Wikipedia:Peer review/DC Comics/archive1

DC Comics[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because as the publishers of such major characters as Batman and Superman, it has potential to go all the way to FA. It needs some work, particularly with sourcing, so let's take it one step at a time. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana boomer

This article definitely has the potential to go all the way to FA, but needs quite a bit of TLC on its way there. As you said above, probably the biggest problem is sourcing, so let's start with that. The biggest thing to take care of are the various tags (at least 8 that I counted). Then go on to making sure that all specific facts, statistics and potentially controversial or likely to be questioned statements are referenced. You've been through the GA process before, so you probably know what to go through for that, then times it by 10 for the FAC requirements (in general). For places to look, I would suggest going to your local library (either a good public one or a university if you have one nearby), and using both their on-shelf collection and the inter-library loan system. I did a quick Google search, and in a short amount of time came up with these three books that looked like they might be helpful:

Also:

Ref #2 (Comic Book Publishers) is an About.com search results page, which is not reliable; also, I couldn't find the information that it was supposed to be citing on the page.
Web references should always include a publisher and access date, and a publication date and author when possible.
The references section should probably either be linked to in-line citations or the links moving to the External links section or a Further reading section.

That's about it for the moment as far as sources go, because so much of the article is still uncited I don't think there's much more to say. However, as far as other parts of the article, here are a few more comments:

The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, three to four solid paragraphs are usually good. However, the last thing I usually write in an article is the lead, just because it's then easier to make sure it's a good summary without including new information.
All of the one and two sentence paragraphs in the Logo section make it look choppy, and make it harder to read. Many of these should be combined.
For FA, all of the images are going to need alt text, per WP:ALT. I'm not very experienced at writing these blurbs, so I'm not going to try to give you advice there :)
There are a few dab links that need to be fixed before FA, see here.

Because major prose revisions tend to happen when major referencing is going on, I haven't done a thorough review of the prose. The referencing is the major issue in this article right now, and once that is addressed, I would expect most of the rest of the issues to fall into place fairly easily. I will be watchlisting this page, and please let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]