Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/2008

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics | Peer review

Anarky

edit

I have significantly improved this article from the original state I found it in, from what may be considered Start to it's current Good Article status. I've completed all suggested improvements made during the GA nomination process, and have no further additions to make unless further developments are made regarding the article subject, or this peer review provides more suggestions for improvement. I would like to proceed to nominating it for FA status, but cannot do so until a peer review is provided. Please assist in adding one more article to the list of Featured Articles.--Cast (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the somewhat superficial nature of the following comments, as I have limited experience in peer reviewing articles, but I have a few observations:
  • Firstly, and most obviously, the lede needs expansion in order to meet FA criteria. At least three substantial paragraphs should suffice: see the FA-Class Captain Marvel (DC Comics) for an indication of what's involved.
  • Attribute statements. This is something that often escapes notice at GA-level but is required at this point. Statements like "Since his original debut, Anarky has been described as", "This steady evolution in Anarky's abilities was later criticized by reviewers", "In 1995, Anarky was described as having begun to train in martial arts". Who describes, which critics? Explaining in the references is not sufficient.
  • Paragraphs: The Political and philosophical themes and Absence from DC publications sections contain an abundance of one- or two-sentence paragraphs. This gives the article a staccato feel, disrupting its rhythm. Try consolidating the short paragraphs into full ones, thematically whole, to bring these sections into line with the rest of the article.
  • Critical reaction and third party sources: The article relies heavily on publications and interviews by the creators of the character, and would be greatly improved with more input from critics. The Roderick T. Long quote is good, but literary (is that the correct term) criticism would be even better. I realise this can be a difficult request to fulfill, especially for character as opposed to publication articles.
  • Some Manual of Style issues: anti-statism, years in quote boxes, Comic Cons and website names in external links are italicized without apparent reason.
  • Template:Batman is included although Anarky does not appear to be linked on it. In general, footer templates are used on pages to which they link.
  • Per WP:Quotations, "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article." This article makes ectensive use of pull-quotes; it might be useful to reappraise which quotes constitute unique or especially notable expressions and which can be assimilated into the text. Even if you decide not to work a quote into the text, consider quoting it in-line rather than with the{{quotation}} template, paricularly for shorter quotes.
Hope these suggestions are of use, best of luck with the editing! Skomorokh incite 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Gordon

edit

I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd eventually love to see this as a featured article. Barbara Gordon is a fictional superheroine within the DC Comic Universe. Originally known as Batgirl, she is now known as Oracle- the premier information broker of DC. The article has recently been promoted to GA-Class and I would like notes on how to prepare it as a Featured Article.


Thanks,

Bookkeeperoftheoccult 08:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

edit

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

*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.

    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, weren't, aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • 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. AUTO PEER REVIEW Bookkeeperoftheoccult 02:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Phil Sandifer

edit

In short, this is not a good article, and has miles to go before it is even reasonable to apply for featured article status. Its two biggest problems are problems common to articles on topics like this - it is too in-universe, and too presentist.

  • The first image should be replaced with something more classic - preferably showing her in her wheelchair. Alternatively, as the article makes the case that her portrayal as Batgirl is what she's most known for, go with a Batgirl image - it is preferable to have the iconic versions of characters over the current ones.
  • Terrifyingly too many images. I count at most six that I would keep (Her first appearance, ONE of the Yvonne Craig images, the Birds of Prey team image, the Killing Joke image, Alicia Silverstone, and any of the three animated ones, though New Batman Adventures is the clearest)
  • I'm not sure DC's internal marketing is a valid source for a claim about how the character is inspirational. In fact, the entire intro sounds a bit too... naive and doe-eyed. Critical distance is a good thing.
  • There's a 20 year gap in the publication history between the Batman TV series and attempts to popularize the character and Killing Joke.
  • It seems like a lot of Oracle material and post-Oracle material is wrongly in the Killing Joke section.
  • The muddied and shifting origin stories in the beginning both take up too much space and are too confusing. This is in-universe minutiae - how is it important to the alleged cultural icon (that's what the intro says) that in the 1980s she changed from being Jim Gordon's daughter to his niece, and then later changed to maybe sorta being his daughter? This is comics trivia, not encyclopedia writing.
  • There's also way too much trivia in the fictional history - an alternate reality Batgirl joined the Justice League posthumously? Why do I care?
  • A bunch of stuff in the War Games section has nothing to do with the War Games arc.
  • All in all, as I said, the section is too long. This is really the overall problem with the article - far too much is in an in-universe perspective and cited to the primary sources of the comics. Where are the sections on popular response among females or handicapped people?
  • For a character with a 40 year publication history, it is ludicrous for almost half of the character history to focus on the last four years. History is more than adding the plot of the latest DC crossover.
  • Many of the things in the alternate versions section appear in one issue, or, more often, one scene of one issue of a comic. This is all trivia, and should be removed.
  • Similarly, the other media section seems overly long. Does that much ever really need to be said about the Birds of Prey TV series?
  • Many of the animated series are parts of the same continuity - surely this could be collapsed into one "Diniverse" section.
  • According to the novilization of a film a character who appears in one shot is Barbara Gordon? No.

In short, the article needs a thorough refocusing away from minutiae of DC comics and continuity trivia and towards an actual analysis of someone who is, apparently, both a cultural icon and an icon for those with disabilities. Until this is done, the article should not apply for FA status, and, in fact, should not have been advanced to GA status - a problem I will rectify shortly. Phil Sandifer 14:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All issues brought up in this review have been corrected and/or are in discussion on the BG talk page and WP:GAR. I've requested this article not be de-listed as a GA. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Doczilla

edit

One thing that has always nagged me most about the Barbara Gordon article is its assertion that she has eidetic memory. When have the comics ever established that? (Honestly, she's too smart to have eidetic memory, but I do realize we're not talking about how things work in real life.) If a specific comic issue ever said that, then the assertion needs a citation. If not, don't say that. I haven't pushed this before, but if we're re-examining its GA status, this needs to be addressed. Doczilla 05:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both Secret Origins #20 (1987) and several issues of Birds of Prey (EX: Birds of Prey issue 71, by Simone and Adrian) have clearly stated that Barbara Gordon has a photographic memory. Its a very vaild longterm aspect of the character which is well cited within the article.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batgirl

edit

The article was passed rather quickly as GA. I would like a review to prepare the article for FA. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Looking very good so far. This can be a model for other comic character articles that feature multiple chararacters using the same persona (I was intending to do the same with Flash (comics), but never found enough time or resources). I actually think you can go to FAC pretty soon. Some comments:
  • Helena Bertinelli redirects to Huntress (Helena Bertinelli)
  • Many of the lines in the Bettie Kane section are phrased in a very POV way, ie. "The creation of the Batman Family, which included Batman and Batwoman depicted as parents, Robin and Bat-Girl depicted as their children, the extraterrestrial imp Bat-Mite and the "family pet" Ace the Bat-Hound, lead the Batman related comic books astray". Rephrase to be less POV, or indicate that whatever author cited holds this viewpoint.
  • Some of the paragraphs could be split for better readability. See what I did in the Bettie Kane section.
  • Start the Cassandra Cain section with her introduction, then describe the character. I'd highly recommend combining the Huntress section into this Cassandrea Cain one, as the mystery of who the new Batgirl was didn't last long (and in the long term, it isn't too notable), and was quickly replaced by Cain as part of the overarching "No Man's Land" story. Combine both Cassandra Cain sections.
You can still have it be chronological, but you should divide and combine sections properly by subtopic. For instance, look at the "Musical style" section in Joy Division. The live performance and lyrics subsections are both arranged chronologically as separate sections; the lyrics section ends with a reference to the singer's suicide, but the live performances section starts with him alive. This is fine because each section is dealing with a specific topic and is internally consistent in regards to that topic. It's a bit inconvenient to jump from Cassandra Cain to Misfit and then back to Cassandra Cain, especially since Misfit was only temporarily Batgirl. It's mroe efficient to deal with Cassandra Cain in one section, especially since there's that "main article" link. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE: The sections are merged and I made an attempt to indicate the chronological order of events in Charlotte Gage-Radcliffe's section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barbara Gordon and Cassandra Cain might be known by name by a casual fan, but Charlotte Gage-Radcliffe is a bit obscure and too recent for those who don't follow Birds of Prey. Possibly retitle the section "Misfit".
    • Comment: I understand your point but I don't believe it makes that big of a difference. Few people, even regular readers of DC know Bette Kane by name either (neither as Bat-Girl or Flamebird). I also think it would break the layout of the article since all other characters are mentioned by their civilian names. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some prose fixes that should be done, but I'll tackle those once you do further work on the article. Let me know how it goes! WesleyDodds (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get to it now. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't need the dates in the character headers. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might want to check out GoogleScholar. There must have been studies conducted from a feminist point of view (female archetypes of every kind seem to be subject to feminist studies). I also see discussion of Barbara as a librarian (more suited for her article, but maybe make a mention here?). Is there enough material to have an Influences section? Maybe flesh out a few more details on the TV/movie Batgirls too? indopug (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There is very little if any critical analysis on Barbara Gordon, let alone the batgirl character as a whole. It took me about a year to gather as much information as I did on Barbara and that took going through every search engine known to man- including google. There is mention of Barbara impact on pop culture in her article, but im not sure if it is enough to devote a section in this article. I'll see if I can add it to the other media section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a cultural impact section similar to Batman's article. As I find more resources, I'll add information to the section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons comics

edit

I have listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten most of the article and now I need feedback on how to improve it further. Also, what grade on the assessment scale would you rate it (the article looked like this before I began working on it and it was rated Start-class back then).

Thanks, TheLeftorium 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty damn good to me. We haven't got an A-Class review process in place at the moment, but I'd suggest you request a GA review. Personally I think you may be able to go straight at FL status, but I'm not familiar with the criteria. The only issues the automated peer review came up with that may be relevant are:

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

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, and bloody good work, Hiding T 13:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Stick

edit

I've been working to bring this article up to speed, particularly with regards to references and real-world context. Traditionally, it (and especially its related sub-articles) have gotten bogged down in lengthy plot regurgitations, and I'd like to see if I've managed to stem that on the main article before I start working on the sub-articles. I'd like to see this go all the way to Featured Article--right now, the only FA on webcomics is Megatokyo--so any help you could give would be appreciated. Thanks --Ig8887 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrooge McDuck

edit

This article has a lot of potential but really needs some feedback from objective editors. The more details the better, would really appreciate it. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good start but it need a lot of more work.

  • The hole article need to be referenced with reliable sources.
  • The lead should be a summery of the article. For example the discussion in the third paragraph is not mentioned in the body of the article.
  • The Money Bin should either be merged or the template be removed.
  • I think the names in "Also known as" in the infobox should be removed. He have lots and lots of nicknames used in a few stories, "The Master of the Mississippi" etc etc. "Uncle Scrooge" would be suitable here, maybe "The Richest Duck in the World" too.
  • "Comics history" is unbalanced. There are a lot of text about "Voodoo Hoodoo" and "Trail of the Unicorn", minor characters and things like his private airplane while more impotant stories like "Only a Poor Old Man" and "Back to the Klondike" is just mentioned in one sentence. Also more important characters like Flintheart, Beagle Boys and Magica de Spell are mentioned very briefly or not at all, same with things like money bin, number one dime etc.
  • The transition from supporting to main character when "Uncle Scrooge" was introduced in 1952 should be clearer.
  • More information about the time after Barks is needed.

Skizzik (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comics Guaranty LLC

edit

I was concerned that this article was strongly POV. I have tried to rework it to include criticism, but in a more neutral manner. I've finally completed what I think is a satisfactory draft of the article, but I would like to invite fresh eyes to take a look at it. Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Peer_review/2008&oldid=427542811"