Talk:Business of webcomics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 09:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues noted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section seems to be a bit more loosely following the article structure than I normally see, for example, the second paragraph in the lead targets syndication and micropayments, while the article body brings up the topics in the other order. I'm not sure the article is optimally named. You're talking about the whole economic ecosystem of webcomic development, publication, and the like. The current title seems almost too limited in comparison to the scope of the material you've assembled.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References appear fine when they exist.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No unreliable sources identified.
	2c. it contains no original research.	A few specific fact assertions could be cited better. I can read through it with you specifically if desired.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None identified with Earwig's tool.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See my comments on scope and naming.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues noted. Now disputed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars. Dispute over POV has arisen during review process.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Appropriate
	7. Overall assessment.	Not ready to pass at this time. Please feel free to renominate when all concerns have been addressed to the satisfaction of all editors.

Other comments

• Have you any interest in recreating the Something Positive article? It appears referenced a couple of times as a red link, and I suspect that if it's discussed in RS'es to this extent that it would be a candidate for an appropriately written article, as the 2015 AfD seems pretty weak. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about creating an article on Something Positive for a while now. I may do that in the near future. It's technically not relevant to this GA process, but it's something I'm definitely interested in doing. ~Mable (chat) 09:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• As for the other comments: an alternative title, namely "Business of webcomics" (currently a redirect) is also an option. This article exclusively documents the business of webcartoonists themselves, however, and doesn't discuss businesses surrounding it. The question "how does a webcartoonist make an income?" is a popular one. I'm fine with either title, however. Furthermore, now I think about it, the paragraph on newspaper syndication fits better before the paragraphs on micropayments than after it. This fixes the issue you had with the lead section (though I did find the issue you described rather nitpicky, if I may say so ^_^;) - Lastly, I would love to know which references you would like to see improved upon. Personally, I think the weakest source I've used is T Campbell's A History of Webcomics, which has had some controversy surrounding it. I had a lot of difficulty finding any sources on online advertisement, though (weirdly enough), and I have no reason to doubt the numbers Campbell gave in his book. I'd also like to note that the SKTCHD study was picked up by Comics Alliance; see also this file. ~Mable (chat) 09:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Here are some verbatim statements that I would like to see with inline cites:

"Many webcomic artists make a good living on selling T-shirts, prints, and toys on their website."

"In 2011, Scott Kurtz started a multi-part storyline in his webcomic PvP featuring Magic the Gathering-creators Wizards of the Coast, as a form of product placement. Inspired by the paid integration of real brands in the television series Mad Men, Kurtz reasoned that his video game webcomic was already advertising various established brands anyway. Through this deal, Wizards of the Coast became an official sponsor of the webcomic for that period. "

"According to Jeph Jacques (Questionable Content), "there's no real money" in syndication for webcomic artists." (direct quote, should be cited even if it's in the ref at the end of the paragraph)

"Such services no longer exist."

Nothing terrible enough to say "wow, that's OR", but I'd really like to see things tightened up a bit, even if just by adding a few more citations to the existing references at key points. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The "make a good living on selling T-shirts, prints, and toys" line is cited to The Huffington Post. The product placement deal is entirely described in the source at the end of its paragraph. I just fixed the "no real money" quote by copying the citation. The "such services no longer exist" line is a pain to deal with. Looking at the articles on Modern Tales and Serializer, this is really clear, but I would have to find a source that directly makes this observation (something I will hopefully be able to do one day). ~Mable (chat) 08:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure it was okay if I made some edits to the intro section. I wanted to try and clean up some of the sentences and help with readability a little more. It seems that a few of the sentences make assertions that are not backed up in the sources so I wanted to try and either attribute those to a source or change up the wording. Thank you. Nickole B. (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nickole B.: That's completely alright. This kind of question is generally best done on the talk page of course, rather than a very old GA review page, btw :p — But regardless, you're completely free to improve the article ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

POV tag

I note that the article has garnered a POV tag in the middle of the review. Pinging LittleLilith to come discuss such concerns and how they relate to the GA review in progress. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I added the POV tag because this article is innaccurate in many places, and very strongly and strangely weighted towards mainstream straight white male webcomic artists. For example, when describing book publishing, the article emphasized only straight white male webcomics artists who only "sell tens of thousands of copies" of their books. I have improved the article by adding the example of female webcomic artist Raina Telgemeir who has had one of her books (Smile) on the New York Times bestseller list for almost four years and has over 1.5 million copies of that book in print. It looks like I have a lot more work similar to this that I need to do to improve this article in that specific area as well as in several other areas. LittleLilith (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  So the issue is weighting? If the RS'es predominantly cover "straight white male webcomics artists", then that's the proportion we need to cover in the article, even if there are other perspectives that don't make it into reliable sources. I love the approach of balancing the article by adding more diverse examples--keep doing that. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  I agree with Lilith in that a better balance should be struck, and I am very willing to look into the topic more closely. This is the first I hear about inaccuracies in the article, though, and I really want to know what needs to be fixed in that regard. ~Mable (chat) 08:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  Hi Jclemens. The issue is not that reliable sources only cover mainstream straight white male webcomics artists. There are plenty of reliable sources that have done a better job of covering the wide range of webcomic artists. For example, the sources I used for Raina Telgemeir were the New York Times and Heidi MacDonald of Publishers Weekly. This is a very fixable problem. LittleLilith (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  Well, as I noted on the talk page, I particularly focused on those sources that discuss the business of webcomics specifically, like the Observer Publishers Weekly, and Boston Globe articles, which all awkwardly focus nearly exclusively on male webcartoonists. Even the io9 article has a clear imbalance towards male webcartoonists. The issue with picking an interview with Kate Beaton or an article about the success of Telgemeier is that you end up cherrypicking your sources. This is fine to some degree, but really shouldn't be done too much. There's also the issue that examples aren't the best sources. Telgemeier's success in particular could easily be a one-time success that is not realistic for any webcartoonist. I'm completely fine with having her in there, as the section up to that point didn't make clear how much success someone can have with printed books (and now it does), but I don't think it's the best way to think about it. As I said on the talk page, it feels very uncomfortable to search for sources by looking at interviews with specific webcartoonists. ~Mable (chat) 15:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, Lilith, you never answered my question about inaccuracies in the article. Please expand on that if you can ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 15:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  If you follow my edits to the article, you should be able to see the many inaccuracies as I correct them. For example, there was an inaccurate portrayal of book publishing as a thing that only mainstream straight white male webcartoonists are doing, when in fact one of the most successful is a woman. I have corrected that inaccuracy. As another example, there was a section titled "Merchandise and syndication" which didn't describe syndication at all, but instead described printed books. So, I've also fixed that. There are still many other issues and inaccuracies that I will be fixing. LittleLilith (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  I guess we'll keep this review on hold for longer then while you go do that... or you could just tell me > ~ < ~Mable (chat) 18:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• It may be beyond the scope of this article, but David Harper wrote a piece that discusses the disparity of coverage between male and female creators. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  We're getting downright off-topic here, but I'll definitely give it a read. I like how it focuses on Smile, though, which also popped up here :p ~Mable (chat) 18:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  It may be relevant to the Gender and webcomics article, but I brought it up because I don't think this article should be held down for reflecting broad bias in the sources available. Since most comic-centric media and business media choose to focus on work done by men, seeking out sources with the intent to provide 50/50 coverage for men and women goes against the letter of WP:NPOV. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  That was the point I was making with the "cherrypicking" issue above. Thanks for the input, though - I'm really worried about what kind of changes Lilith has in store for this article, to be honest. The addition of Telgemeier worked out really well, though, so I'll just wait and see. ~Mable (chat) 18:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  Hi Argento Surfer. I want to reiterate that the large POV problems with this article are largely with how we are using sources, not issues with sources themselves. For example, there was a passage about printed books that was sourced to a Publishers Weekly article, "Web Comics Send Readers Looking for Books." That source talks about women webcomic creators like Raina Telgemeier and Leah Hernandez, and Asian webcomic artists like Kazu Kibuishi and Derek Kirk Kim. It's a fairly well-balanced source in accurately depicting the wide range of people who create webcomics. But we ignored those people, and only focused on two straight white male mainstream webcomic creators mentioned in the source. I want to make clear this is a huge POV issue with how wikipedia editors have been writing this article, not a POV issue with the source material. Yes, there can be bias in source material, but the bias I am seeing in this wikipedia article is much worse than what I see in sources. Again, this is a very fixable problem and I am working on correcting this. For example, I just added information about Kazu Kibuishi based on the exact same source that was already being used solely to write about mainstream straight white males. LittleLilith (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  FYI, when you say "Wikipedia editors who have been writing this article", you mean Maple. If you take a look at Maple's user page, past work, and explanations for why this page is the way it is, you may rethink some of your criticism. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  Background sometimes doesn't matter when it comes to stuff like this. I failed to account for gender imbalance in reliable sources in general and may have messed up a bit. I don't believe the article is in as bad a quality as you make it out to be, but I'm practically its sole creator, so I'm leaving the judgments to you all. I nominated the article for GA in this state because I believed it was up to standards, and that means I have to take any criticism fairly ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 20:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolution Timetable

So, I am willing to stick around and leave the GA review on hold for about a month more if people are willing to collaboratively expand it to cover the identified deficiencies. I know very little about the topic, so I will not be participating as any sort of a mediator... just popping back in to say "Are you guys ready for me to review it again yet?" periodically. Is everyone willing to make this enough of a priority so that happens? Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much of a choice. I don't know yet what other inaccuracies the article may have, but it's not like I'm gonna unfollow this page or anything. I hope it won't take a month, though! I personally do believe the article is of GA quality, and I don't think great changes are needed. ~Mable (chat) 08:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say a month may be a little too soon. I am attempting to correct very basic facts, supported by sources, like when webcomics business started, but I am having my edits undone. So, if using basic facts from sources is going to be a big of a challenge, then I can see that the process of correcting the many deficiencies in this article is probably going to take quite a while. LittleLilith (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Without unanimity here, we're simply not ready to move forward with the GA process. Renominate once things are resolved, ping me about it on my talk page, and I will boost this to the top of my list to review. With regrets which I hope are only temporary, Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sad to hear this, as I do disagree with many of Lilith's criticisms. I really do hope to be able to get consensus as soon as possible, and I'll be sure to notify you when I do... ~Mable (chat) 10:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)