Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Comics
edit
Project page talk
⇒ Getting Involved talk
⇒ Notice Board talk
⇒ Tasks to be Completed talk
⇒ Peer review talk
⇒ Assessments talk
⇒ Editorial Guidelines talk
⇒ Exemplars talk
⇒ Naming conventions talk
⇒ WP:CMC Templates talk
⇒ Copyright talk
⇒ Comics Collaboration talk
⇒ Useful pages talk
⇒ Portal:Comics talk
Category:WikiProject Comics
Shortcut:
WP:CPR

The peer review department of the Comics WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Comics WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete.

Contents

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{Comicsproj}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

  1. Move the existing peer review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing the primary page, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page).
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Prior peer review here.").

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{Comicsproj}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

[edit] Requests

[edit] Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)‎

This article was nominated for AfD in December, so another user and I decided to fix it. We took it from this to this since then. It's currently rated as B with a Mid importance. I would like to get it to A status. - Peregrine Fisher

[edit] J Greb

My immediate thoughts:

  • I'm not thrilled about the TOC setup, it looks more like a nav-box, and a hard to read on at that.
The normal TOC is quite long now. Do other TOC templates exist, or should we change the story arc headers to "====" ? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I could make one that looks like the TOC at the top of List of One Piece episodes, also. - Peregrine Fisher 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have problems with long ToCs since they are 1) there for ease of navigation (find it, jump to that section) and 2) collapsible (hide it and scroll). If it really needs to be brought down in length, I'd go with casting it as columns of text, not as a table. Either way though is going to force additional editing as new arcs are included. — J Greb 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Era" in this context is way to pretentious. "Tenure" or "Run" fit better. I'd lean towards "Tenure" since "Run" could be seen as a bit jargon-y.

Looking through the page:

  • Consistency is needed in the arc/story titling. I'd go with the arc titles and story titles for stand alone issues, such as the Annuals.
  • Moving the magazine information out of the headers. Just have the titles there.
  • Changing the "Published between/Published" line to "Originally published as/in" with the magazine title(s) and issue(s) followed by the cover/indencia dates. Example:
    From
    Return to Weapon X (#7-12)
    Published between: August 2001 - January 2002
    To
    Return to Weapon X
    Originally published in: Ultimate X-Men #7-12 (August 2001 - January 2002)
  • Consistency in dates. Ultimate War looks out of place unless the indencia or cover has the "Month Day, Year" information. If these are the ship dates pulled from a source, it needs to be cited and the others brought into line. If it's "when my LCS got them" it needs to be changed to the cover date. Personal preference is to use the cover date and only reference ship dates if there was a publishing delay. (Green Lantern vol 4 would be a good example of this, the cover dates don't mach the ship dates. Ship dates are supported by the "DC Nation" page that ran in the particular issues.)

Other thoughts:

  • I like how you've trimmed the synopses down to the minimum.
  • It would be a fair idea to include industry awards nominated and won by a particular issue or arc. This is a notable item and something that should be easily cited.
  • Ref links that would be worth adding (All are Grand Comics Database Project):
    • www.comics.org/series.lasso?SeriesID=7826 (Ultimate X-Men)
    • www.comics.org/series.lasso?SeriesID=18994 (Ultimate X-Men Annual)
    • www.comics.org/series.lasso?SeriesID=11056 (Ultimate War)

Last thing, while I'm leery about having these type of articles since it is way too easy to abuse, this article now looks like a good example of what series warrant it (notability and arc driven) and what should be there.

- J Greb 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

J Greb, thanks for your detailed review! I've applied your "Originally published as/in" suggestion. It's a good suggestion, I like how the story arc titles look with the issue numbers moved down next to the dates. A question on using "Tenure" for the writer section titles: would "Tenure of Robert Kirkman" or "Robert Kirkman's Tenure" be better? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 08:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with "Writer's tenure". It may be more informal, but from my experience, what's to the left side is what's picked up easiest. The writers name should be there as it is what a reader will be looking for. — J Greb 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seraphimblade

To start with-WOW, if this doesn't look a thousand times better then the last time I saw it! Good work to everyone who did it. That being said, of course, there's always a few things.
  • Some of the plot sections don't provide much context. As an example (from "Date Night"): "Piotr and Kurt visit a comatose Alison, and Kurt is sad because she chose Angel over him." A comatose person chose someone over someone else? This might make sense to a reader of the series, but to me it makes not a bit. Of course, it's good not to have them overlong, but if something would require too much explaining to make sense, it may be best just to leave it out.
  • In many of the sections, the "Notes" section seems to be just an extension of the plot outline, and recounts in-universe events. In others, it gives some out-of-universe information about the particular issue or issues. I think it would be better and clearer if "in-universe" stays in the plot section, and "Notes" deals only with out-of-universe aspects of the issue.
  • Some of the plot summaries seem to be rather choppy-"This happened. That happened. Something else happened." Generally, there are contextual transitions that can be used in these cases, and sometimes combined into one sentence. "While X was in New York, pursuing his old nemesis, Y was in Chicago, beginning construction on the secret superweapon. After X returns to Boston, he meets up with Z, who..." and so on.

Overall though, it's coming along very well, I'm very impressed! Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophe

The infobox-like listing needs to be completely replaced with prose.

For example:

"The Tomorrow People" is the first arc of Ultimate X-Men; it was written by Mark Millar [This phrase might be redundant due to the fact that the article does sections by writers, though.] and is told in Ultimate X-Men #1-6, published in February 2001 - July 2001. Brothers Adam Kubert and Andy Kubert were planned to draw the arc to ensure a monthly release schedule, but Adam was unable to draw the last two issues, due to commitments to Origin; only Andy Kubert illustrates #5 and #6. The first issue sold out, with the fourth and fifth issues selling more than 100,000 copies each in United States comic book stores.

In "The Tomorrow People", the government starts building and releasing Sentinels to hunt mutants after the Brotherhood of Mutant Supremacy declares war against humans. Professor Charles Xavier unites a group of teenage mutants to form the X-Men so they can stop the Brotherhood. Millar immediately establishes differences between the mainstream and Ultimate continuities by reinventing the pasts and motives of several characters. For example, Jean Grey recruits Colossus after a nuclear arms deal goes bad while Wolverine joins the team with the ulterior motive of assassinating Professor Xavier. Some themes remain the same, however, such as the love triangle between Wolverine, Jean Grey and Cyclops. This arc introduces many Ultimate versions of the characters, including Colossus, Cyclops, Beast, Storm, Iceman, Jean Grey Wolverine, Magneto, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and the Sentinels.

Something across those lines. ' 07:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can do that, but it will kind of conflict with some of the advice above. What do people think? - Peregrine Fisher 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree this the information can be converted to prose for the most part, but I'm worried about starting each section with

"(Story Arc) is told in Ultimate X-Men #(x-y), pubished between (StartMonth) - (FinalMonth)."

I cannot think of a different way to state it for 20 arcs. Should we leave just the publication line seperate from the prose? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think converting each arc section to prose would be back sliding. Right now, IIUC, the "Plot outline" is the only section that by the various MOS should be in present tense. The rest should be "past tense". Lumping everything into the same prose section will create a conflict.
As for "...a different way to state it..." I think that's a bad way to approach it. The arc sections should be as consistent as possible, the main intent should be to get the information clearly across. — J Greb 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transformers (fiction)

I've fiddled with this article so much, and even moved it from "Transformers universes", referencing the comics/cartoons to give an overall understanding of this fictional multiverse, whilst simultaneously acting as an entry for a fictional species of alien robots. I think it should come under closer scrutiny from fans and non-fans alike here, as with the upcoming film I'd like this to be FA.

My questions are how to deal with more obscure comics, like from conventions, clubs, toy boxes or Japan, as well as enough language to make non-fans understand there is no canon. There are also questions over structure, such as a rough chronological approach like I'm doing now or analyzing each continuity tree. WikiNew 18:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Excellent out-of-universe style! --Masamage 03:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarky

I have significantly altered this article from the original form I found it in, from what may essentially have been considered Start class to B class. At this point I am concerned for how the article may be improved, if at all, as I have exhausted my own sources for information on the article's subject, and am concerned that the article may be growing too large in proportion to the low importance of the character.Cast 20:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

An Update: The article has now been improved and re-assessed as GA class. I'm now hoping for any suggestions to improve it before submitting it for FA nomination. --Cast 08:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WildC.A.T.s/X-Men

I'd appreciate any advice, suggestions, or constructive criticisms that can be given. Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Steve block Talk 15:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve block

It's not really laid out in an established format, I think it needs bringing in line with a typical article. Definitely needs to cite references, and needs to be better grounded in an out of universe perspective. Needs more work on the publication side, any sources on creator's opinions of the series, press about the cross over, remember, Image was the company created by creators who split from Marvel, it's quite something that they then produced an inter company crossover. Steve block Talk 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omega The Unknown

While I am aware that this article largely concerns a somewhat obscure (arguably trivial) comics character/title from the 1970s, I created it back in March of 2006 after the announcement that Jonathan Lethem would be reviving the character, and I recently updated it as the current projection for the new book is for 2007. While it is always possible that the revival project may not happen, crossover works in comics by notable "non-comics" authors in recent years have garnered a great deal of attention, and my goal had been to have a solid article (at least "B" rated, preferably "A") on the theory that if Letham's project goes forward as announced, we would all benefit from having a decent core article on the original series to work from.

Recently I've spent some time adding citations for a number of assertions that have been added to the article in the past year (and removed a copyvio passage), but much of the original synopsis text is unchanged and I believe I'm a bit too close to the subject to judge how it would read to a casual (or completely new) reader.

I'm requesting Peer Review, but if I haven't made this clear enough: I don't have any illusions that this article has potential to be Featured or anything, and probably not even GA rank for at least a year, since the largest degree of notability it could obtain would be if and when Letham's series is completed. That said, if a couple of WP:COMICS editors could take a glance at it and make any suggestions to improve it, it's possible we might all thank ourselves someday. -Markeer 13:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auto review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): wasn't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Steve block Talk 15:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve block

It's a good start, but I'd like to see more details about the creative teams thoughts on the character and the creation process. It'd be nice to see what Gerber was thinking. I'm also wary the article is used as an advert and "bring you up to speed" for the new series. Steve block Talk 19:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Universe

Peer review requested, for the following reasons...

  • Firstly, because we've got a lot of sections and issue references, but I'm not convinced that this article works as a useful introduction to (or overview of) the New Universe. I'd like a second opinion as to what's missing and/or hard to follow.
  • Secondly, I think this is the perfect time to do this. Newuniversal (which has now been split to its own article) is about to revive the characters and concepts. It seems likely that some of the 'original' versions will also reappear again as a consequence of this.
  • ...but for the moment, this is more or less static. This month's comics aren't going to change anything that's written here, so we should be able to get it into shape, given a few more pointers.
  • Currently, I'd consider this to be a start-class article. I'd like to see that improved. Hopefully, this will help.

Thanks! --Mrph 15:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve block

For me, the article needs better outside sourcing. I'm not clear what the further reading section is, but if that is the references section it should be so titled, otherwise it should be trimmed, as it unbalances the page. The lead needs to be trimmed a little, perhaps the huge second paragraph could be moved into the main body. There is no real description of the creation of the New Universe, fan reaction or any attempt to place the fictional construct in our universe. The sections are heavily listified, for example the titles section. These should be presented as bodies of text, not bulleted lists, and written from an out of universe perspective as well. New Universe is important. It ties into Shooter's reign at Marvel, his departure and other politics of the time, and was a big failure for Marvel. This article barely covers any of that ground. Also, listings of comic book issues should be done through footnotes rather than as bulleted within the text. You also have sections which consist of one paragraph, and in one case, one sentence. That's really bad on the eye, and not really Wiki-style. Sorry to be so negative, but this is an important topic. You are right, this is a good start, but it would look even better with the formatting issues corrected. Steve block Talk 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Man In Black

I'll second the need for outside commentary, but for now let's concentrate on style.

  • This article is exceedingly listy, and it leads to a visual imbalance. For example, the unnecessarily header- and bullet-laden section on minor mentions in 2005 and 2006 is almost as long as the section about the line and its initial comic books. The lists of 2005-2006 minor appearances can be boiled down to a section about UTotNU, placing it in context as a lead-up to New Universal.
  • All of "Reintroduction" could be condensed into a paragraph. The cameos can go.
  • Second Era seems undeveloped.
  • The tone is awfully conversational. There's never any need to refer to Marvel as "the House of Ideas", we could lose "It seems Marvel had moved on..." and so forth.

Hope this helps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hob

Agree with all of the above, plus:

  • The descriptive paragraphs for each title in the Titles section look like quotes from comic-book narration or promotional material; if so, they should've been sourced, but if not, some editor put considerable effort into writing really unencylopedic copy. Reduce them to one or two sentences about the basic premise of each title, without the Marvel-style prose.
  • The "Problems" section needs at least one specific source. Otherwise it's not clear whether the stuff about (for example) Jim Shooter not being able to "give the line as much attention as he would have liked" is based on something Shooter said, or our own speculation, or what. ←Hob 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jc37

First, I would suggest that someone also do a bit more cleanup on Star Brand, since this article relies on it (it being a central theme to the universe, and directly involved in its status throughout the chronology).

Also, did Wikipedians actually write the blurbs for each series? They sound like something promotional (and possibly copyvio?)

Premise/problems/introduction/parody/second era should all be merged/organised. With the series list presented after.

And the offical Marvel universe designations (for continuity purposes) gets somewhat confusing, as well.

This is just first glance... I'll take a closer look later, when I have more time : ) - jc37 02:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leigh (φθόγγος)

  • The Titles section needs an overhaul in tone -- were these paragraphs copied from Marvel's promotional text? If so, that needs to be documented; otherwise their tone is quite unencyclopedic.
  • More images. I suggest that every "=="-level heading have an image to accompany it. Perhaps a photo of Shooter? Scans of a climactic moment in the narrative? I do like the lead image (the house ad) -- maybe an example of the "timeline in the back of the comics" mentioned in paragraph 3?
  • In general, I feel that the universe's original incarnation should comprise the majority of this article. It currently feels overshadowed by the endless trivia regarding minor references to the NU after the fact. leigh (φθόγγος)

I think the advice on images is probably best not followed, unless we have any free images of Shooter. There's no need to illustrate anything in this article strong enough to justify using any fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenebrae

The editors above all make excellent and helpfully specific points. I can mostly only reiterate and concur.

Some wordiness can be streamlined, which is easy enough. And the writing can be a bit repetitious, such as the multiple references in the lead to "realism" (which in this context isn't actually the right word — see naturalism (literature)).

It's a good start — I particularly like the dispassionate specificity of the caption for the first image — and I would constructively suggest rewriting it while asking oneself, "If I were writing this as a newspaper report, how would I phrase things?" I think that'll help find a proper tone. Oh, and footnote, footnote, footnote — even if you decide later to remove the footnote after deciding a reader can reasonably assume that a particular thing is s information culled from the general references, footnoting is still a really good exercise in making sure that everything that's said can be backed up. Kudos, by the way, for asking for a peer review! Now that's community minded!

[edit] DDG

There are serious tone issues in this article. I agree with Leigh above who says that the description in the "Titles" section sounds like marketing drivel. Lines like "And that's just the beginning." and "What choice does he have?" are clearly unencyclopedic. --DDG 15:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

  • 2006
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Comics_Peer_review_35cd.html"