Talk:This Man... This Monster!/GA1

GA review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 18:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 14:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a relatively new topic for me and I feel this article is worth looking at as an introduction for me. I will complete a review as part the May 2025 Backlog Drive. simongraham (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First, some general comments
Overall, this is a well-written article.
It is of reasonable length, with 1,407 words of readable prose.
The lead is appropriately long at 292 words.
Authorship is 84.3% from the nominator with contributions from 20 other editors.
Marcus Brute turned the article from a redirect in 2010, although without references. Less than 10% of this content remains.
It is currently assessed as a B class article.
"The Galactus Trilogy" is a duplicate link although I feel in a way that is consistent with the MOS.
Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text to the images for accessibility.
Similarly suggest moving Lican & Rizzo 2002, Morrow 2007, and Weiner 2008 to the same format as the remaining books for consistency.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- The writing is generally clear and appropriate.
- I think "a" is redundant in ""This Man... This Monster!" considers what makes someone as a monster" and that "a" or "the" is missing from "with football star".
- Consider "Ben's desire to restore his human form, redemption of villains through sacrifice, and the nature of exploration and introspection."
- I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed.
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Sources are principally books from reputable publishers, one article from Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics and another from The Jack Kirby Collector.
- Please confirm that the websites AIPT and Multiversity Comics are reliable.
it contains no original research;
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
- Spot checks confirm 2a, 13, 14 are used appropriately. 19 seems superfluous.
- AGF Wolk 2021 as I do not have access to it.
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 9.9% chance of copyright violation. The highest overlap is titles in Wolk, which is not a concern.
- "a loose continuation" is exactly how Wilding describes Fantastic Four: Full Circle, although I am not sure if this is also contra-NPOV as is presenting opinion as fact.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- The article seems comprehensive, although it assumes the reader knows who "Ben" is from the beginning. To a person new to Marvel comics, this could be confusing. Suggest a first sentence introducing "Ben" as Benjamin Grimm and The Thing with some context.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article feels a good summary.
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced including informed opinions on the story (pace AIPT and Multiversity Comics).
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The infobox image has an approved fair use tag.
- The other image has not been approved for fair use.
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The images are appropriate. Would it be appropriate to add one of Kirby or Lee?

@Thebiguglyalien: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the grammar errors.
- Thank you.
Unclear what you're indicating with "Consider "Ben's desire to restore his human form..."
- This is the list of "previous ideas introduced in Fantastic Four in the lead. It could be simply adding a "the" before redemption, but I am sure you can think of more fluent ways of wording this.
  - Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AIPT and Multiversity are both comics news sites with editorial teams, and they're only being used to cite the existence of a work and its relation to this one.
- I suggest that the claim that it is a "loose combination" is potentially controversial and that, to be compliant with the GA criteria, the claim needs to be backed up by reliable sources.
  - It's cited to two professional journalism and criticism websites that have editorial oversight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead introduces Ben as "Benjamin Grimm, known as the Thing, a member of the superhero team the Fantastic Four whose body is made of stone". Does it need more?
- I feel that is sufficient for the GA criteria.
I don't understand what you mean by an image not being approved for fair use.
- I believe that there is a requirement for the fair use to be confirmed by a patroller or administrator. In the tag, it states that, once they confirm that the image "has an appropriate rationale", they should "append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template." This has not been done.
  - To my knowledge, there is no requirement that every non-free image be approved before being used, and that would be a very demanding system that would require regular attention on par with WP:NPP. I believe this is simply a matter of minimizing the template instructions once they've been completed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to add images of the subject itself, and then only add images of incidental things like authors if most of the article is still image-less.
- That sounds very sensible.

simongraham, here are my replies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Thank you. Responses above. simongraham (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham, replied. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: That seems reasonable too me. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.