Talk:Joker (character)/GA4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Looks like a good article. However, I noticed that there are many fair use images in the article (which I do not have a problem with per se). When I navigated to the image pages, the rationale was very unspecific: "Illustration of a specific point within the article." So I am placing it under a second opinion for a more experienced reviewer. The pictures look useful, but someone needs to change the image rationale to be more specific as to why its use is important. Also, some general statements need to be be specified or cited, especially in the lead—such as "The antithesis of Batman in personality and appearance, the Joker is considered by critics to be his perfect adversary." Would also greatly benefit from a critical reception section.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): See note about generalized statements c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Needs critical reception section b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
  • Comments:
    • Regarding the question about fair use images, pursuant to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, each image page must have "...a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item...presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use." So, yes, "Illustration of a specific point within the article." is a general rationale, not a specific one.
    • Similarly, in accordance with that above criteria, each image must be used for a specific purpose (e.g. not for decoration) "...its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
    • Regarding the point about the citing something in the lead, because the lead should only be a summary of the body of the article everything in it should already be referenced in the body. As such, per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lead should not be necessary or required (exceptions being quotes or contentious material about living persons). Is this "...considered by critics to be his perfect adversary" sentence an adequate summary of referenced/verifible material from the body? If so, then there is no need to duplicate the citations here. If not, then there may be deeper problems. --maclean (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Maclean25: @BenLinus1214: It has nearly been two months since any progress has been made here. On what topic would you like the second opinion? Thanks. — Yash! [talk] 05:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • BenLinus1214 asked for a second opinion on the images. I, therefore, provided my perspective on it. You are welcome to provide another perspective. maclean (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Status report needed: BenLinus1214, it has been nearly three months since you last posted to this page, the same day you created the review and called for a 2nd opinion. The second opinion has long-since been given, a great many edits have been made to the article, including by the nominator Darkwarriorblake, though I see no sign that the requested "Critical reception" section has been added. Where does this nomination stand now, and Darkwarriorblake, please be sure to respond on this page to any points that BenLinus1214 raises. There needs to be progress made here; my thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset-My two main points (the critical reception section and the fair use rationale on the images) do not seem to have been addressed. I would be happy to see Darkwarriorblake's responses to the criticisms, but at this point, I would be tempted to fail it because the issues have not been met. BenLinus1214talk 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I took a look at the images. There already is a critical reception section showing stuff about his independent notability and fandom, it is part of the Popular Culture section. I can literally not expand it more than it is, I've been working on this article for years, I've spent my own money on books just to be able to add information, I can't find more detailed critical reception information or I would add it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Darkwarriorblake here. After reading Cultural impact section it seems to me that it has covered adequate amount of detail about critical reception.--Chamith (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: You've addressed the images nicely. And also, after taking a greater look at the cultural impact section, it does give a good indication of critical reception. @Maclean25: or others--any other concerns before passing? BenLinus1214talk 17:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading through quickly this appears to be a well developed article covering the aspects that most readers would be looking for. It's well detailed and well sourced. My quibbles would be, given the detail of the main body, that the lead could be built up per WP:Lead to match the coverage; that, per WP:Caption, the image captions could be more succinct; that inline citing could be more precise in places (such as the sentence "The Joker is considered one of, if not, the most-recognizable and iconic fictional characters in popular culture (Batman's arguable equal), one of the best comic villains, and one of the greatest villains of all-time." which has five cites at the end of the sentence, making if more difficult than it could be for the reader to check on individual parts of the sentence - such as being arguably Batman's equal); some sentences could be clearer (I am unsure what "Though many have been related, a definitive backstory has never been established for the Joker" means; should it read: "Though a number of backstories have been given, a definitive one has not yet been established for the Joker"?); and I would question the WP:PERTINENCE of some of the images, such as the two actors bottom right, given that this article is not about them, and the images are not of them portraying the Joker. But these are not issues raised by the reviewer, and each reviewer will have a different focus. Based on the reviewer's concern regarding broad coverage, my view is that the article meets that. Regarding the reviewer's concern regarding non-free content, I feel that there are rather a lot of non-free images - does four images convey the Joker's image better than one? The guideline suggests: "An item of non-free content that conveys multiple points of significant understanding within a topic, is used in preference to multiple non-free items where each conveys fewer such points." I would argue that the the first appearance image conveys all that is needed to portray the visual appearance of the character, and could be used as the lead image, and the concept sketch is also encyclopaedic - the other two images, Alex Ross's drawing, and the cover of Batman 251 are not necessary once you have those two images. But this is a debating point, and others may hold differing views. It would be useful to get a non-free expert to look the article over before listing. As regards citing the lead. This can often come down to a matter of opinion - frankly, if someone suggests a statement may need citing I don't see the value of not citing it. Sure we don't want a sea of blue, such as at the end of the "The Joker is considered..." sentence, in the lead, but we also want to help the reader to be reassured that the details in the lead are reliable and accurate - asking them to search through the main body containing over 7,000 words for the relevant cite to a statement in the lead, is perhaps a little unrealistic and perhaps mean spirited. The question here is one of balance. A few well placed and appropriate cites in the lead would not look unaesthetic (which is the concern), but would be helpful to the reader. But, again, this is a matter of opinion, and shouldn't be cause to hold up listing.

In conclusion: get a non-free expert to look at the question of the non-free images; if that's OK, and there are no more concerns, list the article. The quibbles are mostly matters of opinion - which will differ from reviewer to reviewer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork:, thanks for your extensive feedback. I believe I've addressed your points, or attempted to at least. I've expanded the lead, I've broken up the cites about his reception and added them to the lead where applicable, and I had the images reviewed at NFC, where they were considered appropriate. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@BenLinus1214:, letting you know i've addressed issues. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: @SilkTork: That's great. I'm not sure how passing works in this situation—because I asked for a second opinion—but I definitely say pass at this point. Do I (or can I) pass it? BenLinus1214talk 23:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
BenLinus1214, you're the reviewer, and the second opinion has been given. It's up to you to decide; you can certainly pass it at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I think it meets the criteria now. Pass. BenLinus1214talk 03:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Joker (character)/GA4"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA