Talk:John Constantine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nicknack009 (talk · contribs) 13:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at reviewing a good article candidate, and I have only skimmed the article so far, but here are a few comments based on that superficial reading.

Lead:

• Is Constantine "also known as Hellblazer"? I haven't read the comic for ages, but I don't recall him ever being referred to by that name - it's just the title of the comic.

Creation and conception:

• The photo caption says "with writer Alan Moore saying that he always wanted to create a character that looked like Sting", but this is incompatible with the text of the section (and the cited reference), which says he created Constantine because the artists wanted to draw a character who looked like Sting. Also, is it at all necessary to include Sting's middle names, or indeed his real name at all, in this caption?
• "The policy was reversed in 2011" - what policy? The stuff about Constantine appearing in Justice League Dark in 2012 seems totally out of place in a section about how he was originally created, and would perhaps be more appropriately placed in the "Other appearances" or "Other versions" sections.

Fictional character biography:

• "After the death" is inappropriate as a sub-section heading. Readers often use headings and subheadings to skim through the article, looking for a particular piece of information that interests them, and this subheading is meaningless unless you've read the preceding subsection.

Other appearances:

• Since the previous section is a "fictional character biography", with everything reconstructed into a chronology, rather than a survey of his appearances in Hellblazer, this section is not quite coherent within the structure of the article. It also needs a cleanup. Some of the points, the Oliver Queen and Shade the Changing Man ones in particular, assume a knowledge of the DC Universe and its characters that the general reader does not necessarily have, the appearance of a character who looks like Alan Moore in Hellblazer is not another appearance of John Constantine, and "mentions" are not appearances.

Hope that's something to be getting on with. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Judged on the Good Article criteria:

• • Well written: there are issues with the article structure and the level of knowledge assumed of the reader, so it fails this criterion.
  • Factually accurate and verifiable: I have raised a couple of issues of factual accuracy, so fails this criterion.
  • Broad in its coverage: pass.
  • Neutral: pass
  • Stable: Has undergone a major revision by a single editor over the course of September, and these edits seem to have been accepted without any major dispute, so that seems to be a pass.
  • Ilustrated: pass. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

* A small addition to this- there appear to be several instances of weasel words sneaking into some of the descriptions, which would need some cleanup. Also, some of the refs need to be put into the proper format of (ie, cite web, cite book, rather than bare links). Finally, the plot summaries probably need a small trim, and possibly more references (easiest to reference the trades, rather than issues to avoind over-reffing). But, I should add- this seems very close, and only needs a little more work! NOTE - I edited the related article Hellblazer to GA standard, and therefore do have a bias in this instance, and therefore have only provided advice, and not a review. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 13:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment I came across this article not knowing it was a FA candidate. Off the bat, the sourcing is atrocious (lots of fansite sourcing, incomplete reference information, dead links, and something all three in the same instance) and there's way too much in-universe information. In my opinion, this article needs a complete overhaul. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up After further examination of the article and after noting that it was nominated at GAN by an anonymous IP with only two previous edits to the article, I'd recommend a quick fail of this nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Failing per Wesley's concerns. Wizardman 00:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)