Talk:The Sadhu

Revision required

I am currently reading the comic books and I will contribute to the page. This page directs to The Sadhu, the comic book series and hence it is not the page for the fictional character. Summaries of the issues are not acceptable within wikipedia. I would direct you to the page that says so but I don't remember exactly where it is.

Uncanny X-Men has over 400 issues. Do you think it is feasible to write an issue summary for each one? We have to be consistent in wikipedia and thus what is the rule for one article must remain the rule for all.

Superfluous statements are unnecessary and the plot summaries must be concise. Observe the pages of Uncanny X-Men, Superman, Batman and other comic book series and follow the guidelines there.

REFERENCING IS PARAMOUNT. Every single fact that is mentioned needs to be referenced even if it is obtained from the comic book. Any online source is also deemed acceptable as long as it is from a verified source (i.e forums, personal blogs etc are unofficial and hence unacceptable).

On a personal note, this series is amazing. I'm very impressed by it but it is very challenging for the average comic book reader. It is necessary that wikipedia explain and assist in any way possible. Zuracech lordum 23:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Feedback from Freedom Skies

Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been keeping busy in real life and have been keeping away from Wikipedia for sometime now.

I've read the article twice. I could not find anything wrong at all except one dead wikilink and the very important "Film adaptation" statement supported by an insufficient citation. I've edited to correct both these minor flaws.

I wanted to see for myself the amount of work that has been recently put in the article and I decided to take a look at a few diffs. This diff, in particular interested me.

It is also obvious that you like the series but it does not manifest in the form of a WP:NPOV violation in terms of language and content. In it's finished form this section is very balanced and might have been used as a selective quotebox in case of a misguided enthusiastic supporter wanting to propogate the series.

The amount of work that has been put in the article is commendable and the article will pass a Good article review in my opinion.

Regards,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  05:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The images need fair use rationales or the article will be quick-failed. Look to other GA/FAs for examples. --Nehrams2020 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Working on it. Have experience with that happening before. Zuracech lordum 18:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Zuracech lordum 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ISBNs required

This if frankly ridiculous. The references are more than what most other pages for comics have. Storm is said to be a good article for comics but that page does not list a single ISBN tag. It's virtually impossible to find unless you own the copy and my copies are not with me as I'm inside a foreign university and I bought it when I went back home.

It should be removed. There's a limit to which I will go research and assist in developing the article. Fair-use rationale is acceptable, references backing up the conclusions is necessary but this is really a bit too much. I've added the ISBN for the first one, I'm not bothering with the rest. Zuracech lordum 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The current citation pattern, according to Harvard referencing is acceptable. Verification according to these lines can be done easily when the publishers, publishing date, authors and contributors are known. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: no. Lead needs expansion per WP:LEAD. There is a 1-sentence section (Film adaptation). Please try to expand/incorporate elsewhere.

2. Factually accurate?: Uses, at least at one instance, a blog as a reference. Usually blogs are not considered as reliable source. Please see WP:V. ALso, please mention all the available information (author, publisher, date etc) in all the references.

3. Broad in coverage?: Seems to be thorough

4. Neutral point of view?: seems to be NPOV

5. Article stability? ok

6. Images?: ok (all fair use)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Dwaipayan (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Specified to-do list

Please see to-do list attached

Peer review

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 11 additive terms, a bit too much.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Manual review

• Try to find out a infobox and lot of more references needed that is the first impression, i will later point out the defects later. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For the convenience of editors of this page. Zuracech lordum 10:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

From the department of redundancy department

...based on the eponymous character of the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathcliff (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicolas Cage?

The anonymous April 1st addition of "Nicholas cage will be not starring in this movie, and it might be produced by the people of 300" seems suspect. It's unreferenced, poorly phrased, and conflicts with the article's third paragraph. Also, though somewhat less importantly, Nicolas is misspelled. Nick Number (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)