Talk:Rufus Segar/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: John Desmond (talk · contribs) 19:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Krisgabwoosh (talk · contribs) 19:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Seems like an interesting article that needs a little work to get to GA. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

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.
	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, as shown by a source spot-check:
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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.

Initial comments

• The major issue I find with this article is its overuse of quotations. Per MOS:QUOTE: "excessive use of [quotes] is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, so most of the content should be in the editor's own words". The readable prose for this article is roughly 2,000 words. Of this, about 1,090 words by my count come from quoted material. That's just over half of the article. The bulk of this comes from the section covering his work on Anarchy magazine, which is a problem because this is supposedly what he's most noted for.
• I performed some minor copyedits of my own for grammar and punctuation.

Lead section

• The lead section should establish the article's notability within the first few sentences. I recommend mentioning his work on Anarchy, perhaps something like: "known for his covers of Anarchy magazine".
• Links in the lead section should be linked again on first mention in the article body. I took the liberty of populating the article with relevant links.

Early life

• I would restate the full name on first mention in the article body.
• Mention that his birthplace is in England.
• The latter half of this first paragraph is a bit repetitive – "In [year] they moved to [place]"; can it be rewritten to improve flow?
• "the age of ten or twelve years old": Use numerals for ages, unless that isn't ordinary style in British English.
• 'Illustration' should be written in lowercase.
• Remove the quote block and integrate it into the text.
• The lead section states that "He and his wife were life-long anarchists" but the article body only states that "He was to become a life-long anarchist". Does the source support that his wife was too? If so, mention that.
• Do the sources mention when Segar and Bullard were married? The lead section states that they were still dating in 1953.

Work in the private sector

• Is Hunt Partners the name of the factory? If so, it doesn't need to be italicized.
• "In 1965, Segar had published his first book": Does the source mention anything more about this?

Designing the covers for Anarchy magazine

• I mentioned earlier that this section has far too much quoted material. Let's go over each individually.
• The first quote block regards the magazine's page format. I struggle to find the relevance, unless the idea is that people liked Segar's illustrations and put them on their bookshelves because the format made them fit.
• The second quote block talks about the magazine's production process. It is too long and goes into unnecessary detail. The only relevant aspects are the fact that Segar disliked the way it was made.
• The third and fourth quote blocks are the most relevant to Segar himself. I believe you could write these in your own words, with a few relevant quotations splashed in.
• The fifth quote box in the "tributes" section needs to be significantly cut down to size.

Retirement

• "In 1992, he had published his own book": Again, is this more information on this book?
• Hythe Civic Society does not need to be italicized.
• "Working with [Segar] over the years we and our families became friends": This sentence can be cut as it is already mentioned that they became friends.
• MacSegar Press does not need to be italicized. Also, why the "[sic]" if it is not a quotation?
• "including The Cockney Alphabet (1965), Remember Hythe (1992), and On the Tip of My Tongue (1995)": Remove these from the quote, add The Cockney Alphabet to the "illustrated books" section.

Source spotcheck

• Firstly, I would consider separating the notes and footnotes using Template:Notelist. Then, you can add references directly to the note.
• [1] Dunn & MacPhee 2010, p. 119: This citation should use Template:Cite journal with "Designing Anarchy: The Graphic Covers of Rufus Segar" as the title and Signal as the journal.
  • [1a]: States birthplace and verifies quote. In addition, the source states that he was born in 1932 but does not give the precise date. This isn't an issue here, because the prose does not mention his birth date. However, the lead states that he was born 28 August 1932, which should be cited somewhere in the body text.
  • [1b]: Supports that he enrolled in 1949.
• [2][4][5][8][15][27] Poyner 2012: I don't have access to this book, so assume good faith on citations. I will note that Poyner 2012a, 2012b, and 2012c, are all different chapters in the same book. Since the chapter author is the same as the book author, there is no need to separate them and they should be condensed into a single "Poyner 2012" citation.
• [3] Segar 2015:
  • [3b]: The source doesn't support that St Asaph Grammar School is now Ysgol Glan Clwyd. The relevant article states that the school opened in 1956 in a different town, long after Segar attended school in St Asaph. I'd say change this to "attended grammar school in St Asaph".
  • [3c]: The source doesn't support that Segar "worked in a box factory, Hunt Partners in Clapton". It only states that he was a "box designer".
  • [3d][3e]: The two claims are supported in the obituary. Move the citation to the end of the third sentence rather than repeating it thrice in a row.
• [6] See Horatio Myer: I understand what you're going for, but this makes it seem like you're using the article on Horatio Myer as a citation. I'm sure you know that you can't use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. The claim preceding the citation does appear in Dunn & MacPhee 2010, p. 120, which is the next citation over; this is probably the intended source. If you want to keep the reference to Myer, you can link Horatio Myer & Co Ltd and make it a redirect to the article.
• [7] Dunn & MacPhee 2010, p. 120:
  • [7a][7b]: Both claims are supported by the source. Move the citation to the end of the second sentence rather than repeating it twice in a row.
• [9][14][16][19][25][40]: The are explanatory notes rather than citations. Use Template:Efn and add Template:Notelist. Rather than linking to the source within the note, add a citation at the end of each note.
• [10][33] Segar 1965 & 1992: These seek to affirm the claim by simply linking to the books. Better to find a citation that directly states that he published these works or at least contains a list of published books. It's probably fine as is for [33] but [10] specifically does not support the claim that the book is his first work.
• [11][12] Our History: This needs to be a full citation. Remove [11] and keep [12] rather than repeating duplicate citations twice in a row. The source supports the claims.
• [13]: This is a primary source again. Find a source that makes mention of the claims made.
• [17]: Rather than the note, you can link to the first page of the journal which states that he is the cover artist. However, that does not support the claim that he started with this issue. I'd prefer a different citation that directly states the claim rather than having to interpret it from a primary source.
• [36][37][38]: I'm hesitant to accept these. I'd prefer a source that directly states that he illustrated them. I would, at the very least, like citations to the specific page in each book citing him as the illustrator. You do this with [43] by specifically citing the page where he is acknowledged.