Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anarky

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 promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Anarky

Check external links

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have methodically edited this article for over a year, to the point where I have exhausted all known first and third party sources, creating as comprehensive article as possible on the subject. If it isn't ready to be featured now, it must be nearly so. Cast (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No links show up as dead. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The numerous websites dealing with comic books are known for reliably publishing interviews with comic book industry insiders; reporting breaking news regarding the industry; offering numerous reviews of comic book content; and detailing reports on industry conventions. They are to comic books as ESPN reporters are to sports games. As for your suggestion regarding the quote of Bakunin; I have followed this and traced the information to the source: an 1868 speech by Bakunin. The information is now properly cited and a link to an online version is provided. Cast (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks muchly on the Bakunin, it just makes more sense to quote direct if you can, and give the online text as a backup. That way if the online source goes dead, you still have the cite.Ealdgyth | Talk 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Explanation for what makes the sources above reliable sources is still needed. Specific pages that shows authorship/ownership of the sites, what makes them published experts in the field, fact checking, editorial oversight, reputation, etc. For example, a bulletin board posting is unlikely to be a reliable source unless you can prove who the author is and what makes the author an independently published expert in his/her field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if I must run down the criteria for each site and author, lets try to run down a list:
  1. 2000 AD Review: About Us. 2000 AD Review is a website focusing on reviewing content and interviewing authors associated with the 2000 AD magazine. From the website: "This is an unofficial site. All characters and related indicia are © and TM of their respective owners. Original content (c) 2002 Gavin Hanly"
  2. About Newsarama.com. From the front page: "Copyright 2008, Newsarama.com Newsarama.com is the comics industry's #1 source for daily comic book news, previews, reviews and commentary, and is home to the largest comic book reader message board community on the Internet, with discussions ranging from Marvel Comics' X-Men and DC Comics' Superman to manga and the smallest indy publishers."
  3. GoComics.com FAQs. "© 2008 uclick The uclick Network refers to the group of entertainment Web sites developed and managed by the people at uclick, LLC. uclick Network include: Doonesbury.com, uPuzzles.com, Garfield.com, NewsoftheWeird.com, GoComics.com and uExpress.com." (Emphasis added.)
  4. COMICON.com: "COMICON.com is a one-of-a-kind virtual comics convention, only available on the Internet. We are not affiliated with any real-world conventions..." COMICON.com title and design © and (TM) 1998-2002 Steve Conley and Rick Veitch
  • Comicon: PULSE: a news service attatched to Comicon.com. Jennifer Contino, author of the noted article, is the head writer of the online publication. Please understand, all articles are published via bulletin board posts. (The author's forum account is only accessible to members.)
Almost all of the interviews/columns were written by contributing staff writers about whom I have little information. What is immediately apparent is that the information obtained from these sources are all direct quotes from interviews with notable figures in the comic book industry. The reputation of these writers might be immediately suspect if not for the fact that comic book professionals consistently return to give ever more interviews. I should at least hope this consistent reputation would lend to them some credibility. It should also be noted that such sources as Newsrama.com are currently used in other featured articles, such as Superman and Batman. The only non interview noted above is an article by Jennifer Contino. Her job title as head writer of Comicon: Pulse is accessible, though you'd have to do more detective work to find out about her. Her subject is notable. She, it would seem, is not. On a side note, it should be understood that the relationship these types of websites have with the industry is somewhat tight, and at times there is overlap. Gail Simone was a contributor to a similar website before she made the leap to professional comic book writer.--Cast (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't sort out this one above : http://www.comicsbulletin.com/panel/108672670397105.htm SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon, missed that one. © 2000-2008 Comics Bulletin, All Rights Reserved. Current company owner is Jason Brice. Wikipedia has an article on it, Comics Bulletin, though it is flagged as having been edited by individuals with a conflict of interest. The column was co-compiled by former managing editor, Craig R. Johnson.
Our article on them is of no use, because our article isn't reliable; how can you demonstrate that the author of that article is a reliable source, published expert, etc, per WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been doing some digging, but the compiler seems to be non-notable. I can't find much of anything on him. I can only point out his job title at the time of writing as managing editor, and who the owner of the website is. On a side note, this is not an article in which he interprets and reports information. It is a column in which he posts written quotes from authors, in this case the pertinent author being Alan Grant himself. Alan Grant also contributed to this same column repeatedly before and after this instance. So the question in this case isn't so much what are the credentials of the compiler (note I haven't referred to him as author), but rather what are the credentials of Alan Grant. Those should be instantly manifest.--Cast (talk) 18 March 2008
  • Support, meets the FA criteria. I share Ealdgyth's concerns about the reliability of the comics websites, but as Cast is an editor in good standing and I am unfamiliar with the comics media, I am more than willing to accept Cast's word on the matter. скоморохъ 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, heavily referenced article with a neutral tone. Informative without delving into trivia. A few images seem to be included more for decoration than illustration, but not excessively so. The article definitely compares well with those describing characters with a more extensive history, such as Superman or Batman. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd chosen each image because I felt at the time that they were illustrative, but this was at times relating to the text they contained. Now that they've been reduced the text has been blurred and they've lost a degree of their informative purpose (although I feel they have retained some degree of purpose). If the matter is pressed and must be resolved, I can replace them with more illustrative images.--Cast (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry overly much. As I said, the article still falls within the guidelines, it's just around the upper boundary :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Question "Anarky would appear "in the late 40s"" - 1940s or issue #40 something? It reads like you mean the previous. indopug (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well the citation gives the full context, but I'll reword it a bit for further clarity.--Cast (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Oppose - I really like the article; it is a fantastic reference. However, I'm really struggling with the sourcing here, pursuant to criterion 1c. I've realized since reviewing video game articles that a lot of fan sites and blogs are considered reliable sources of information in those circles - comics appear to be no different. There is almost nothing in your list of sources that I would bet any money on being reliable. For example, some sites transcribe interviews but we don't know where they came from or if the text is accurate. You cite a single blog ten times, where I can't find information about the author. There is a donation link despite the fact that authors don't have to pay anything to maintain a blog at blogspot. I don't mind narrow statement being sourced to these sites, like: "The author of the popular fan blog 'Anarky World' really hated this storyline" but the sites are not used this way. Some examples follow:
    • Some of what I consider important statements in the article are sourced to really shaky sites. For example, "This steady evolution in Anarky's abilities was later poorly received by fans, who saw it as having overpowered the character, preventing the suspension of disbelief that was previously possible for a character still described as in his mid-teens. It was further criticized by Matt Morrison, a contributor to Fanzing, an online fanzine produced by fans and professionals of the comic book industry, to be a contributing factor to the failure of the second Anarky series." The first sentence isn't really even cited, despite making a huge generalization about the fans of the magazine. The only citation for this whole passage comes at the end, leading to "Fanzing", a site whose articles might be written by, well, anyone. Could be me for all you know. Trust me, I'm not a reliable source, nor am I qualified to make statements about the entire fan base of a comic.
    • A lot of your sources are primary.. the comics themselves. If you are just providing plot summaries, these are not even needed per Wikipedia:When to cite. Slims the list a bit.
    • However, this brings me to my next point - some statements that go beyond summarizing and into interpreting are sourced to the comics themselves. That is, unfortunately, original research. Examples:
      • "Throughout Alan Grant's series of books written for the character, cunning and intelligence were viewed as his primary tools for victory, often using quick thinking, fighting skills, and technology in conjunction with each other in order to defeat tougher opponents."
      • "In accordance with the superhero convention of following a recognizable theme, the character's tools often incorporate the circle-A into them."
      • "At this time, the tone of the character began to move away from improvised munitions, and toward self-sufficient funding for more elaborate technology."

--Laser brain (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your input. I've tried to initially address the last two of your three main points. You are right in regards to the three examples of my prose which unfortunately appear as original research. An unfortunate product of my prose. I've reworded them to remove statements which appear interpretive. Your point regarding the citing of comics was one I initially dealt with prior to the GA nomination. Some of the plots for the character span multiple issues, and so questions arose of which issue and plot was being referred to. The comic citations are used primarily where direct panel/page citations are necessary (where does Anarky make his cameo in Wonder Woman? Only one panel of a single page. Blink and you'd miss him.), or where it becomes necessary to point out exactly what issue of what arc a quote came from. I'll go back over these citations and try to slim them down, but if they compromise reader understanding, I'm sure you'll understand if I do not.
Now on to your first, and the most pressing point. This issue has now been raised several times; a question of verifiability. You note a blog is often quoted. I'm sure you're referring to "BATMAN: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle Speak Out" on 20th Century Danny Boy. You're not the only one who has problems with citing a blog. For a good long time, I didn't like it either, which is why I was very happy to find the author moved the post to a website, with all legal disclaimers conveniently placed at the bottom of the page, Adelaide comics and Books presents: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle. "Content on this page is copyright 2006 Alan Grant, Norm Breyfogle and Daniel Best and cannot be reproduced, reprinted, stored, transmitted (electronically or otherwise) without the express written permission of all relevant parties involved. Interview conducted via phone in May 2006 and edited by Norm Breyfogle, Alan Grant and Daniel Best." (emphasis added.) Just before I began the nomination process, I found the website had gone dead. In my haste the repair the link, I foolishly reverted them to the blogpost rather than the more respectable, and verifiable, archive.com. Now thinking clearly, I'll shift the citation to the archived website.
That said, you are right in noting that I had to rely on some slim choices when it came to my references. As you note, these fan zines and blogs can be useful for reflecting the general disposition of a fanbase, but are not verifiable. Given that Anarky isn't the most widely known character in the DC pantheon, I was hoping a few well chosen citations could be used to represent the general attitude for the character. I have encountered other fan reviews of Anarky, but none which I felt were useful. Fanzing at least had it's legal disclaimers and staff information available (by the way, I doubt you are Matt Morrison, unless you are from Arlington, Texas. Are you from Arlington, Texas?) At any rate, I'll address this matter in the coming days. This is nothing a little rewriting can't fix.--Cast (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: on the matter of the interviews, I can understand that you feel concerned that there is no way to know if these transcriptions are literal or edited, but I'm left with no way to address this. I've tried to provide the legal owner and publisher information for each of these cites as they've been requested, and if that isn't good enough for these websites, I have to ask, how is it possible for any websites? If nothing else, I have always found the interviews remarkably consistent. Grant and Breyfogle have been asked about the character rather often, and only Grant has been known to be self-contradictory (a point noted in two of the interviews, where he makes off hand remarks about believing his own memory to be poor. Perhaps we ought to consider Alan Grant an unreliable source?)--Cast (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Cast, thank you for taking my criticism so gracefully - it speaks volumes of your character. I struck some of my issues above, and I now understand your purpose for citing the books themselves. I need to think some more on the issue of sourcing. I keep coming back to the same thing: Per our policy on verifiability, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Going through your list of sources, I'm having a really hard time figuring how well they adhere to this policy. Your responses have given me some food for thought; I'm closer to thinking that for the subject matter, it may never be possible to source it differently than you have. Are there any print magazines or journals that publish criticism or reviews of comics? --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Journals and magazines? I can't recall many off the top of my head, save Wizard magazine, and a weekly segment, Fresh Ink, on Attack of the Show! on the G4 channel. I don't watch that show, but I know of it. I'm rather positive there are more. At any rate, there is no sign that these ever touched on Anarky, so they are rather moot for the purpose of this article. Anarky might have gained attention by magazines when the series was running, but they simply didn't pick up on him, perhaps owing to him being a lesser known spin off of Batman. It was around too short a period to be on their radar.--Cast (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now addressed the Fanzing reference by rewording the section to remove sweeping generalizations. However, I did not remove the reference itself. Given that the owner and staff information is provided, and that the review is intended as a review, rather than a report of facts, I feel it is acceptable. Most all of the citations in the article refer to reviews, primary sources, or Grant/Breyfogle commentary. The major question becomes, can we count on the four articles [1] [2] [3] [4] and multiple interviews cited to be reliable. I have already provided the publisher/owner legal information for these. If I must demonstrate that these are reliable, I am at a loss as to how I might do so. Perhaps I might find an archived example of editors taking steps to rectify inaccurate information, but I doubt it would be possible for each website. Perhaps it is worthy of note that such websites as Silver Bullet Comic Books have been used within other Featured Articles, such as comments made by Alan Grant in the Batman article. It might be best to seek neutral input from other featured article nominators of comic books. Input on how they have dealt with these websites. This would be an acceptable use of canvassing, and I feel it is becoming increasingly necessary. Perhaps the issue should be raised on the talk page of WikiProject Comics.--Cast (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your attention to this. You have convinced me to withdraw my opposition. I'm not fully supporting because I am still really unsure about this whole issue. I think we have a start, though. --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help in improving the article. Neutrality is certainly preferred to opposition. If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to raise them. I'll be sure to do what I can to improve the article wherever possible.--Cast (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Per my own suggestion above, I raised the question of the reliability of comic book websites at the WikiProject Comics talk page. The discussion may be of value to any editor concerned with the reliability of sources used in the article: Reliability of Comic Book websites --Cast (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cast, I am leaning more toward supporting due to this conversation. In your estimation, is your use of these sources limited to reviews and interviews? Do you have sources that you would consider serious journalism? --Laser brain (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at a previous post in which I commented that the article contains four articles, I must retract that. A closer look reminds me that two are previews of upcoming comic releases, and a third is an interview with an editor in charge of a comic series. Of the comic book website sources used in the Anarky article, I'd say the vast majority are interviews, reviews, and a few previews. So I would say there is only one article which attempts serious journalism: Anarchists Storm DC Comics!. The article is a report of a protest and counter protest outside of DC offices following the release of the V for Vendetta film. Article was written by Valerie D'Orazio, and provides a short blurb about her at the bottom of the page. Of this article, I only draw one brief reference to Todd Seavey, a freelance writer who has written issues of Justice League, mentioning that Anarky would be a "dream comics project." In light of the commentary on the WikiProject Comics talk page, if this article is suspect for attempting journalism, we may easily strike it from the article, and nothing of great value would be lost. As it stands, it merely provides an example of an author (with a political affiliation in libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism) who would write a story for the character, if given a chance. It is used to illustrate both a professional desire to see the character return to publication, and emphasis the political themes of the character.--Cast (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I appreciate the queries regarding the reliability of the sources, but the sources used are considered reliable within the world of comics, and I personally don't see anything wrong with the way the silverbullets story has been used. It's being used to cite the personal opinion of a writer, and I don;t think we have any reason to doubt that that opinion has not been reproduced faithfully. Certainly the writer has had the opportunity to correct that piece, and whilst the online comic book news sites have been criticised by The Comics Journal, one aspect that was noted was their ability and willingness to correct material. At some point I will review my Journal issues and see if I can source additional material regarding this series, but as it stands I think this meets the standards. Hiding T 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.