Talk:This Man... This Monster!

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:This Man... This Monster!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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)

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. 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)

• Fixed the grammar errors.
• Unclear what you're indicating with "Consider "Ben's desire to restore his human form..."
• 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.
• 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 don't understand what you mean by an image not being approved for fair use.
• 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.

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