Amie is a girl. Really? Igomes (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
So, I'm thinkin maybe we should take out some of the characters. The menu looks really fluffed up. What do you guys think? Styonsk (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
All-
The site looks great so far! You all are up to great start, and I might even go out on a limb to say that it's about 90% of the way to being officially publishable. A few suggestions which might be worth considering:
Some of the language could use work- no matter the subject matter, Wikipedia is supposed to be worded officially and without slang. Consider the implication if a random child stumbles upon the site searching for something else.
Consider the content of the influences/ Pop Culture/ L4D section. Explain where you got these interview-style questions and who is answering them. I imagine this section is unfinished (and the content is indeed interesting!) so do what you prefer with it, so long as it follows the Wikipedia style guidelines.
The article might benefit from a history section about the web comic, with information such as its inspiration, startup web site, and prior plot summaries. A future comics section (if you can find this information) would be a great addition as well.
I REALLY liked the information box containing the picture and the layout of the contents box. It makes the intent and flow of the site that much easier to follow and the content easily accessible.
The Characters section is a little gaudy- you could save a lot of blank space on the page and make it ea easier read if you find a way to make the characters’ names smaller and less bold. You will want to make sure that the names don’t take attention away from the section heading.
Overall you have a great start with the amount and type of content on the site. The organization and layout of the site is very intuitive so far. I would recommend sprucing up a few things, finding any other content you want to include, and organizing the sections in a more coherent manner and I think it will be an excellent addition to Wikipedia. Good luck!
Hperic (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey!
Looking over the page, it seemed very great! I also really liked the beginning part with the picture and the layout and the summary of chapters part. However, before going on to the contents I think there should be a better brief summary of what The Zombie Hunter is. Going over pages of Catch 22, Harry Potter etc would help you a lot. Since most users look at that brief summary a lot, I really think that is very important.
Also, I agree with the upper comment that the characters section is a little gaudy. Like many other book pages(as you can find out as you go over other pages of books,) describing characters a little more detailed so that users can find out how that character contributes to this book or just making a link to the site of describing characters would be better.
Moreover, adding some information regarding the style of the book and general concept of the book will be very helpful too.
I know it is still at the note stage, but I think you guys really need more information on author part too. It seemed kind of informal to me. You guys should link the author to the author page or add some more information about it.
About the Influences/Pop Culture/L4D part, it also needs more information. As the upper person has commented, telling users who have answered these questions and how it is done would make this more credible and reliable.
And the Weapon part. I cannot really find out how this part is related to this book. I see that these weapons are used in the book, but do they mean a lot in the book? If you guys wanted to help users know what these weapons are, it might be very helpful if you guys add some information about these weapons, for example, telling what these weapons are.
Overall, since it is still at a note stage, I think this page really has a big potential! If you guys add some information and fix some parts, I believe this page will become a great wikipedia page that users can get a lot of information! User: GyungHo Gyungho (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This site seems very well organized and neatly developed for production version. I also like the summary of each chapter and introduction of the characters in this comic. However, I believe it will be even better with a few revisions. One of the few things that I would like to see in this page is little more in-depth view of characteristic of this comic. I think you should have information of Zombie Hunter regarding their official publisher's name, where they are regularly posted, or even types of different viewers.
Also, I agree with your statement that some of characters need to be taken off from the list and add more detailed explanation with remaining only main characters.
Moreover, since the Zombie Hunter is a comic, I think it will be nice provide some kind of rating or review scores. If possible, find the link where it provides general review and what experts say about this comic.
In conclusion, I believe this page has really good potential to be great Wikipedia article. I really like how this page is laid out and I also like the idea to add interview of author of ZOmbie Hunter. Great work!
The site seems to be coming together well. However, there are I do have some suggestions after reviewing the posts. The introduction seems way too short. Maybe a broad insight into the story line or more general information about its purpose or anything just give it some substance. I also did not understand the purpose of the Influences/Pop Culture/ L4D section. I know you were trying to state that the comic is original, but it may be better to put in the introduction.
The character section of the site seems a bit bare. You may want to include more specific analysis of the characters such as them being dynamic/flat/dynamic, their morals etc. Two specific characters I would that really stood out as needing work are Jasper Reyes and Amie. Some of the descriptions also included terms that were unfamiliar to me such as: Necrobiology and the Red Halo Council. Just a simple explanation or definition would suffice. The names under the Authors/Credits should also be capitalized. The weapons section also seemed a bit out of place and maybe should be moved before the summaries. I thought the chapter summaries were good, but I wasn't sure if they comprised the entire collection or if they were only a small amount. I know it may be difficult but I would add a few more references if at all possible.
Overall, I thought the article was well structured. It just needs a little tweaking.
Williasa (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey! So far this is a great site. Very well organized and addresses things that similar sites on similar topics would address. I know its the beginning stages and its not the most detailed on everything but its really great so far. I like the photo on the side. But, the most important part of wikipedia pages is the short introduction section because it gives a brief overview of what the topic is and most people dont read past that and so that part should be well done and intriguing to made the reader continue with the page. Also, you should eventually go into more detail about the different characters. The different chapters seem pretty complete. I really don't have much to say because you guys are on a great track and there is almost nothing wrong with your page. Great job so far! Tehayes (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This was made to be a rough draft, and it looks like the authors’ aim was to do an initial sketch of the page and go back later to fill in the gaps of information and clean up the writing. For this reason, I’ll offer suggestions on what the next steps might be rather than assess the quality of what is already there.
The introduction must be very clear in explaining what Zombie Hunters is. I don’t know anything about the comic, so some questions the introduction might want to answer are: When was it written? Does the series continue to be updated? Who follows the comic?
The descriptions of the characters are now rough drafts and they will need to be written in a more professionally. Probably not all of them will require more information than is already there, but if there are a handful of main characters, they should be given longer descriptions. Also, not all of the names will need to be accompanied by pictures, but it will help of the main characters are given pictures.
The authors can look at other comic pages on Wikipedia to get some ideas for more possible sections of the article. For example, the “Blondie” comic page on Wikipedia has a section for “running gags.” Can a similar section be created here?
One new subsection could be called “common themes.” This group did a good job of researching the content of the chapters, and they can use the information they collected. Maybe these chapter descriptions can be gleaned for common themes. The different themes can be subsections of the article. This way, the group can provide a picture of what the comic is about without using a format that looks like Sparknotes. This will also shorten the article to an appropriate length. Many readers will not be able to get through all of that summary.
Lastly, the authors will have to explain the comic’s jargon. For instance, I don’t know what it means that the character, Charlie, is a half-life.
The picture in place is good! I’m sure other pictures will compliment this article well since it is about a topic that involves lots of illustration.
Lmontini (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with most of the comments from your peers above. The one thing I'd re-emphasize is the list of criteria for 'featured articles' in Wikipedia; these are the criteria I'll be using to evaluate the final version of your entry. Is the entry well-written, compelling, and easy to read? Are there aspects of the topics that haven't been explored in the entry or linked to other entries in Wikipedia? Are you drawing from a variety of types of sources (e.g., personal/organizational/educational webpages, newspapers, journals/magazines, books, etc.) throughout your entry? Have you formatted your entry to look similar to existing Wikipedia entries on similar topics? If you're incorporating images, do you have the appropriate permissions to post those files? These are the kinds of questions I'll be asking of your final version of this entry. Pmedward (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)