Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revival (comics)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2017 [1].

Revival (comics)[edit]

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the comic book Revival, published by Image Comics between 2012 and 2017. It passed GA in June 2017 and has been stable since. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • The infobox image requires ALT text.
    • done.
  • In the lead, identify who described the comic as "a rural noir" and add the source that supports this quote.
    • I revised it to "described by its creators as". The citation in in the Early Inspriation section.
  • In the "Plot summary" section, do you think you should include a link to Wausau, Wisconsin? It is linked in the "Production" section, but the place is first used in this section so I would move the link up here.
    • Done - the sections got shuffled during GAR, and I didn't catch this. Thanks.
  • I would put the acronym CDC in parenthesis directly after Center for Disease Control, just to make it absolutely clear that the acronym is referencing this.
    • done.
  • In the phrase (referred to as "creeps" in Seeley’s scripts), clearly identify Seeley with his full name and a short descriptive phrase and link him. Remember that the lead and the body of the article should be treated separately so things linked in the lead will have to be linked again in the body of the article.
    • done.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Early inspiration" subsection, please fully introduce Norton with the full name and add a link.
    • done.

Great work with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support it. I hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Corrections made, thanks for the input. My day's been quite nice so far, and I hope yours has been as well! Argento Surfer (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your quick responses, and my day is pretty good so far. This was a very interesting and enjoyable read. I will support this for promotion. Good luck with the rest of this process. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:RevivalComic1.jpg: The image use makes sense in the context of the article, and all aspects of the Non-free media information and use rationale box are fully completed to explain the rationale for the image.

This is a very easy image review as there is only one image used in the article at the time that I am writing this. I believe that passes the image review. If any additional images are added to the body of the article during the nomination, I will update this and review those image as well. Either way, wonderful work. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am currently seeking a good interior image to show Norton's style, what a "glowing man" is, and at least one member of the cast. I will ping you when I locate one. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me; thank you for letting me know and good luck with your search. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your assessment that I think the second image is the best out of the four as it is a single image. However, I think any of them will work fine in the article. Just make to sure to connect it in with the article/critical commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 1989[edit]

  • "originally published" I would remove the first word.
  • done
  • The format is ongoing? The lead said it ended.
  • In comics, Ongoing series is a format distinct from a limited series. Even though the story has been ended, it was not planned to have a fixed number of issues.
  • I would put square brackets around ...
  • done
  • Who's "letterer Crank!"?
  • "was announced February 12, 2014 and released May 2014"
  • not sure what the issue was here, but I've specified the date as May 28 and added the word "on" before both dates.
  • "In January 2013, a group of retailers who commission exclusive "Phantom Variant" covers to provide additional attention to series they believe deserve more support selected Revival to be part of the project." This sentence doesn't sound right.
  • I've reworded it to "In January 2013, the Phantom group, retailers who commission exclusive covers to provide additional attention to series they believe deserve more support, selected Revival to be part of the project." I agree it's clunky, but there's not an article for the Phantom group and their mission statement is hard to summarize. Other suggestions are very welcome.
  • "Because of the declining sales, Seeley expressed skepticism about doing a project of similar length in the future" You're missing something.
  • Clarified, hopefully.
  • "A fourth hardcover collecting the rest of the series is scheduled for release in June 2017." It's August now.
  • It was released in June. Updated.
  • "8.1/10" I'd change the slash to "out of".
  • done
  • Kois described Norton's art as "wonderfully specific and evocative of the rural Midwest"
  • Added a period.
  • "Tonic found the subtle background detail added to her understanding of the characters." Doesn't sound right.
  • added "such as music posters and the cleanliness of bedrooms"
  • "a satisfying conclusion for longtime readers." I'd move the period.
  • "every plot thread that has been hanging out there in a satisfying manner." I'd move the period.
  • done
  • "was nominated for Best Cover Artist in 2013 and 2015 in part because of her work on Revival." In part?
  • she does covers for multiple titles each month, and Revival was one of three or four listed with her nomination.
  • "Screen Panel released four prints based on Revival October 25, 2014."
  • not sure what the concern was here - I added the word "on" before the date.

When my concerns are resolved, I'll check back. -- 1989 21:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: Thanks for the input. I believe I've addressed or responded to your concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Argento Surfer: When you get a chance, could you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Ball (manga)/archive1? -- 1989 13:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties, not much of a comic fan, and never seen this one, but you can't knock a bit of horror-SF so happy to have a look...

  • Found the prose to be in generally good shape but let me know if I misinterpreted anything in my copyedit; outstanding points:
    • Others believe they can absorb the revivers' immortality by ingesting their flesh, leading to an active smuggling business that moves body parts of revivers and other recently dead individuals. -- just to clarify, immediately before this we're told the revivers are effectively immortal and heal from all wounds, so are we saying people like to chop off bits of revivers for profit, but the revivers heal, meaning it's a kind of gruesome win-win situation?
      • That's exactly what happens. One of the revivers died from a heroin overdose, and his suppliers keep him stoned while they continuously cut off strips of meat. Should I clarify that in the prose? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Production you say that in 2015 the creators "decided to end Revival at issue 48" but elsewhere (infobox, Publication history) it's 47 issues, with no specific explanation I could see for the reduction.
      • I wasn't sure how to address this - the source says 48, but my best guess is that either 1) sales fell further faster and they cut it short or 2) They said that before the scripts were done and it wrapped up faster than they expected. I thought about not specifying "48," but couldn't find an appropriate way to word it. Any suggestion is welcome. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article structure seems logical, and the level of detail reasonable.
  • I haven't looked at source reliability/formatting, so will withhold final judgement until that happens, but so far I'm leaning to support.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Ian Rose: - the source reliability and formatting has been reviewed below, if you'd like to weigh in or update your comments. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes http://www.cbr.com/ a high quality reliable source?
    • Comic Book Resources is one of the longest running comic news websites in the English language...
      • You may find Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches useful. Bear in mind that the FA criteria require "high quality" reliable sources, so the bar is a bit higher. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate the link, but I'm not sure how to respond. CBR has been one of the most respected sources for comic news since it was founded. Are you asking me to find a source saying CBR is a reliable source? How will you know that source is reliable? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • One way is to show that other sources use the source as a source. Or show where the editorial policies/team is. Or that non-comic sites such as newspapers/etc use the site as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if you had looked at the CBR article I linked, you'd see that it's won several industry awards for journalism. So have most of the others I linked below. That's why I linked them. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I did check the various articles. For example, for CBR - most of the awards it won were fan-based awards. And several of those are for "favorite site", not anything for their journalism. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well if most of them are, then I guess the others don't matter? The Eisner Award is not fan based. Neither is the Harvey Award. And c'mon - how could an unreliable news source win so many favorite site awards? You're picking nits here. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (Sorry for the delay, my boot hard drive died rather spectacularly and I'm just now getting sorta back to normal... ) Yes, but picking nits is what we do at FAC. Sources are arguably more important than prose, quite honestly. Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. The multiple Eisners across a number of years at least make it pass WP:RS. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://sequart.org/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's an interview with the creators.
      • Just because its an interview doesn't mean its reliable. What is the reputation of the site doing the interview, are they considered reliable? Do they have a reputation for accurately reporting things? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes? Again, I'm not sure what you want here. Interviews are primary sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • An interview is as reliable as the site/newspaper/etc putting it out. So the site/newspaper/etc needs to be reliable. There is nothing magical about some non-reliable site putting up a interview that suddenly makes that interview reliable. I can put up a site and say I've got an interview with Donald Trump, but that doesn't make the interview reliable because I wouldn't have a repuation being a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seriously? You're comparing a comic website's interview with a comic creator talking about his comic to a random Joe posting an interview with a controversial world leader? Surely there's some measure of good faith that these aren't fabrications... Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I assume GF until I meet a criteria that requires high quality sourcing. There is nothing magical about an interview that makes it reliable without some understanding of the place/person doing the interview.
                • The understanding is that they're comic news/review sites that interview creators, usually by email, then paste the conversation as an article with just enough copy editing to make it clear who's speaking. The material is being used to source exactly what the creators are saying in the interviews about how they work, not something outrageous or controversial. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Still not convinced at all on this one that the interviewer and the site meet WP:RS, much less the higher standard required for FA. The sources listed below that use it are themselves being questioned in this review... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No. I gave three examples of reliable sources using Sequart. Only one of them is being questioned in this review. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes https://www.bleedingcool.com/ a high quality reliable source?
    • Bleeding Cool is well known for following price fluctuations in "hot comics". Their articles on print runs and sell-outs are very reliable. Their head writer, Rich Johnston, has been active in comics reporting for almost 30 years.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The items below are from sources themselves being questioned in this review. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes https://www.newsarama.com/about a high quality reliable source?
    • Newsarama is also one of the longest running comic news websites in the English language...
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The one Eisner was won in 2008, 9 years ago. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • They only give out one Eisner a year, and there's lots of competition. They can't all win multiple awards. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://comicsalliance.com a high quality reliable source?
    • ComicsAlliance was one of the longest running comic news websites in the English language prior to shutting down earlier this year.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves - but at least the Eisner is recent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.thegeekedgods.com/about-us/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's an interview with the series writer.
  • What makes http://womenwriteaboutcomics.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
  • Current ref 11 needs more publication details - lacks a publisher, etc.
    • Publisher added.
  • What makes http://thegww.com a high quality reliable source? I note that it says at the bottom of the home page: "Geeks WorldWide is a community-driven organization"
    • It's an interview.
  • What makes http://blog.tfaw.com a high quality reliable source?
    • It's an interview.
  • What makes http://www.comicsbeat.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • Comics Beat is a long running Comic News website with editorial oversight.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://comichype.com/2013/04/21/comichype-interviews-tim-seeley/ is a deadlink
  • Current ref 20 (Parkin) says it's from Robot 6 but the link goes to Comic Book Resources - http://www.cbr.com/details-emerge-on-free-comic-book-day-offerings-for-dc-comics-image/
    • Robot 6 was an independent group within CBR, but has since relocated.
      • So... if the source meets the high quality standard, we need to reflect that change... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.multiversitycomics.com/about-us-2/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a news/review website with editorial oversight and was approved by the Comic project.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://hackslashinc.tumblr.com a high quality reliable source? The page says "an unofficial hack/slash fan page". I doubt it meets WP:RS much less being high quality.
    • It's being used in conjunction with other sources to claim (1)the existence of a variant cover and (2)the date news about a TV adaptation broke.
  • What makes http://www.comichron.com/index.php a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a long running comic sales reporting site, operated by someone who's been in the industry since the 80s. His figures are routinely used and referenced industry personnel and outside news agencies when they report on a comic.
  • What makes http://popculture.com/page/about a high quality reliable source?
    • Which source is this? I could not find it in a search.
  • What makes https://graphicpolicy.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's sourcing a press release.
      • See above, the criteria is "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://therealmcast.com/2012/11/12/three-image-comics-sell-out-week-of-release/ is a deadlink
  • What makes https://blackcat-comics.com/about-us/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a retailer page that defines a retailer group and their exclusive product.
  • What makes https://forbiddenplanet.com/picks/what-are-phantom-variant-comics/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a retailer, and the page is being used to show that certain items were exclusive to retailers.
  • what makes http://www.grahamcrackers.com a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a retailer, and the page is being used to show that certain items were exclusive to retailers.
      • ON all these retailer sites - they may (barely) meet WP:RS, but the standard is "high quality" at FA. For a retailer source, I'd want it to be a bit bigger retailer or a distributor. A press release from the company doing the items being sold would also likely meet the higher standard (but I'd be inclined to let other reviewers decide for themselves if it was a press release). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bigger? Forbidden Planet is an international comic retailer. Graham Crackers has 9 store fronts in the US, which is a significant size in the industry. There won't be a distributor source - comic distribution is a [Diamond Comic Distributors|monopoly] in the US, and it doesn't publicize product that's available to select retailers. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://sktchd.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's an interview
  • Current ref 45 is non-English and should note that in the citation
    • noted
  • What makes http://comicbookroundup.com/about.php a high quality reliable source?
  • What makes http://www.comiccrusaders.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a review site with editorial oversight. It's used to source the reviewer's opinion.
  • http://infinitecomix.com/revival-24-review-farms-faith-fauna/ is a deadlink
    • This website appears to have been taken down. I have removed the sourced content.
  • What makes http://insidepulse.com a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a review site with editorial oversight. It's used to source the reviewer's opinion.
  • What makes https://www.horrortalk.com/home/staff.html a high quality reliable source?
    • It's a review site with editorial oversight. It's used to source the reviewer's opinion.
      • The question then becomes - what makes these reviewers views significant? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 61 (Melrose) says it's from Robot 6 but the link goes to CBR - http://www.cbr.com/screen-panel-announces-revival-print-series/
    • See above.
  • What makes http://sciencefiction.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
    • It's sourcing the existence of a toy by way of a product announcement.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations, as everything that is flagged is quotations.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to Oppose due to the high number of questionable sources used in the article.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered explanations for the points raised. The sources may not all be the New York Times, but they're reliable sources about comic books. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern with some of these sources, and admit that I will not be able to satisfy your conditions for a large number of them. However, I believe their content is accurate and valuable. If I have to choose between removing the material or not receiving your support for FA, then I'd prefer to retain the content. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: With an oppose on sourcing, I'm leaning towards archiving this, particularly as the two supports are of the more cursory type of review that comic articles sometimes accumulate. Ian, I don't know if you want to weigh in on the sourcing (and I promise to stop pinging you soon!) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no prob re. the pinging! Yeah, this is why I generally hold off support until source and image reviews are done -- not being a comic expert I can't really weigh in on the reliability of the questioned refs, and I have to agree with Ealdgyth that the source of an interview is as important as the subject in determining reliability. Much as I'd like to support this interesting and well-written article, I can't while we have an impasse over sourcing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the tumbler source
  • ComicsAlliance won an Eisner Award for journalism in 2015.
  • Comic Book Resources won Eisners for journalism in 2009, 2011, and 2014.
  • Newsarama won an Eisner for journalism in 2008.
  • Multiversity was nominated for an Eisner in journalism in 2014 and 2015
  • Comics Beat is run by Heidi McDonald, who was also an editor at Publishers Weekly and has been recognized as reliable by other reliable sources.
  • For the SKTCHED source, the writer (David Harper) is regularly referenced by other reliable sources.
  • Bleeding Cool has been referenced by other reliable sources.
  • Sequart has been recognized by reliable sources for doing scholarly work and documentaries.
  • I never got a response on the retailer links that are being used to source facts about themselves. Are those ok?
  • sciencefiction.com has been removed
  • Graphic Policy has been replaced
  • @Ealdgyth: If the above explanations are acceptable, I'll re-evaluate the remainders on the list. The sources in the review section are sourcing the reviewer's opinions. I'm not sure I'll be able to find high quality replacements that will be comprehensive and neutral - negative opinions don't get published much when you're talking about a niche genre in a niche medium. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Graphic Policy - what were the two links to it replaced with? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two links showed how quickly reprints were announced for issues 3 and 4. (refs 29 and 30 here) They were replaced with one link to CBR, and the timeframe was removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given that there is a standing oppose on sourcing, and given the length of time that this review has been open, I am going to archive this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period and I would recommend that the nominator works with Ealdgyth in that time to clear up any remaining sourcing issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Revival_(comics)/archive1&oldid=1174824644"