Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Calvin and Hobbes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Calvin and Hobbes

(Uncontested -- Jul 5)

Self-nomination, though the best work is done by others. Images are of book covers so they fall under fair use. Alanyst 06:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Pretty good article, but something needs to be done with the organization of the cover images. Everyking 06:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I managed to do something nicer with them; it's actually really cool to have all of them in the article. (Nominator/uploader should tag them with fair use and rationale though) [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 15:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Oppose, for several reasons. Image overkill. Possibly too short, if you take out the images. Thirdly, if it stopped being syndicated in 1995, why? Ambivalenthysteria 06:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Good points. I'll try to add some more background on the strip's history, Watterson's issues with syndication, etc. I have concerns about copyvio for some of the images added recently, so unless we can get those resolved I might have to withdraw the nomination. Alanyst 23:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have resolved the copyvio concerns and the article is longer with more information on syndication. Ambivalenthysteria, can you revisit your objection to see if it still holds? Thanks. Alanyst 02:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's looking much better. It's a much more interesting read now. I've changed my vote, but still two small suggestions. Firstly, the "Needed to have complete collection" header overlaps with the picture column in my browser (Firefox), and it looks icky. Secondly, how about spreading the images throughout the article, rather than having them in a heap at the bottom? Anyway, these are just small gripes, and I'm supporting this nomination now. Ambivalenthysteria 15:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• All intro, no article. There's several paragraphs of text and a pile of images and lists. Where's the article? - David Gerard 13:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, there's not terribly much that can be said about the topic, so I think that's a bit harsh. Still, it's not quite up to feature standard. Ambivalenthysteria 13:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Surely there is. A vastly popular cartoon strip that ran for many years? I want to read the article I'd like to see ;-) - David Gerard 14:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It could do with a bit more analysis as to whether Hobbes is real. ISTR he was sometimes seen doing stuff that Calvin couldn't possibly have witnessed. Morwen - Talk 14:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I've reorganised things, which I think helps a lot, but I I didn't add much contetn. Morwen - Talk 20:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • David Gerard, do you see any improvement in the content now? I've added quite a bit more on the background of the strip. Is this the article you'd like to see? Alanyst 08:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I do think it is. Thank you :-) - David Gerard 00:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Oppose. While I think that this article has grown considerably, I have copyright concerns about all of the new images. I don't think that fair use can just be thrown around to justify use of any images, particularly considering that Bill Watterson has been very diligent in prosecuting copyright violations of Calvin's image in the past. If the images' copyright status are cleared up or if alternate images can be found I will change to support. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Any" images is a bit strong; after all, the book covers certainly seem to fall under fair use. I have removed the individual character images because I think they were indeed copyright violations. As of right now, I believe the article is in compliance. Alanyst 15:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I misspoke, I just meant any of the new images. I'm changing to a support, but I wouldn't mind some more content. C&H was kick-ass. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:14, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. Oppose, a number of subsections are short and list-like. -Sean Curtin 21:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you be a bit more specific: which subsections? how should they be improved? Just because they're short and list-like doesn't necessarily mean they're bad; a list of concisely written items can often be much more readable than lengthy prose. I'm not sure your objection is actionable at this point; please enlighten me. Alanyst 02:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The lists of characters are recurring themes really don't need to be sections - microsections like that for Coach Lockjaw ("Runs the school baseball team. Rarely seen.") don't need to be flagged up from the table of contents. Rearranging some of the subsections like that of the "Calvin's Alter-Egos" section would help in that regard. Also, the history and style sections would make the article flow better if they were moved to the beginning. -Sean Curtin 17:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've combined the less frequently seen supporting characters under one section per your suggestion, and it does seem better. I've also re-ordered the sections to put history and style at the front of the article. I think it makes the continuity better. Any more objections? Alanyst 19:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The use of "we" should probably instead say "the reader" or something similar. -Sean Curtin 01:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Done. Alanyst 01:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Suppose. With all the work that's been done since this was nominated, it deserves featured status. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, it can still be unworthy of featured status no matter how much work has been done, but I appreciate the sentiment. Am I to understand that you meant to say "support" rather than "suppose," or were you being purposely ambivalent? :-) Alanyst 02:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support after the recent changes. Anarion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly object - TOC is overwhelming (even at 1600 x 800 I couldn't see see the body until I replaced some heads with ; ), lead section is way too short for an article this size (3 good sized paras needed), and the article triggers a page size warning (but that is probably OK due to the size of the books table). Many of the sections are also stubs - there is little reason to give each paragraph a title (the result is rather inflexible and jarring). Instead I suggest combining many of the stub sections into larger sections (of say several paragraphs). The ==Recurring themes== section needs this badly. --mav 07:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I fixed the Recurring Themes section so the sub-heads are definition-style. The TOC is much more manageable at this point. I also added to the intro section. I will work on the more stub-like sections to address that objection. Alanyst 00:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Better - enough for my mild support. --mav 02:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object (easily resolved though) - In the opening paragraph, Intellectual and witty, the strip changed the way Americans viewed comic strips is not backed up by anything in the prose. How did it change the way Americans viewed comic strips? It sounds ethnocentric, too - did it not change the way anyone else in the world viewed comic strips? Is the fact that it was (sometimes) intellectual and (often) witty a first in American comic strips? (I'm sure Garry Trudeau and Berke Breathed would have something to say about that). Delete the whole phrase, IMHO. Mention the wit and cleverness some other way. -- mjb 07:44, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've removed it for now. It didn't really add much. Will look for an attributable quote to describe it. I suppose what we want is comic book artists saying it had an influence on their work. Morwen - Talk 17:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Looks good to me. -- mjb 08:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A fine article about a superb comic strip. I still miss 'em. Denni☯ 22:15, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
• Object; 1) agree with User:Maveric149 that the lead section is too short. 2) However, I think most of the "stub sections" are probably OK, because they're in a "definition" style, but that "Style and influences" and "Trivia" are too short to warrant an entire section to themselves. 3) I think we have too many images; the "Calvin and Hobbes books" section suffers for it, and they don't really add anything that just one or two images wouldn't convey. 4) In the "Calvin and Hobbes books" table, the month dates are red links; are we linking to the right place for these? — — Matt 17:45, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have addressed (1); I'll work on the others in the next few hours. Alanyst 00:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's a great lead. — Matt 00:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The others, (2) thru (4), are now addressed. Better? Alanyst 08:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks; I've squeezed the images back into the "Calvin and Hobbes books" table more neatly than before, undoing your "spreading out" work from before — I hope you agree that it's an improvement.