Talk:Batman: The Killing Joke/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there - I'll tackle this one! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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.	Generally good, but there are grammar problems here and there; for instance "(a.k.a. Batgirl)" should be "(aka Batgirl)" or excised altogether. Similarly, in that same paragraph there is a single solitary bracket. The nominator should give the article a good read through to ensure that these are all dealt with.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section should offer an overview of the entire article; thus we should have a brief synopsis of the story's plot in the first paragraph, mention of its influence on cinematic depictions of Batman, etc. Also in the lede, we should probably include the date of DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore. Further in the article, the "Critical reception and legacy" could perhaps do with a further sub-section title to encompass Moore and Bolland's response and subsequent views on the work.
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.	Again, generally good, although some books are referenced without mention of the relevant page, while other references could certainly do with being more detailed, i.e. "Batman: The Killing Joke review, Grovel". Although not a prerequisite for passing GAN, it would be a good idea if these weblinks were archived, lest they become dead links.
	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).	Quite a bit of this article is simply not referenced; worst of all, the entire "No Joke" section lacks references.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Given that sections are un-referenced, it is possible that they constitute 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.	Generally fine, although both images are pushed next to each other and on the left-hand side of the article; thus, they should be re-distributed throughout the article to produce a better aesthetic.
	7. Overall assessment.	As it currently stands, there are too many problems to allow it to pass GAN. However, many of the problems can be fixed without too much effort, so I will refrain from failing/passing it for a while, allowing the nominator the chance to make the necessary changes. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Right, it looks like Bulls123 has fixed the various problems. I am both happy and very pleased to pass this important article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added references and fixed the pics. I'm still having trouble finding references for the section "In other media", but I'll keep looking.Bulls123 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bulls123, keep me informed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixes

Hey, I've made some fixes on the article.

• The lead has already been added, and a year has been put beside DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore.
• Sections like the "No Joke", "In other media", and others have been given references and citations, and the Grovel review and book reference has also been fixed.
• The TV series subsection on the other hand, I couldn't find any web citations, so all I could do was link it to "List of The Batman episodes".
• A sub section has also been added in "Critical reception and legacy".

If there are more problems just tell me and I'll try to fix it. The weblink archiving on the other hand, that I don't know how to do. But I'll try my best to do it.Bulls123 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)