Talk:Arthur Adams (comics)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk · contribs) 21:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: See below

Sourcing: See below

Coverage: No issues

Neutrality: No issues

Stability: No issues

GA Result: On hold for seven days

"His father was a loadmaster in the United States Air Force, and as a result, his family, which would eventually include four younger brothers"..... maybe Adams and his parents and four younger brothers would read better. If his brothers' names are known, I'd include them.

Career

"Reviewing the first issue for Amazing Heroes, R.A. Jones, who was not fond of the writing, said, however" is a bit of a mouthful. Try something like "In a negative review of the first issue for Amazing Heroes, R.A. Jones wrote"

"Although the Legend imprint ceased in 1998, Monkeyman and O'Brien continued to appear in print, sometimes in crossover stories with other comics characters, as in Savage Dragon #41 (September 1997) by Erik Larsen, and Gen¹³/MonkeyMan and O'Brien (1998), both published by Image Comics, the latter of which Adams wrote and drew for Wildstorm Productions" needs to be sourced
The portion after "In 1996 Dark Horse Comics published Art Adams' Creature Features" needs to be sourced

I implemented all the changes you recommended except these two:

RE: Longshot and X-Men I thinking calling it a "negative review" is a characterization, which would violate WP:NPOV/WP:NOR. The fact that the reviewer liked the art so much that he considered it a saving grace for the book makes such a characterization complicated. Distinguishing the reviewer's reaction to the writing from his reaction to the art, I think, clarifies this for the reader. What do you think?
RE: 1990s monster and creator-owned work Any creative or narrative work, such as a film, TV episode, book, etc. can be its primary source for its content and credits, as indicated by WP:FILMPLOT, WP:TVPLOT and WP:BOOKPLOT. The material in question pertains to the books' credits, which is all detailed in the credit areas of those books, which indicate who created them. Am I misunderstanding these guidelines?