Talk:Madman's Drum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 02:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

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.	Clear and well-written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addressed
	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.	One image, with fair use rationale described
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

An overall excellent article. I think this article could do with a little more expansion on the plot, particularly if there was a curse on the family (the second source) and some more information about the vacuous life of the son (see the first source), or at least fleshed out to a paragraph; and perhaps some sentences written on the use of symbolism and other visual techniques by the author. I haven't had the opportunity to read this very interesting wordless novel, but had a perusal of some websites:

[1]
[2] (one of the sources).

Other than that, I am sure this article will be promoted. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LT910001: Thanks a lot for taking on this review! I've added the bit about the cursed family to the plot summary, and I've also added a couple of other things to the "Style and analysis" and "Legacy" sections from the same du9 article—it took some work to wrap my head around the author's points. I'd seen the tashqueedagg article, but as it's an anonymous blog post I'm afraid it would fail as a reliable source, though it certainly would be nice to have more sources to flesh out these articles a bit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt replies. Yes, to be clear I am not advocating for those to be used as sources in the article, but as I don't have access to physical sources, I have had to make do with these to give me some indication about plot and styles. With your edits article is above GA requirements and am promoting it. Well done! --LT910001 (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]