Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinestro Corps War

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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

[edit] Sinestro Corps War

Self-nom. This article has been my pet project for the past nine months and was my first GA. I've carefully nurtured it from a short stub unworthy of an encyclopedia into a well-sourced and well-written article. Now, with the storyline having been concluded for five months, I think the article's finally ready for FA. Thanks very much! Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments for now. Thanks for writing it. I like what I have read so far and I have made some suggestions for the Lead section. [1]. Can we improve on:
  • using the title of ?

My edits are just suggestions and I will write more comments later. GrahamColmTalk 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Plot section is very long in comparison to the rest of the article (and in absolute terms as well). Suggest it be shortened. Mangostar (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've tried to cut it down as much as possible, but it's a big and complex plot. I'll keep looking for ways to shrink it down, though. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks much better now, though I haven't reviewed the rest of the article. Mangostar (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Try giving the plot summary more real world context. Like add "In Green Lantern #25 . . ." and the like. Cut down on the details; focus on the broad strokes. See if you can get the plot summary down to three of four paragraphs. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm uncomfortable with doing real-world context like that within a plot section. It breaks the in-universe flow to constantly jar back to out-of-universe and would get messy and clunky if we did it for all eleven issues. Heck, it might even make the plot section longer than it is now. But you're right, it should be edited down to three or four paragraphs. Let me meditate on how best to do it, and I'll implement it as soon as I figure it out. I would like to note that I'm glad these are the only complaints so far! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely favor real-world context over the fictional context. I would help more with the plot summary, but I want to avoid spoilers, in case I ever decide to read it (I used to really like Geoff Johns' writing until Green Lantern: Rebirth came out) WesleyDodds (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You should definitely read it, it's excellent and nothing like Rebirth's writing style. I'm trying to preserve the fictional context in the plot section so my "Storyline and character changes" section will make sense to a casual reader. I've also cut down significantly on the plot section, removing about 3k worth of text but I still haven't figured out how best to fit it into three or four paragraphs without sacrificing quality. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

*Comment How come the plot in this article is word for word the same as Sinestro Corps#The Sinestro Corps War, I don't think we're supposed to have duplicate infomation. --Gman124 talk 03:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The information in Sinestro Corps should be drastically cut or excised completely. Any plot summary belongs in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Some editor copy/pasted the original version, it seems. It should have no bearing on this article's FAC. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Wesley regarding out of universe. As I am unlikely to ever read the book, I am happy to edit accordingly. Hiding T 13:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
have never read another article on Wikipedia whose plot section was done out-of-universe and I completely disagree with rewriting it as such. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with you (HM), this is a long-standing back-n-forth concerning fiction and "plot summaries". Some editors like to inject the "why" of why an author did such-n-such, and how the plot related to other things "in comics", either the publisher's publications, or comics in general. From what I've been reading of other articles, however, it seems to me that such information is better laid out in a separate section, so as to not break up the plot summary. (Which could lead to confusing out readers.) - jc37 20:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit it if it is going to cause an edit war. However, I feel the plot summary of this article is too long at present and unbalances the article by going into unnecessary detail. I think some of the plot points are perhaps minor in detail, for example "Sinestro reveals to Kyle that "Ion" is the embodiment of willpower itself, much like Parallax is the embodiment of fear. After removing Ion from Kyle, Sinestro uses the death of Kyle's mother to inspire fear in him, allowing Parallax to possess him." could just as easily be summarised as "Sinestro manages to depower and possess Raynor.". If the plot summary was handled more succinctly, I feel it could be trimmed back to four paragraphs or so, and I'd feel happier about it. I'm comparing it to current featured articles, which have far shorter plot summaries, The Well of Loneliness, Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, Original Stories from Real Life, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Hiding T 13:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am a hard core enforcer of WP:WAF, and support the out-of-universe plot summaries, because it simply makes the article better. I gladly point out some examples of out-of-universe plot description. In the comics range, see e.g. the FA Anarky, which is a superb example of why Alan Grant made Anarky the way he did and why Anarky acted in manner X in arc Y. Or on a lower level, Clone Saga: you have all the wild plot twists explained by greedy, power-hungry editors. Also see Harry Potter (character), in which real-life info by J.K. Rowling is used to explain WHY she made Harry an orphan, WHY she made him act the way he did (citing e.g. the Iliad and The Sword in the Stone). Look at them, it is WAY better IMHO than just retelling the plot. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There are multiple reasons I do not feel an out-of-universe plot summary would work here. First, the overall out-of-universe explanations are already present in a separate section, which more clearly organizes them. Second, the storyline meanings and themes I wish to convey are present throughout the entire story, and cannot be attributed to a single spot overall. Third, the plot section is already massive - I fear that adding out-of-universe context could expand what is already a tenuously massive and complex plot summary into an unreadable mess. Fourth, there's not enough information as to the storyline to detail who came up with what part since it was by and large a joint effort. Finally, the article works perfectly fine with an in-universe plot summary - why fix it if it ain't broken? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally I just think you should add things like "In Green Lantern #25 . . ." That shouldn't be too hard to work in. Consensus is in favor of an out-of-universe approach, and given the plot summary is really the article's only major flaw right now, you should would with Hiding to rework it per suggestions provided. WesleyDodds (talk)
  • I'm still pretty against this since my primary "template" for this article was Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, which does an excellent job of showing how an in-universe plot summary plus an out-of-universe explanation can work. However, I will bow to the will of the masses. I'll have the necessary changes done by the end of this weekend when I can get a hold of my books again. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You can only base the plot synopsis on Empire so much, because that was a single film, and this is several issues of comics. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Both are part of an over-reaching story arc... - jc37 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Empire is part of a film trilogy (later augmented by the prequels). "Sinestro Corps War" is a complete story, made of over a dozen separate comic book issues. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've disagreed with you about this since the discussions at talk:Xorn, and I disagree now. But that aside, since this seems to be a philosophical question rather than a true MoS one, this FA shouldn't get hung up on your or my preference. - jc37 03:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it actually flows from the manual of style, Wikipedia:WAF#Plot summaries. That's the basis of my concerns regarding length and real world perspective. Hiding T 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm basicaly describing the "apples vs. oranges" dilemma. A multi-part comics crossover is different from a two-and-a-half hour movie, just like there are differences between a television show season and a short story, and that naturally there would be different approaches to how to write about them. That's all I was saying. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering that we're discussing the layout of the page, not the content of the page (in this thread anyway), and that the concern was about the integration of "real-world" info within the plot summary, I think I was assessing your point correctly, or at least within the context of this thread. What do you feel that I am missing? - jc37 04:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
My comment about basing the plot summary on the Empire article was intended to be separate from my comments about in-universe writing. I think that's where the confusion arises. It was just a general comment that while it's good to follow an FA fiction article as a guideline, we're dealing with uncharted territory here, since this is the first quality article about a comics crossover, and there may or may not be special problems we have to deal with when writing the plot summary. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(de-indent) Holy cow, people. I didn't base anything off of ESB except my approach to the article; i.e., a plot summary section, a section about the production (or creative process, in SCW's case), a storyline interpretation section, and so on. That said, I wholeheartedly concur with WesleyDodds' assessment of this as new ground for comics-related stylistic writing. We shouldn't rush into a decision or devolve into bickering, which we're coming dangerously close to doing. Seeing as how we're establishing a precedent, we should take special care to examine all the pros and cons of both styles. We'd be doing both ourselves and future editors a disservice by doing anything else. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(re-reads the above text) - I'm not seeing "bickering", but discussion. (At least that wasn't my intention, and I don't believe it was WesleyDodd's either.) People can disagree without it being "bickering". : )
"I didn't base anything off of ESB except my approach to the article..." - That was how I was reading your remarks. However, unless I have misread, there were content concerns as well.
That aside, I suggest that the rest of the article be dealt with first, since dealing with the plot summary can be controversial. - jc37 08:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Being still on the road, I didn't really check the external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
An excellent question about the Newsarama sources. Newsarama is a reliable source about comic books, as shown by its listing here on Wikipedia. It posts news stories in the form of forum posts so that the comic book community can more readily respond and discuss each story individually. The other WP:COMIC members can (hopefully) back me up on this.
Comic Book Resources is another comics news site of similar caliber and reliability as Newsarama, and also has a Wikipedia article. While Comic Book Bin does not have an article, I believe them to be of a high enough quality to constitute a reliable source. I've taken special care to only use the most promiment comics news sites when writing this article, as there are numerous less reliable ones just a Google away.
I will look at ref 28 when I get a chance later tonight. They likely just moved it to a different URL. Thanks for your help! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Damn, CBR just reformatted all their links. I'll go through and repair them all tonight. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: I have corrected all CBR links to their proper locations. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
For those interested, see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References. - jc37 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Newsarama is considered a reliable within the industry, it does tend to post corrections and their is editorial oversight. Yes, it is an online magazine which uses forum software to publish, but it isn't the comments which are being sourced, to my knowledge, it is the reporting itself, published through forum software. Hiding T 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a storyline, so shouldn't the title always be formatted in quotation marks? There's quotation marks in the infobox, but the body of the article uses italics. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I fought somebody about that on another article and think it's just as stupid now as I thought it was then. I'm very hesitant about changing it unless it's written down somewhere, and even then I have reservations. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
While I think it sould be quotations (publications are in italics; stories are in quotes), regardless what consensus decides the formatting needs to be consistent throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well then we can do that! However, in this case it's actually not my mistake (yay!) because the infobox template automatically places the title in quotations. I have no control over it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If the template is formatting to quotations, that's probably a good indication that the title should be formatted in quotations throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Few ¢...
First off, the intent of the infobox is for story arcs, but it has been pressed into use for notable single issue stories ("Flash of Two Worlds"). Looking at where some of the articles have gone it may be worth adding a logic point to the 'box so that arcs that are collected in a self titled trade, or set of self titled trades, cold be converted to book titles.
The long and the short of it here though is that we're still dealing with a story, not a publication. As such, my understanding of grammar is that quotation marks are used. The same goes for mentions of "The Blackest Night" in the article — story arc, not a magazine. - J Greb (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
We've never had a crossover reach this far before in the featured content process, and we shouldn't rush to make any decisions that will set precedents. Now, I personally believe that crossovers should err on the side of being publications in terms of stylistic approaches. It is undeniable that they are storyline, but it is difficult to strictly define them as that when they are so much more. Not only should crossovers have separate infoboxes, they should be stylistically done as publications. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes Hemlock, we have had far ranging story arcs — "Knightfall", "The Death of Superman", "Disassembled", "War Games", etc — and they are all still stories, not publications. The only real difference here is that "The Sinestro Corps War" and "The Blakest Night" are stories that the writer envisioned as the 2nd and 3rd parts of a longer, untitled story with the 1st being published not as an arc in another magazine, but but in a magazine that used the story title as the publication's title.
And as for setting precedents... I'm sorry, but the precedent is to use quotes with stories, even serials, published in periodicals. To argue "Yes, it is a story, but it's so important that it must be treated as a publication," is dictating importance from the article. Let me repeat that, it is Wikipedia stating with the article that this story arc must be treated specially and as a new thing.
I've stated before that the arc 'box could be tweaked for arc that are, in whole, reprinted as a trade or a series of trades. I don't like that idea since it devalues the fact that the arc were originally published as stories, but it can be done. - J Greb (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(de-indent) Let's try this from a different angle. My overarching point is we need to differentiate crossovers from storylines. I personally define a storyline as a story set within multiple issues of a specific publication, like the "Hush" storyline from Batman or the current "Secret Origin" storyline from Green Lantern. A crossover is, to me, a story spanning multiple publications, like Crisis on Infinite Earths, No Man's Land, Final Crisis or Sinestro Corps War. I also think we're overemphasizing the role of trade paperbacks in how we approach comics articles on Wikipedia. We should be addressing storylines and crossovers through their original publication context, which would be as a comic book issue. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
And I am trying to come at it through those eyes. At the base of that is: Even if the story moves from issue to issue of a series, or multiple series, it is still a story and should follow the established conventions for titles. When it is referenced it is "The Story". Some stories that run through multiple series do have their own, self-titled magazine, like Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour, Final Night, and Final Crisis. In those cases the reference is going to be to the core story, the self titled publication, and wilt be The Story.
"The Sinestro Corps War" does not have that self-titled, core series. Treating it as a publication is wrong. At the point of moving an article to FA status, the impitus should be to follow a professional writing style, not a personal "I prefer it this way" one. Using an article on Wikipedia to push that view is wrong. - J Greb (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I will make the appropriate changes. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Plot

I've shortened the plot to five paragraphs. I hope I've not introduced any factual errors, and I hope I've covered the broad thrust of the storyline and the essential plot points. Hiding T 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job! I'm going to add a few necessary details here and there, but the overall result is fantastic. We should probably add short blurbs about some of the big Sinestro Corps players' fates, esp. Superman-Prime since his defeat here directly ties into his arrival in Countdown. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded some changes. We should make at the very least a passing reference to the battle on Mogo since a good chunk of the story takes place there in the GLC title, but I'm at a loss as to where to squeeze it in. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I had the feeling that was more to show something happening in that comic than to advance the plot. I have expanded the references to credit creators, story titles where I could find them and publication dates. I think this plot section is better balanced within the article, and hope it meets other people's objections? Thanks to Hemlock for catching major cock ups on my part. Hiding T 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, good catch on the issues refs! The reformed plot section certainly gets my vote. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's next? We appear to have cleaned up all three major issues: dead links, plot summary length and stylistic details. Have we missed anything? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I feel the plot is shortened enough and is written well. Gman124 talk 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Support All the major issues have been addressed. I've gone through and cleaned up much of the prose. Watch out for passive voice constructions and overly long sentences. Two final things: the issue numbers should be listed in the lead in order to give an effective overview of the topic (one of the first questions the general reader would ask is "Where do I read it?", but all the article gives you is "some issues in two Green Lantern titles" until you get far into the article--and no, listing them in the infobox isn't enough, because infoboxes are supplements to the prose, not replacements), and try to clarify in the prose who said what when quoting a source in some places. In closing, this will be a fine model for other comic book crossover articles to follow. Good work. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I see both Sinestro Corps War and "Sinestro Corps War"... The reference style seems odd to me in many ways:

  1. mentioning (a), (w) for artist and writer etc is rather difficult to grasp for the noob.
  2. Do we even need to list the colourer, letterer etc. A ref seems to be an odd place to list the entire credits of an episode. I remember Superman titles used to just have "Jurgens and Breeding" on the cover, not any of the side artists; so maybe we do something similar here? Besides, there so many red links now.
  3. do refs back to the comic book issue need to exist at all? It seems redundant: "In issue #21, the heroes ... attempt to rescue fallen comrade Kyle Rayner" and then an inline cite pointing to issue #21 ... what's the point of having that ref at all? Most wiki plot summaries go unreferenced anyway, because obviously the material they are describing is the ref itself. indopug (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Where do you see Sinestro Corps War? I thought I had gotten them all. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It was right at the beginning. I fixed it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The reference style is that agreed by the Popular Culture Association. It's the style we've adopted on Wikipedia, and I don't think it is awfully confusing to the noob, no more than any other reference style. For example, Harvard style is awfully confusing to people who haven't come across it before. No, we don't have to cite the letterer and colorist, but they are artists who have worked on the book and therefore should deserve some credit. It's not a real issue to remove the links around their names, they were only there to see if they blue linked. The refs do need to exist though. For the Sinestro special, we're citing a specific story within the comic book, and for an FA we should always provide full reference details per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Hiding T 13:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment = This may be a minor-ish thing, but can we replace the infobox image with the cover as published? Either with this or, preferably, this. - J Greb (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more partial to the unadulterated art (but maybe that's just cause I'm a sucker for van Sciver's work) because it's the common thread between the initial release and the trade paperbacks. But if we have to pick one, let's go with the Sinestro Corps special cover since the TPB image isn't very high-quality. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, it looks like the usage of inaugural issue covers is the norm for other crossover articles like Crisis on Infinite Earths and Infinite Crisis. Looks like we should follow suit. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to flip-flop back to the unadulterated art. The other crossovers have as-published images because they had a miniseries to correspond to the crossover, whereas SCW does not. It could be confusing to go to an article with the title "Sinestro Corps War" then look at the cover that says "Green Lantern: Sinestro Corps Special". The current art (whose pre-eminence has already been established by its usage as the arc's TPB cover) is much more suitable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support My main issue (change to out of universe plot) was addressed, and very much useful info on background, sales and reception. You cannot do much more on something like comics, which usually lack "hard" references (e.g. books, newspapers, magazines). —Onomatopoeia (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As someone who cares very much about reliable sources, I can assure you these are among the most notable sources of information in the comic book industry. Here's the Comic Book Resources staff and editorial list. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a considerable effort to ensure that the sources were reliable during this article's development. These are the top three comics-related news sites. Their high esteem within the comics community is shown by how much access they have to industry leaders. Most of the sources, especially the Newsarama ones, consist of interviews with SCW writers and artists like Geoff Johns, Ethan van Sciver and Ivan Reis. There's even an interview with DC's Executive Editor Dan DiDio. Clearly he feels that Newsarama is worth at least something if he's spending his time talking to them. I think he even did a regular column on their site during Infinite Crisis, and his Marvel counterpart Joe Quesada did the same during Civil War. If there's one part of this article I'm most proud of, it's the success we've had in cutting through the multitude of useless blogs and fansites to obtain reliable, factual information. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As one final aside, it is critical to note that Newsarama is not a forum site. They're a news site, but their articles are posted in forum form. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, our guidasnce on reliable sources states that Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. In that light, the Comics Journal analysed comics websites which carry news a couple of years ago, and concluded that they tended to rely on press releases and quick questions and answers with creators, and that they tended to correct mistakes as they went, striving for accuracy. Some limited investigative journalism took place, mostly at newsarama and the pulse, and that coverage was skewed somewhat to the promotional rather than the critical. So at the comic project we tend to evaluate them as reliable for sourcing the opinions of creators. They are also useful for sourcing production details, background info and reception. Now, if we look at the information we are sourcing from these sites, which is after all what they have to prove to be reliable on, I think it is acceptable to assert they can reliably record the thoughts of the creators. Is there a reason to doubt they accurately report Geoff John's assertion that he and Gibbons incorporated ideas from Alan Moore's run, or any of his other assertions? Is it possible they made this up? Likewise where they interview other creators and editors. Are they appropriate to the claims they make? Which claims do you think they are unreliable on? We don't assess sites as simply being reilable or unreliable, it's not a binary position; for example, I wouldn't trust the Lancet to be reliable on string theory, would you? If they had to cover it, I'm sure they'd be as diligent as they could, but I wouldn't use their coverage over more specialist journals. So, given we assess based on the level of claims made, which particular claims do you believe they cannot reliably record? For example, we cite newsarama for this statement; "Geoff Johns announced in October 2007 that the conclusion Green Lantern #25 would be delayed two weeks." [2] We don't make any greater claims than that, we don;t go as far as quoting his assertions, we simply summarise newsarama's reprinting of a comment, and their contrasting it with the solicitations. We cannot do this, for us this would be original research. But newsarama can, and have. Do you believe newsarama have not checked that John's is the source of the comment? Given The Comics Journal's interviews, Brady's assertions and analysis of comics sites, and given their nature and past actions, I believe this unlikely. I think it would better help the conversation if we can identify for which claims the site is unreliable, since that is the context within which we assess reliability. Hiding T 11:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

  • Link and qualify everybody for the first time after the lead. "Johns and Gibbons" → "writers Geoff Johns and Dave Gibbons". Make sure they are only referred to by last name thereafter.
  • If it is formatted as "Sinestro Corps War", then why Green Lantern: Rebirth? Is the formatting for One Year Later correct? its own article has inconsistencies.
  • How does that Superman cover picture satisfy our fair-use criteria #8, i.e how does the cover of the comic book significantly increase our understanding of the prose? I do not see that cover picture being discussed at all in the article.
  • Further formatting issues, its article tells me it should be Newsarama.
  • Why does the awards section have a 2007 that links to 2007 in comics? I don't see anything relevant discussed; remove the link. Why is Eagle awards linked twice?
  • Blue Beetle #20 → wikilink?
  • "Altogether, "Sinestro Corps War" turned Green Lantern into one of DC Comics' most profitable titles" --> why Altogether?
  • "Ganthet and Sayd, two Guardians of the Universe ... the "Black Lanterns", who represent death and the "absence of human drives and emotions"." → long sentence. Split please.
  • I'm going to bring up that referencing in the Plot issue back up again, because I wasn't quite convinced by the arguments to the contrary. Firstly, there is absolutely no policy on Wikipedia, not even the FA criteria, that requires you to "add ref tags to everything". Also, apart from the problems of redundancy and self-reference I've indicated above, there is also the problem referencing back to the primary source causes here. The plot summary, no matter how objectively written, is your interpretation of the plot; if anybody else wrote it, it would be considerably different. (Of course, this is not an issue on Wikipedia and rightly) However, by adding ref tags onto your interpretation, you give the reader a feeling that somehow this is an accepted interpretation given by secondary reliable sources (much like how the themes section is attributed to secondary sources hence is construed as reliable).
Another way of looking at it is that if you use the comics themselves to reference the plot, then why don't you use them to reference the Themes section too? That is because the primary sources are not themselves "reliable" sources since they require your interpretation of them. hence remove the refs, the "In issue #28, this happened" way of summarising is sufficient, correct and elegant. indopug (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the references in the plot section, to rebut:
  • The fact that you state that the plot summary os an interpretation is surely a very good reason why we do referemce the issues being summarised, so that people can verify that the plot is summarised correctly. That to me is the very basis of the verification policy, and I am at a loss as to why a featured article would somehow disregard it. I do not, however, accept that it is my interpretation of the plot. It is, per WP:PSTS, descriptive and not interpretative. Unless you are suggesting our policy is wrong and it is in fact impossible to describe primary source, at which point I suggest we evaluate our whole goal, since the way we summarise secondary sources is also in fact describing primary source. It was that very point that brought Wikipedia:Verifiability into being.
  • As to what featured articles are expected to do regarding references, our manual of style states All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources. Featured articles are expected to comply with the MOS. Also, according to WP:CITE#HOW, inline citations are mandated by the featured article criteria, and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. Now you have stated the plot summary is likely to be challenged, therefore it needs citations. If it is not likely to be challenged, it still needs inline citations since we need to reference primary sources used per the manual of style and inline citations are mandated.
  • Regarding primary sources not being "reliable sources", I suggest you read WP:NOR which makes it quite clear primary sources are reliable sources. Now if you want the plot summary rewritten so that it actually references each comic book panel to better comply with WP:NOR, that can quite likely be achieved, but again, inline citations are mandated. As to the themes section, a theme is indeed an interpretation. A description of what happens, per WP:PSTS, is not. Hope that clarifies for you.
  • As to the citation style, please see WP:CITE#FULL, which states All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used. Given that inline citations are mandated, it follows that full citation is mandated based upon this statement that all citation techniques, which would include inline citations, require detailed full citations. Hope that clarifies my position and my assertion that the reference style is mandated by the featured article process. I'm urrently having trouble sourcing one final rebuttal, but I hope you will extend me good faith on this; in one page when assembling my earlier post on this I read that a plot summary of a serially published work should cite the individual episodes to better allow verification. When summarising the plot of a single work, this is less necessary, since there will be no confusion over which source to check. From my point of view, not only is this style mandated by the featured article criteria, it makes good sense and seems good practise. Other featured articles do so, I am unclear why it would be objectionable here. Hiding T 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am basing this on the fact that none of the film or novel articles cite their plots, and I believe that is for good reason too. WP:NOR clearly states that "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Clearly, you are violating this in the plot section, but its been deemed fine, so no problem so far. Now consider a lay reader who doesn't know that on Wikipedia Plots are the interpretations of a non-reliable single editor, but who obviously knows that the plot summary is a description of the source material. Now when he sees the ref tag at the end of one particularly interpretative sentence, he believes that the ref (the primary source) definitely backs the sentence, which is not the case because (from WP:NOR) "it should make no analytic ... claims about the ... primary source." To summarise all plot descriptions violate WP:NOR; but by adding references you pretend that your interpretation are backed a certain source, that also summarises the movie/book/comic. I am sure that nowhere in the "Sinestro corps" series there is an overarching summary like in the article; its all artwork and dialogue between characters. The reader is fooled into believing that your OR isn't OR at all, but backed by sources, which isn't the case per WP:PSTS. Add to that the sheer ridiculous redundancy of "In issue 37, this and this happened... Reference: issue 37." That's OBVIOUS. In any case, per your arguments, are you saying that all other movies/novels are incorrect in not citing the priomary source as a reference? indopug (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much further this discussion can go, since I disagree that describing the events depicted within a comic book is an interpretation, and I can find nowhere in policies where this is stated. I've made my case, I've grounded it in policies, guidance and best common practise. You have as yet failed to do the same, instead contining to assert your own interesting theory. It appears to me that if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it would be interpretation that "a" comes after "b" in the alphabet. I've already rebutted the point you make regarding films and novels; here we have a work published serially with different authors and artists involved for different "chapters" or "scenes". You are comparing apples and oranges. Hiding T 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And to go further, I'm not sure I understand you at all. You seem to indicate that because the plot summary may be an interpretation, we should not include references to allow readers to verify the events described are accurately summarised. This seems to fly in the face of established policy. An attempt to describe without making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge has been offered, with full sourcing provided so that reasonable, educated persons can verify the information. If they find the information is not accurately summarised, they may edit accordingly. That is the very basis of Wikipedia. You appear to assert that sources are provided to "back" what you state in an article; this is incorrect. They are provided so that others can check and verify the accuracy. Wikipedia is not a research paper in which assertions are made; it is a tertiary source in which summaries are written. Hiding T 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Therein lies our disagreement, you believe that plot summaries are not interpretative, but I do. I believe that adding a ref to a particular plot summary implies that it is reproduced in a similar way in the source (requiring no further analytical interpretation on the part of the reader), because that is how it is in the other sections; more-or-less direct reproductions from the sources with no interpretation requires at all. Again, I believe WP:V doesn't at all apply here, because you already have given the source, "In Green Lantern (vol. 4) #21 the heroes Hal Jordan, John Stewart and Guy Gardner attempt to rescue fallen comrade Kyle Rayner," in the sentence itself. Anyway, I will drop the matter, but do address my other concerns. indopug (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.