. All of the book covers need to go. None are discussed in a critical fashion and all are being used in a purely illustrative fashion here. They are only appropriate for use in their own respective articles, not here. File:Blackmark.jpg is also not being used in an appropriate fashion, with no critical discussion, nothing indicating why it is relevant to the topic. It also has no FUR validating its use here. There is not a single properly used image in this article.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article was never actually reviewed for good article standing against the GA criteria, it was apparently simply passed without comment the day after it was nominated.[3] When I started this review, I hoped to be able to put it on hold for fixing, however after thoroughly reviewing the article (spent 40 minutes reviewing this), there are just too many issues to deal with. I do not feel this article can really be fixed within a reasonable time (normal GAR hold is a week). The only criteria it passes is stability. I have therefore delisted this article from good article standing. I encourage editors to address the issues noted above and give the article a good overhaul, then take it through WP:PR before renominating it for WP:GA standing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]