Talk:Wonder Woman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 18:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments:

• Neutrality issues: The lead sentence is her glorification by her creator. A rather WP:PEACOCK statement. A more neutral sentence is needed. "Arguably the most popular and iconic female superhero in comics", "the most powerful female DC Comics superhero" unreferenced POV.
• "was created by William Moulton Marston" mentioned twice in lead.
• Fix tags in the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed them. Thank you for pointing out.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 2 [1] is not reliable. Replace it with reliable source
• The first whole para is WP:original research, based on a WP:PRIMARY ref (comics).

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

COuld you please point out as to which section does the 'first para' belong or is it the intro's first para. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Personality. Had already tagged in article. Also added tags in Costume. The assertions are based on the wiki-authors' interpretation of the comics. Full review on weekend.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean to say tht I had already cited the personality section correctly or do i need to specify more? I see some original research indicators there still. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The references (being primary sources i.e. sources) do not work here. You need to replace them with WP:SECONARY sources. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have done it now. But I've used the same reference (A Comicbookresources one) everywhere expect for the New 52 part as basically I've used that resource as the reference for the mostly the whole section (new 52 part has a different citation, and image is also there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderBoy1998 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 November 2012 (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.	Fiction: jargon like "Pre-Crisis", "Post-Crisis" is used, but no information exactly it is?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	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).	Pending
	2c. it contains no original research.	No mention of "Don't Laugh at the Comics" aided Marston's hiring tags added
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	However "In other media" needs to be in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, providing a summary of both daughter articles. May be, "Alternative versions of Wonder Woman"
	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.	Several places where she is said to be "popular". Her popularity resulting in things. She being "the most competent person". seems like glorification.
	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.	The article is plagued with original research based on primary sources. Please read WP:FICTION and improve.

I will address these issues ASAP and renominate it. Hopefully it passes next time.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)