Talk:Webcomics Nation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Morgan695 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking up this review. Full comments to follow. Morgan695 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Sadly, this is a well-written start-class article that fails GAR because it is a ways from meeting GACR3. The main issue here is breadth of coverage and comprehensiveness, with the article just being four paragraphs: there's nothing on the impact or legacy of the service (beyond one sentence indicating it was financially successful); the article mentions the cartoonists who beta tested the site, but does not discuss who actually used it post-launch; there's no in-depth detail on what its functionality actually was, or what services it provided (this source seems to indicate that it provided a range of functionalities, but none of this info is in the article; the parts that do allude to functionality read a bit like marketing copy, i.e. do for webcomics what services like Blogger and Flickr did for blogs and photo sharing); there's no real information about the site's closure, with the reader made to infer the factors that led to its decline through Manley's comment about the merger being difficult, etc.

It seems that generally, the service gets mostly passing references in the sources provided in the article. I see you mentioned in the nomination edit summary on the article talk page that you had difficultly finding sourced information on this topic; perhaps that, combined with the scant information you could find, is evidence that this subject is not especially notable. The article needs to be significantly expanded in scope before it can meet GA standards, so I have elected to fail it at this time, but would encourage the editor to re-nominate if the article can be sufficiently expanded to meet GACR3. Morgan695 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I avoided using the TalkAboutComics source too much, as it is a primary source, a press release. There are no reliable secondary sources currently available to further expand the article. I might look into the potential of listing webcomics that were hosted on the service, but I don't feel very confident about the potential for that. As mentioned on the talk page, there are no secondary sources talking about WebcomicsNation's closure, so this is also difficult to expand upon. I will probably make further use of primary sources to add depth to the article, though I must look out for more marketing-esque information. Either way, thank you for the review. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more question: is the "words to watch" fail purely because of the Blogger/Flickr line? This is sourced to The New York Times and describes Manley's intention with the website. I am confused how that specifically can be an issue. Are there other "words to watch"-violations I should look at? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I would love to hear what you think of the expansions I've made today. It does seem your advice is helpful, though I find myself questioning the relevance of some information and the structure of the article now... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think leaning on primary sources is fine in the GA context, though other editors may disagree. The Blogger and Flickr section reads as unncyclopedic language, so I would either quote it directly in parentheses or rephrase. The article looks expanded, but still seems very brief; I would seek a review from a different editor if you intend to re-submit for GA. Morgan695 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Again, thank you for the review. Better luck next time! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]