Talk:Pride & Joy (comics)

Pride & Joy (comics) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 19, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
November 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 13, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Moving forward[edit]

This is one of the articles that came up in discussion about possibly being the focus of an improvement drive at the comics project. I dropped A a note but thought I'd drop my quick thoughts in here as this only needs a quick polish before it can be resubmitted. Anyway my quick thoughts reading through this:

I fixed the CBR Library Award link a bit ago - for some reason when you search their site you often get a https link but, if old, the security certificate fails. Just knock the "s" off to get the right link. Done
In the reviews it says "Comic Book Resources described it as "Smallville meets Harry Potter." - I'm pretty sure they didn't, that is the solicitations page and I assume the text is straight from Marvel's press department. Done
There are numerous footnotes to the Marvel Universe - this is Marvel's own wiki and I am not really sure it can be treated as a reliable source. I'd usually just add a link to the group in the external links section. Done
I am unsure what the link is supposed to be for this source but it is currently linking back on the article edit page "Wallace, Dave (2007-07-27). "Runaways v1 HC Review". Line of Fire. Retrieved on 2008-11-04." Done
Reviews seem thin - once you knock out the Marvel solicitation text there aren't many high profile sites in there. Comics Bulletin is always good for reviews and they have a lot for this run [1] as well as the hardcover Done
If we can find the numbers, a reception section could do with the direct sales estimates, which are a reasonable indication of level of sales in recent years. I can rummage together links to cover the run of this title so we should be good here. I'll dig them out. Done
There doesn't seem much book, newspaper or scholarly study. There might not be any (or they could be more general) but it'd be worth a look. Gogle Books (seems to be returning the trades), Google Scholar (the self-mutilation paper could be interesting)
Just double check the main sites I tend to use, for more material: Newsarama [2], Comic Book Resources [3] (just remember the https issue from above) and Comics Bulletin [4] (mainly the reviews I flagged but worth a dig), Broken Frontier [5] (unfortunately the page title returned in the search is uninformative), Wizard Universe [6]. If only to make sure you've exhausted all the angles.

Anyway that is what occurred to me as I skimmed through it. Hope that helps - the top 6 points can be easily sorted out (and I suspect are important for getting the GA), the last two are a bit of a quick check with a view to longer term improvement. (Emperor (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Direct sales estimates:

Runaways #1 25,833 (84) [7]
Runaways #2 23,328 (88) [8]
Runaways #3 20,778 (101) [9]
Runaways #4 20,246 (113) [10]
Runaways #5 19,332 (114) [11]
Runaways #6 20,035 (110) [12]

Pretty steady sales, respectable but not stellar numbers but not the usual big drop off after the first issue and it stabilises at #3 which is enough to stifle talk of cancellation.

When you want some eyes prior to renominating then drop me a line. (Emperor (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I haven't had a look at this one yet, but do you think all the issues from the previous GA and anything from the peer review have been resolved? BOZ (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sales info! It helps a lot. As a side note, I've noted the links that lead to the Marvel's own wiki. The thing is, an edit must be approved and factually checked before it is added to a Marvel-wiki article. But if it's still not reliable source, I'm willing to search for another one. Right now, I'm attempting to expand the review section with some reviews from Comics Bulletin - again, thanks. -- A ^talk/_contribs 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis, including Wikipedia, are generally not considered to be reliable sources, unless there is some kind of special case. BOZ (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We don't use the Marvel Universe wiki as a source anywhere else that I'm aware of and I'd remove it if I saw it but thought it worth flagging here. This as the first external link is sufficient. If you want to use it then it'd need a consensus change and you'd have to raise it over at WT:CMC. I'd also not use a table for the characters - it isn't tabular data, WP:WTUT. (Emperor (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'd query "The issue sold an estimated 20, 035 copies, a significant improvement from the previous issue" - it gained 700ish sales which isn't really significant. The sales were relatively stable for the last four issues after dropping about 20% from the first issues. (Emperor (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Done[reply]

Things are coming along but there is a problem with one of the links - this is not the Eisner Awards but a review at IGN:

"a b "The 2006 Eisner Awards: Master List". Comic-Con. 2006-09-11. http://comics.ign.com/articles/909/909266p1.html. Retrieved on 2008-09-14."

Done

Other than that, and the image which seems to have disappeared with no warning, I think it is nearly ready to go up for GA review. (Emperor (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I had another look through things and it is looking pretty good - sourcing the characters to IGN's Runaways Guide is a good move and helps keep the referencing from independent secondary sources. (Emperor (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, only been on Wikipedia a few weeks so bare with me if I missed something or I seem dense! It's a good article so far, and the only thing that jumped out at me was under the 'Style' section, about Adrian Alphona. The part about being a newcomer...something about that reads as 'off' to me. Is it that he was pushed as an 'official Marvel Newcomer' of some kind? Or that there was buzz around him such that announcing him as artist would add appeal to the book? Other than that, great stuff. Alonsornunez (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch - looking at it now I can't work out what it means either. (Emperor (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It only occured to me that the second portion of the "production" section seems off when you think of it; should it be pushed to it's own section, or should I merge bits of it in the "characters" section? -- A ^talk/_contribs 02:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine - the section is effectively the publication history, which includes character developments, etc.

Reading through it all seems fine and looks good. Now all we need is a GA review ;) (Emperor (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yep, this is one of the longest waits I've seen! Although, there are a number of similar articles pushing the one-month mark, and the oldest one on the page is from Feb 25! Patience, my son. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your wait is over :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just about... I'm not counting my chickens yet. :) BOZ (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah, no kidding. Well, this article's come a long way. -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you've done good work! I think this one will succeed where it did not, six months ago. BOZ (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pride & Joy (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pride & Joy (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pride & Joy (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708180558/http://comicsnexus.com/2004/05/07/8353/ to http://comicsnexus.com/2004/05/07/8353/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]