Wikipedia:Featured article review/Superman/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 13:42, 3 February 2007.

Contents

[edit] Superman

Messages left at Modemac, Comics, Superman and Films. Sandy (Talk) 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review commentary

[edit] 2006

I love Superman but this article has insufficient cites. Wiki-newbie 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Article has a large references section, actually. Steve block Talk 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems like it doesn't clearly define where it is getting its information. It has a large reference list, but it doesn't say what goes where. It almost seems like some original research edits have taken over the article in places: Like "It is implied in the One Year Later Superman story.." is an example. It appears to draw conclusions as to what the "One Year Later" story is saying. I don't know if this is just incorrect writing, and the "One Year Later" story was clear in its meaning (i don't know, because I haven't read it) but trying to guess what a story is "implying" seems a bit OR to me. I think that is the value behind "in text citations", because it's easy to check sources (at least the online ones). Bignole 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my. The cleanup tag says it best. Yikes. If anyone is willing to dig in, I'll supply a long list. Sandy (Talk) 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Gimme. WesleyDodds 10:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a list would be helpful. Steve block Talk 13:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is getting lots of cite tags. Wiki-newbie 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding sources where I can. Steve block Talk 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List

  • Ineffective use of Summary style and incorrect use of template tags. The overall article size is fine at 72KB, but because the article is undercited, most of that KB is in prose, with prose at a whopping 53KB. Too much of the prose is taken up with re-telling the Superman story, and not enough encyclopedic content; the article needs about a 10KB reduction in prose.
  • Several of the summary templates are the Main template, when the daughter articles are not summarized back to the main article. Summary style could be better used, or at least some of the templates switched to Further info or See also.
  • The lead is two paragraphs, one long. An article of this size warrants a three or four-paragraph lead, and the lead needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize the article.
  • Notes - it's hard to tell what is going on - they are numbered to 11, and then start over again at 1. Some of the notes are just blue links that need to be expanded.
  • References - it's not clear that these are actually references - some of them may need to be pruned, or may be better listed as External links. If they are References, they should be expanded to include full biblio information, and last access date.
  • Additional reading is a curious mix of See also, Further reading, and External links (or external jumps). It uses no consistent style, should be cleaned up, with each entry allocated to the correct category (External link, See also, or Further reading). See WP:LAYOUT
  • ISBNs on all books, last access dates on all websites.
  • Two entire sections (at least) are very speculative, ORish, weasly, and largely uncited : Superman in popular culture, and Cultural influences. Can't these two sections be merged, and summarized from a daughter article, since the article is too long? A lot of the info in those two sections needs to be cited, or deleted.
  • The overall article organization is strange and rambling, bouncing from topic to topic. We usually find awards listed almost last, just above See also (by the way, since awards is basically empty, it should be expanded or deleted). There are multiple sections covering characters, and they're all over place, in no overall order that makes sense. A restructuring of the article may help cut down the bloated prose size.
  • An example of Summary style/template issues is found in the section, Powers and abilities. It says the main article is Powers and abilities of Superman, but the content summarized back to this article is very large, and it doesn't appear to be a summary of that article. Summary style is not used correctly or effectively.
  • There is strange and sporadic use of bolding in the article.
  • There are many needs for citation, and more that can be added as work progresses. I added some very obvious cite needed tags to the Cultural sections.
  • I'll fix footnotes per WP:FN, where to place ref tags next, but there aren't many to fix.
  • External jumps (mostly in the Progeny section) need to be corrected by converting them to Wikified text or referenced text.
  • This is not compelling prose, for example: "Comedian Jerry Seinfeld is known to be a very big Superman fan.[citation needed] In many episodes of Seinfeld, there are many references to Superman in addition to various memorabilia placed in Jerry's apartment."
  • Once the entire article is reorganized and rewritten, Wikilinking needs attention. Unimportant words shouldn't be linked, and words should be linked on first occurrence. For example, the word Kryptonian is linked repeatedly.
  • Extensive inline comments and questions which should be dealt with.
  • I see there is an External link to the DMOZ category on Superman: pls review other external links, and eliminate them if they are already listed at DMOZ.
  • Mixed reference styles - there are some Harvard-style inline references that need to be converted to cite.php.

There is an edit summary which says, "(Cleaned up some stuff. Is this article's condition really bad enough to merit that "quality standards" tag?)" Yes.

Once some of these structural issues are addressed, a closer look at the prose would be beneficial. Sandy (Talk) 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned the reference sections going 1-11, then starting over. I believe someone has add trivia to the notes section thinking that was where it should be added, and not realizing that it was a place for in-text citations. It should probably just be removed (maybe better place if it can be..didn't read through all of it to see how encyclopedic). Bignole 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is with the fictional biography. It needs to be written more in the style of Batman's (simply the best comics article around), summarising the main points. Wiki-newbie 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would devote time to it, but right now I'm overseas. I'll be back home in over a week, so here's hoping someone can help substantially with that section. It helped when I was reworking the Batman article that I had the Les Daniels book on hand. The author released a companion book for Superman a year before the Batman book (1998, Superman's 60 anniversary), and it should be widely available at libraries and bookstores for those who want to take a crack at it. WesleyDodds 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've got a family funeral to prepare for, but I'm going to nab the book from the library within the week, it's not in my local one so I'll have to run around to get it. Sandy, do we still get an extension if we are showing good faith in improving the article? I don't really dispute any of the concerns to the point that it makes a difference this second, but I'm willing to put the work in, it's just this review is perhaps at the worst possible time in the calendar year. I'm thinking it may be an idea to work this one up in a temp page, because it gets hit by vandals quite badly, which makes progress even harder. Any thoughts or objections? Steve block Talk 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
We always give extensions when we know people are working on it and retaining status is within the realm of possibility, but since so many of you are busy in real life, please be sure to keep us posted - we have defeatured articles when we get no feedback for several weeks and see no progress, and then people are mad at us :-) Keep us posted, so we *know* there's progress. There's a lot to be done. As I have time, I'll see if there's anything on the list I can do. Sandy (Talk) 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've had a bash at the further reading, see also and external links, but please feel free to take it further. I'm not sure how many fictional works we should have in the further reading, I'm worried it will become a dumping ground for every story ever written about Superman. I've tried to keep it to the works typically considered important parts of the canon, but I'm open to other people's thinking on that. Off to make dinner. Probably won't be back until middle of next week, but I hope to be armed with some good reference works. Steve block Talk 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of the "Kryptonian" linking. I left the Infobox's link and the link in the "Golden Age" section. Bignole 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we could take out a lot of the examples of Superman's abilities, from the "Powers and Abilities" section? I've read some things that I believed were either unnecessary or OR, and some of them were examples of his powers (ex. His powers have again increased, he can now throw mountains......). I'm not a frequent editor of this page, so I don't want to step on other's toes by jumping at things. Bignole 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
My "opinion" is that it would be more effective to first trim and reorganize a LOT of the text, before referencing and wikilinking. A LOT of content needs to go to daughter articles, or should just be deleted. It will be easier to work on a trimmer article. Sandy (Talk) 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, more work needed. Much improved, but still largely uncited, and has imbedded links (external jumps). Sandy (Talk) 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait! Can you hold off on FARC until after the Christmas holidays? This is a busy time of year for many people. And I'd hate to see it needlessly stripped of FA status while we're still working on fixing the article. - Lex 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. I won't be able to work on this until after New Year's. WesleyDodds 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, we'll wait til first or second and see. Marskell 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Any chance you could wait until the 7th or 8th, I mean the first or second doesn't really give a huge amount of time. I'm still waiting for relevant books to come back to the library my end, above having contribution time cut by the kids being off school. Steve block Talk 10:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Got a couple of books from the library, so am going to attack in the next few days. Steve block Talk 17:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2007
  • Okay, I'm making headway. I'm workshopping new legacy and influences sections in a user sandbox and I've restarted the publication history. I think it'll take me about a week to address all the concerns I can, so I'd appreciate that time. I hope you'll grant it. The popular culture section I intend to rewrite as well as I go. Hopefully, once I get the article built and sourced, people can address my prose, the layout will assert itself and more minor issues such as wikifying and citation formats can be hit. Is that okay? Steve block Talk 10:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine. Wiki-newbie 10:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We can leave it open until your done. Do you think "In popular culture" is a redundant title given that it's popular culture top-to-bottom? Sections of this sort have also been denigrated here as trivia. Perhaps "In other media"? Marskell 07:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Other media was my thinking, yes, it's how such sections are treated elsewhere. Thanks for extending. Steve block Talk 09:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My main concern with a cleaning up the article is taking away emphasis in the four particular stories in the Modern Age section. The likes of The Death of Superman, Birthright etc may be high points but we need to follow the Batman article and summarise the main points of these tales. The Man of Steel and Birthright could share a paragraph on retcons as well as discussing the other 1990s stories that made a big fuss like Death. I've not read all Superman stories so I'm unsure of how to summarise them, but I'll try. Wiki-newbie 09:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At 50KB of prose, the article is too long, and needs to lose some content via better use of summary style. Prose size should ideally come down to around 35 - 40 KB. See WP:LENGTH. If you first decide what content to summarize to daughter articles, the rest of the cleanup needed will be easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is 70 KB, we're making a little progress I guess. Wiki-newbie 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the end product, please keep an eye on *prose* size, not overall size - it's the amount of text our reader has to digest that shouldn't get too long. You started at 72KB about a month ago, so you still haven't done any of the necessary trimming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Cleaned-up Man of Steel and Birthright sections, down to 65 KB overall (sorry, I can't measure KB at all). Wiki-newbie 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've got a script from dr pda that does it auto :-) Prose size is now at 45KB - still too long - should get down to around 35 - 40. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My plan was to assimilate what sources I've got and then trim afterwards, but I guess this is a collaborative project. I was going to sort out all the summary issues once I knew how the article looked once I'd finished writing it, if you see what I mean. Steve block Talk 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • oops (sorry) ... but I mentioned three weeks ago that prose size was an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry I hadn't made it clear that was going to be addressed. Steve block Talk 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can cut down on the "Powers and abilities" section, since it has a separate article anyway and it seems like one of the more fancrufty sections. WesleyDodds 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's one of the problems I've been wanting to jump in and help out with, but I want to make sure I'm familiar with the summary style before I do. - Lex 10:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Status? Editors requested til the 7th or 8th - the FAR has been up for a month, yet the article is still not cited - how is it coming? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've been working, had the flu and had my hands tied up elsewhere the last few days. Tintin was on the main page Friday and that took all my attention keeping an eye on it. I've set some time aside this week to hit it hard. Sorry to keep asking for delays, I am willing to pull this around, it's just other things get in the way. Appreciate whatever slack can be cut. Am settling in for an hour of work now. Steve block Talk 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep citing there: the recent Warner Bros DVD collection of the films has done some good with the cites. I've also cleaned up the powers section. Wiki-newbie 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Right, I've hit the Cultural influences section, renaming it influences. I've referenced what I can, jettisoned what I can't and added what I've found. I'm off to bed now, more work later in the week. Steve block Talk 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A note to editors: CITE THE COMICS. It'll bump it up in no time. Look at Storm (comics). Wiki-newbie 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, I've hit the publication section, tried to break it into more relevant sections. I'm thinking the best bet is to merge the Character history section into the History of Superman article, with a summary installed. Then rewrite the popular culture section as "In other media", sort the awards section out, I'm thinking a legacy section, and then add a crticisms section. Then have a look at what to trim, sort out the citations for the comic books rewrite the lead and get some proper featured article writers to maybe hit over the text for style. Hope that's okay. I'll try and pull another hour now, and then another three or four tomorrow. Hopefully get this sorted sooner rather than later. Appreciate the slack on offer here. Steve block Talk 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, what a clean-up. Keep referencing. Wiki-newbie 16:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ta. Nice work yourself. I've done the other media section. Next up is a sandboxing of legacy and criticisms sections. I think then it's a question of what to cut. Steve block Talk 23:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel "Cultural influences" should be a part of "origins" in the publication history, instead of its own separate section further down in the article. WesleyDodds 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting Progeny into the main Abilities article. I think influences should go into the History section and Awards expanded into all about his popularity. Overall the article is short enough now. Wiki-newbie 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just had a peek; the size is reasonable now and the TOC looks streamlined - nice work so far. On quick glance, I saw an awkward sentence, but assume ce hasn't been done yet. Another Biblical figure Superman is often seen as being an analogy for is Jesus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Status I'm willing to close this one if people feel it's within the criteria. Any glaring violations left? Marskell 11:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't quite broad enough yet, the Popularity section is a stub and we need to write about alternate versions of the character: I'll start that to use up the remain citations in the Further Reading section. Wiki-newbie 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not there yet. Many of the references aren't complete (just blue links, with no biblio info), there are still cite tags, and I just saw chunks of text that need citation in Personality and character ("Recent writers have attempted to deepen ..." and "Survivor's guilt has also been cited ...") Statements like this need to be attributed: I didn't read further. Holidays are behind us: it's really time to pick up the pace here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm working over the weekend. My plan was to bash out a legacy section, a criticisms section, hive off the character and cast sections to a separate article and then get a better writer than me in to copy-edit. Hopefully I could pull my end through by Weds or Thurs, if that's okay? Steve block Talk 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • When I say working over the weekend, I mean working off wiki, not on the article, just to make that clear. Steve block Talk 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The reorganisation of the article is pretty much done now, I think there's still inline comments to look at and the summary style issues, and I know I've got a couple of short sections I've just put in, I'm going to think them over tonight, but I think it's nearly there. Thoughts? Steve block Talk 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Great on the Cultural Impact, but I'm restoring the Fictional Biography. Wiki-newbie 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my response to a message from Steve block, I personally feel when a user comes to the article they would want information on Superman as a character, not a personality in pop culture. I'll cut down the internal links and move some stuff about Superman's popularity. Wiki-newbie 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm of the opinion that we're targeting a general audience and our top level article on Superman should explore the character as an icon, rather than as a comic book character. I think the comic book side is well served by the article, and that the fictional biography and powers and abilities sections are not written entirly from an out of universe view, and that such a detailed look is better served in a sub-article where greater detail can be developed. Steve block Talk 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Superman is in a sense beyond comics now, being an American pop icon, and that deserves to be covered extensively. However, I agree with Wiki-newbie that the edits unfortunately caused a situation where almost all details of the character itself were removed from the main article aside from the lead section, and placed in hard-to-navigate sub-article. It's oddly the opposite situation we've run into often with other comcis articles, where its all fictional bio but nothing about the character's relevance. My opinion is to try and style it after Batman and Captain Marvel (DC Comics) but more succinctly since we already have those FAs as templates. WesleyDodds 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Batman is larger than Superman at the minute, and Captain Marvel isn't of the same stature. The Adventures of Tintin is another FA and is another one to consider. Personally I feel the balance is about right at the minute, because a lot of the detail on the comic side of the character are in sub-articles which are summarised back. This will help the article since it will stop editors from adding details to the top level article, and will thus give it a greater degree of stability, and help avoid recentism and bloat as people add the minor details of the latest Superman stories. Like I say, there needs to be some idea of the structure of the article. A lot of the sub-articles really need a lot of time invested on them as well, they are full of original research and unsourced material. Steve block Talk 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Initial criteria concern was citations (1c); on-going debate on focus of material (4) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The last few comments indicate that more work is required before people are going to be happy with this. It has been in the review section for 6 weeks, which is far and away a record, and I don't like the precedent of not moving a review after so long. There'll still be another two weeks in FARC, at least. People can perhaps hold off on kp/rm for a little while longer. Marskell 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how we went from one issue to another. It is now factually accurate but no longer comprehensive. Wiki-newbie 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • How on earth is it not comprehensive? It covers every aspect of the topic. I'm bemused. I think there may be a misunderstanding of what summary style is. The larger sections, such as the fictional biography and the powers and abilities, have been split off into sub-articles. Steve block Talk 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Size question. The article is now 62 KB, which I would consider fine due to the amount of references we have. That's one short of Batman, which overall is an article not in need of a review. Any objections? Wiki-newbie 11:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Should I attach those categories at the (Category:Fictional orphans, e.g.) to Category:Supermen?--Rmky87 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nevermind.--Rmky87 05:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Status?. The size is now an adequate 35KB of prose. If 1a (prose) and 1b (comprehensive) issues are now settled, we can turn our attention to 1c - cleaning up the refs, which are formatted all over the map. Are you all settled on the prose, now? If so, I'll give you a list of issues to be dealt with in the references, and we can begin to review the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine then if the article is short enough now. What's wrong with the references? Wiki-newbie 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How about the {{fact}} tags that are apparently still there? Scroll down to the bottom if you don't believe me.--Rmky87 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Lots - I'll start a sample list below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

References

The following are samples only - all should be checked:

  • Is this a news source? The link to the Herald goes to a dab page, and the author name should follow a standardized format similar to other refs - author last name first, etc. Seriously, Perilously" The Herald (Glasgow); Sep 29, 1998; Grant Morrison; p. 14 . Is Grant Morrison the author? Also, newspaper titles are italicized. Punctuation after the title? You need not use the cite templates, but they can give you an idea of standardized format. (Missing quote on Seriously, also.)
  • Look at your ref number 6 vs. your ref number 2 - does author go before the book or after? Does date go after the author or after the publisher? Please use a standardized format, whichever you choose. Engle, Gary. "What Makes Superman So Darned American?" Superman at Fifty: The Persistence of a Legend. Dennis Dooley and Gary Engle, eds. Cleveland, OH: Octavia, 1987. or Daniels, Les (1998). Superman: The Complete History, 1st, Titan Books. ISBN 1-85286-988-7.
  • Inconsistency throughout - look at this example in relation to others: Richard von Busack "Superman Versus the KKK" July 2-8, 1998 Metro. . Author last name first or not? Who is the website publisher? Where do dates go - they are different in each. Again, review the cite templates or any of the citation styles at the end of WP:CITE to choose a standardized format.
  • What is this? No publisher, no last access date (all websources need last access date and identification of the publisher, also author and date if those are given). Superman vs. the KKK (or Stetson Kennedy vs. Freakonomics)- The story behind Superman's battle against prejudice
  • Is this a news source? Is there no online link? Author name first? No punctuation between article name and newspaper name, newspaper name should be italicized. "Up, up and oy vey" The Times (London); Mar 5, 2005; Howard Jacobson; p. 5 .

*Your current reference number 24 is blank - got lost somewhere back in the edits, needs to be found in edit history. Those are samples only from the first few refs - please run through all of the references and employ a standardized biblio format, so the reader can tell what's what. Also, there are no page numbers given on book references. All websources need last access date, author names should be listed first, with last name first, decide what style you are going to use for pub dates, and all websources need publishers. Please keep us posted when the referencing is finished; if your text adjustments have settled down, we should begin to look at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And what on earth is this:
Scott Bukatman has discussed Superman, and the superhero in general, and discussed the ways in which the humanize large urban areas through their use of the space, noting especially Superman's ability to soar over the large skyscrapers of Metropolis.
supposed to mean?--Rmky87 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a literary analysis, a critical theory of Superman's cultural worth and an examination of the manner in which superhero comics work. Bukatman argues that one of the reasons they are so popular is that on one level they grant the reader a mastery of otherwise soulless built up areas. He notes the superhero becomes popular at roughly the same time as skyscrapers become popular, with the Chrysler building and The Empire State Building, and that the superhero iterates or fulfils a subconscious desire within humanity to assert supremacy over such towering objects. It's in part perhaps to a response of fear that some felt of such tall buildings. Does that help? Steve block Talk 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment—It's not badly written, so I guess it should stay. Pity there are still a few glitches, though, like:
    • "Initially titled The Superman, Siegel and Shuster created a comic book story and offered it to Consolidated Book Publishing, who at that time had published a 48 page black and white comic book entitled ...". Siegel and Schuster weren't titled that, were they? Publisher is not a person. Black-and-white as a triple adjective, like the existing "pants-over-tights outfit".
    • "This third version of the character was also given extraordinary abilities". Remove "also" and it's smoother.
    • Why are the simple years blued out? Real nuisance to our readers. Normally, I'd say remove just on that basis. Tony 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't understand these comments, could you explain in more detail what the issues are, sorry. Steve block Talk 16:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Since Tony is more or less satisfied with the prose, I will be a keep as soon as the references are cleaned up and the solo years are unwiki'd. Please keep us posted on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I just had another look: not only are solo years linked, but full dates are not linked. There is also a significant amount of legal text having to do with coyrights and lawsuits that is not cited at all. And I found a strange wiki references stranded mid-article. This article has been an awfully long time in review - it would be good to get it finished up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I cleaned up the dates myself - it seems there are still a lot of External links that should be pruned per WP:EL and WP:NOT. 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I just turned my attention fully back to this article, wikilinking full dates and cleaning up prose. Wiki-newbie 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
How much prose do we have now? Wiki-newbie 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
37KB prose - good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I've done the references to how you wanted them? Steve block Talk 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I cleaned up the refs, so considering Tony didn't object to the prose, it looks good enough - but I do think it would be good for an eagle eye to run through the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How about the others involved? Are we at keep? Marskell 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if my comment counts, I'm a keep. Like Sandy I would like to get someone in on the prose though, if that's okay. That's my weakest area. Steve block Talk 13:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course your comment counts :). I have asked Wiki-newbie for another opinion. Marskell 07:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, how much prose now? Wiki-newbie 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I can answer that. 41kb, still under Sandy's target of 43kb based on the comment at top of page of knocking 10kb off the then 53kb size. Steve block Talk 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, Dr pda script confirms 41KB prose - longer than I like, but not object territory - you all will need to keep a close eye on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_review_Superman_archive1_4185.html"