Talk:Time (xkcd)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

General

• No copyvio/dablink/external link issues
• The prose reads very well and complies with the MOS. Good job!

Lead

• Mind adding who Randall is?
  • What kind of information exactly needs to be added? xkcd is his most well-known work. I could say something along the lines of "Time" is the 1,190th strip of cartoonist Randall Munroe's webcomic xkcd," but that seems more like added clutter than additional information, as "cartoonist" is implied. ~Mable (chat) 12:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• Perhaps you should place a citation at the end of each para so that it does not attract cn tags
  • I'm not sure what the point would be besides cluttering. I could refer to specific pages, but that wouldn't really make the section any less original research. ~Mable (chat) 13:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Backstory and development

• In an interview with Rolling Stone,...something "in between" I feel this is somehow at the very base of the comic, so perhaps it should come earlier in the para.
  • I changed that section around a bit so the development section actually begins with the strip's conception. Good call :) ~Mable (chat) 13:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• but fans named it "Beanish" Any idea why it was called so?
  • Honestly, no idea. Haven't been able to find that out with a few Google searches. I may try again later. ~Mable (chat) 12:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... my nitpicks have been addressed where proper, and the article is already in such a great shape. I can hardly see a flaw. Happy to promote :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and the faith in it! I know that it isn't quite FA-class yet, but as I thought, it meets all the GA requirements. I'm very thankful for your look at it :) One step closer to the first webcomics-related Good Topic! ~Mable (chat) 11:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Kudos to you! Why don't you request a peer review? It has got the stuff for an FA. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think its plot section needs a lot of work for that, and I'm simply not interested in editing plot. I've gone through it once and that is more than enough for me :p ~Mable (chat) 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no expertise in this type of articles but it is no doubt GA-standard, PRs get you more editors from the field :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)