Talk:Jack Kirby/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Other editors have placed some citation required tags. These need to be fixed up.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Some concerns here I'd like to see addressed. (See below.)

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

• Ambiguous links:

1. Inbetweener
2. Jewish Museum
3. National Comics
4. The Watcher [redirects to Watcher]
5. Wakanda

• Some more things I'm like to see mentioned:

1. Some more about Captain America, especially:
   • its use of double-page spreads,
   • its influence, and
   • its sales (close to a million copies per month at one time).
   • Also, say which issues were by S&K. Or at least what the last issue was.
2. Mention S&K's work on Captain Marvel
3. DC work: Could you:
   • mention The Newsboy Legion?
   • Could you add the illo of the Boy Commandos from its page?
   • Mention the issue where Sandman, Newsboy Legion and Boy Commandos team up?
4. World War II:
   • Link frostbite, Combat Infantryman Badge, London, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal
5. Postwar career:
   • How come the births of all his children are noted with the date, except for the "kid from left field", Lisa?
6. Marvel Comics in the Silver Age
   • References required for the second, third and sixth paragraphs. Note citation required tag.
   • Mention Simon and Kirby's role in the creation of Spider-Man. (Take it from the Spider-Man article)
   • add The Avengers and Spider-Man to the list of creations.
   • Link The Inhumans. These were the back-up in Thor, replacing the Tales of Asgard before Amazing Adventures.
   • Somehow it has to be made clear that what Jack regularly drew was Fantastic Four and Thor (
   • It should be noted that FF was his longest run on any comic.
   • The article quite correctly notes that "Kirby provided Marvel's house style, co-creating with Stan Lee many of the Marvel characters and designing their visual motifs" but doesn't say what this style or these visual motifs were.
7. DC Comics and the Fourth World saga:
   • You should mention Jack's move from New York to California.
   • I'd like to see two paragraphs here expanded, especially in view of the influence of the Fourth World. The second is also pretty short.
   • Mention his war comics, work on Sergeant Fury and Our Fighting Forces.
   • Mention his magazine work, on Spirit World and In the Days of the Mob.
   • References required in this section.
8. Return to Marvel
   • Mention Captain America's Bicentennial battles
   • Mention the 2001: A Space Odyssey series, which also introduced Machine Man.
   • Despite what the next section says, Lee and Kirby were re-united for the Silver Surfer Graphic Novel, which should be mentioned.
   • References required in this section.
9. Film and animation
   • Reference required here
10. Final years and death
    • The scandal over the restoration of Jack's original artwork should be mentioned.
11. Legacy
    • Link Kirby Award
    • Something is wrong with the indenting here.

Fix this up and I'll pass the article. But I'd really like some more words on why Jack is "regarded by historians and fans as one of the major innovators and most influential creators in the comic-book medium" as the reader might not know. Something about klassic Kirby design elements, like his approach to architecture, Kirby Krackle and the Kirby Kollage would also be nice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a lot to fix; we'll do the best we can, and even if we can't quite get it to GA I think we will be able to get it far enough that we can succeed down the line on a second try. BOZ (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've mentioned to BOZ in the past that the article was not ready for GA yet. I said I would be able to help with the article, but not in the immediate future. BOZ has acknowledge the article defects, but nominated it for GA anyway. There's a lot of work to be done, but it cannot be done in the GA review period (mainly because a lot of books need to be cited, and prose needs a lot of work in places). Thus I suggest a quick fail of the article; we can try again for GA in the future when it is ready. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm willing to help as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Offer greatly appreciated! You identified any number of trouble spots which I was not entirely aware of, so I am grateful. This is an important article that is worth fixing up. I'm at a loss on exactly what I'm capable of, but you will find there are others who will be willing to help. I have pointed people towards this review, so we can use it as a good source on what needs fixing. BOZ (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I could eventually maybe work on points 7 & 8, I have some stuff on that - but if someone else wants to tackle those and I haven't done anything, that's fine.

--Scott Free (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)