Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thrud the Barbarian/archive1

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 not promoted 00:25, 16 March 2008.

[edit] Thrud the Barbarian

Check external links

Self-nominated. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've put a lot of work into researching the topic and received supportive comments when going through the peer review and GA processes. GDallimore (Talk) 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - Very good, but there isn't the section objections. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Not fully read it yet, so I will nor oppose nor support, but the lead is reading too short. Could it be expanded? Samuel Sol (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In what sense "too short". In terms of counting it's three paragraphs long (which is fine given the size of the article per Wikipedia:Lead#Length). In terms of content, it summarises what I believe to be the important points in the article: (a) nature of character; (b) history; (c) legacy. The only bits not summarised are the biography, recurring themes and merchandise sections of the article which, while probably necessary for completeness, don't actually contain particularly important information. I think the lead could support a bit more about his persona rather than just appearance, which I'll now add, but I'd be grateful for an explanation as to what is missing. GDallimore (Talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I've now lengthened it a bit - hopefully by adding real content rather than just padding! GDallimore (Talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• More comments - A bit more comments on things I saw through the article.

• A lot of redlinks. It is better to unlink those then leave the redlinks there.

• Reply: I've reduced the number of redlinks to just four since I believe there is a reasonable chance of those four having wikipedia pages in the forseeable future. I think that complies with MoS.

• I don't think the subheader with the comic reviews are needed in the external links. They would be better if worked on the footnotes

• Reply: Agreed. Been wondering about those for a while. Since I've found no use for them in the article itself, I've just deleted them.

• I think the fictional biography and Personage sections could be glued together and better worded. I will try to do something about it. But you probably can do better.
• Same goes for the Recurring Themes. I think the article could be really improved by checking Padmé_Amidala

• Reply: It's actually based on the Batman article in style. Going back over that article, I think I missed a trick or two and have renamed recurring themes "supporting characters" and moved the stuff about the pub and the catchphrase into the persona section. I think that helps balance the lengths of the different sections better. Thanks for prompting me to do that as it has been bugging me.

• And one thing that kept me at loss while reading it sometimes. The article is about the character (I think so) or about the books itself.

• Reply: Again, the style is based on the Batman article and I think works well. There will always be some overlap between the character and the publication history of the character's appearances. Hopefully some of the changes I've made ni response to the above will help.

Samuel Sol (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: Thanks for your thoughts. How's it looking now? I believe it's been improved. GDallimore (Talk) 09:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I noticed the comment above about the red links. Unless something has changed (& I bow to Sandy's opinion here), the number of red links is not a concern for FA status. I looked at this earlier draft, & the links you removed there -- to Arkensword, Dead 'Ard, & Euan Smith are all reasonably notable subjects for future articles. I don't mean to confuse you, but I suggest that you re-link these. -- llywrch (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It's a difficult call. I get the impression that "Dear 'Ard" was just a uni publication and Euan Smith a mate of his from Uni, although that's jut a guess. I haven't been able to find anything about either of them so doubt articles would be forthcoming. Having run a search for Arkensword, however, it seems bigger than I had originally thought so I'll re-add the redlinks to that. GDallimore (Talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with you about it being a difficult call. FWIW, the name Euan Smith looks vaguely familiar, which is why I spoke up about that one. In any case, if you can't find any information about a red-link after a reasonable effort, then I agree that the best thing to do is to remove the link. If later research reveals that the subject is notable, the link can always be re-created. And I found your article an enjoyable read! -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Is this an article about the character or the comic-book? I don't think one article can cover both, can it? indopug (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article is about the character and therefore discusses the appearances of that character in different comic book foms. Since the character hasn't had a huge number of appearances, no separate article about those individual appearances is necessary or warranted. You'd only end up with two incomplete yet overlapping articles that way. GDallimore (Talk) 01:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A number of the references are missing publisher information. Author information if available needs to be listed also. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Really, which ones? Authorship is mentioned where it's relevant/important eg for books. GDallimore (Talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, do you mean I've not used the "publisher" field in the Cite Web template? I did that to make the references easier to browse - including the publisher in the title of the page so that all the references weren't just "Thrud Issue 1 review". I'm open to comments on whether that's appropriate or not. GDallimore (Talk) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, the publisher is pretty much needed to be stated for verifiablity questions. Authors, when known, also, for the same reason. Especially if there is a quotation used, the author needs to be mentioned (I dont' know if there are quotations or not in the article that need authors, I'm just giving the rule). Ealdgyth | Talk 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The article already meets those guidelines, then. But I guess to make things easier to search automatically, I'll put the info in the relevant template fields rather than the title fields. GDallimore (Talk) 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Criterion three concerns:
  • I’m concerned about Image:Thrud cg.jpg, as the character is depicted in three other images, at least one of which is substantially the same pose (WP:NFCC#3A requires minimal usage and WP:NFCC#8 requires a significant contribution to our understanding). Moving it to the “Legacy” section, where the computer style is actually discussed, may allow it to pass WP:NFCC#8, but all NFCC criteria must be met to employ FU. The solution, I think, is partially related to my next bullet (i.e. a "computer style" image of a different character would be fine, and it would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak).
  • I’m concerned about the four “ink style” images on NFCC#3A and 8 grounds. As it stands, we have other images of Thrud and prose such as “Lymara is depicted with oversized breasts barely covered by an off-the-shoulder leather bra”, “[Croneman is] (d)epicted as resembling Schwarzenegger” and “The Black Currant is depicted in heavy black armour, wearing a helmet having a pair of exceedingly long, horizontally extending horns” is perfectly adequate to give us an understanding (i.e. images do not provide significant understanding above what is already provided by the prose – required by NFCC#8). I suspect a case could be made to keep an “ink style” image, but the article’s prose would need to be enhanced to support the importance/significance of that style. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Glad to see you join the party! :)
      • Concering the three different, very similar images of Thrud. I think they are all necessary for the very reasons you give: they show Thrud in three very similar poses but drawn using Critchlow's three different styles - thus illustrating in a way words could not the important underlying topic of Critchlow's developing styles. The part of the article where the CG image is located talks about how Critchlow used Thrud as a vehicle to get his new style noticed. Including the image there is therefore the most appropriate place. The legacy section, if it included any images, should include an image from his later works, not Thrud. Having the three Thrud images relatively close to each other also makes for easier comparison by a reader, which means it is appropriate given the purpose of including these three images in the first place. Crtichlow has three different styles, therefore three is the minimum number of images that is needed to contribute to a reader's understanding, and the contribution is clearly significant in my view. Therefore I am pretty firmly convinced that NFCC 3 and 8 are complied with. I'm guessing you're also referring to the picture of Thrud in miniature form. That picture shows something very different from the drawn images and I think contributes to understanding for those who may not understand what is meant by miniatures of Thrud and how different miniatures have been issued over time.
      • The justification for the images of the Black Currant, Lymara and Croneman is more tricky, but I think they are appropriate. Because this is far more shaky ground, though, I'd be grateful for other viewpoints to try to reach a consensus.
      • Essentially, this whole section of the article is there to point up the parody aspect of Thrud and his comics/strips. Fun is poked at the ridiculous armour worn by fantasy characters (Black Currant), the huge breasts of female fantasy characters (Lymara), and Arnie's muscle-flexing posturing (Croneman). The text tries to get this sense of parody across by its more light-hearted nature compared to the rest of the article, but I believe the accompanying pictures contribute significantly to that understanding. Also, because we have three different parody targets, I believe three different images represent the minimum. I haven't included pictures of To-Me Ku-Pa or Carl since the elements of parody are not as strong there and pictures would not contribute significantly. If it is felt that this is not enough, I suggest that an absolute minimum would be the picture of Croneman/Arnie, since Arnie is regularly held up in the sources as being a prime target of the parody. But I personally think the remaining two pictures also contribute significantly without being excessive use of copyrighted images.
    • Thanks for your time! GDallimore (Talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment On the images: Elco touched on it above, but I think that per FUR the three Thrud images are defensible, but the other characters aren't. Much more weight in the article is given to discussion of the artist's style, so those are helpful; on the other hand the characters are fairly well developed in prose form, so I think it's more eye candy in that regard. Is there any image that has them together? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In view of these comments and Tony's comments below about the formatting, I've removed all the images except the one of Croneman/Arnie and highlighed that Arnie is a satirical target to explain the presence of the image better. Does this resolve your problems?

It's OK, but a few things I picked up:

• Inspiration WAS drawn, surely?
• The list of comics—it's normal to use en dashes, not hyphens.
• Choppy effect of big black subtitles for each character, when there's not all that much text. Is there a smoother, more attractive formatting?
• "Tooth & Claw was praised for its character designs and nice colours"—nice? And no attitudinal epithet for the ch. designs? Remove "nice".
• "was said to be recognisable from a mile off with its "volume, colour and verve".[10]"—I wouldn't repeat the wording of ref. 10, if that's the source of "from a mile off". Why not more formal? "is easily recognisable by its "volume, ...". Tony (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Responses:
  • Although no new comics have been issued in a year, I don't think it's yet appropriate to use the past tense.
  • Thanks for giving me an endash to copy:) done!
  • Two of the images have been removed in light of numerous objections to their presence.
  • For your last two comments, I was trying to strike a balance between better prose and quoting the comments made. I see there are two ways this article can go to improve it. I can stick with the quotes, but use quotation marks more often when I am quoting (eg around the "from a mile off" of "nice colours"), or I could improve the prose. Any guidance on which would be the more appropriate? I'm inclined to go with your suggestions of improving the prose, but was nervous of re-writing the sources too much in case it was deemed unverifiable or OR. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I like reading about comics I read before. OK, prose looks ok at first glance, I'll post some tweaks below:

When Critchlow saw an advertisement in White Dwarf magazine asking for cartoonists, he submitted some of his Thrud strips in response. - last two words are redundant

In 1987 a collection of Thrud strips was published... - needs a comma after first two words.

Once the Thrud strip ran its course in White Dwarf, - 'ran' should be 'had run', pluperfect tense here is better as this clause precedes the following one.

Critchlow found that, by organising distribution through comic shops and a devoted Thrud website, he was just able to break even financially - needs a comma after last word, and can remove 'just' as it disrupts flow

as well as starting to develop appreciation for his new style. - not sure what you're gettting at here, a following?

The cover images for each of the first four comics -bolded bit redundant

For issue 5, Critchlow also used his new technique for the cover image. - but this sentence, if in opposition to previous, should have a 'hovewever' or something similar.

At the age of 5, Thrud is sent to Crom the Destroyer Orthodox Pagan Infants School, -if you place first clause after "school" then you have one less comma, which is desirable in this sentence of commas.

..mutterings of "Kill! Death!.. - comma after "of"

.. largely a vehicle for making jibes against the fantasy genre. - erm, odd phrase. "making fun of" or "poking fun at" or even "satirising"

..blissfully unaware of the unfolding storyline. - sounds odd, being unaware of a storyline. Howabout "events around him" machinations/motives/developments, take your pick

Long term fans of Thrud were excited and nostalgic to see him return in.. - bolded bits redundant.

but were concerned that the idea would not stretch to 24 pages. - I must say I am not keen on this construction. I'd say "but feared the material would not stretch to 24 pages"

considered the comic a success that was more than just a single joke spread thin - erm, you need to reword this, comes over as ungainly

Critchlow was also commended for the risky decision - risky could be replaced by a better adjective 'bold', 'brave', or something halfway between these and risky

The high production values were also praised, with the glossy cover and high quality paper used for the inner pages - how about "With the glossy cover and high quality paper used for the inner pages, the high production values also won praise"

Legacy section can all be one para

I'll read more from characterisation and below later. have to go.Looks good otherwise Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of these points are related to the final couple of issues raised by Tony1 above - imperfect prose used in order to stick closer to the source material. If I could have feedback on my queries, I'll be able to make the most suitable edits all in one go. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 12:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep an eye on the page. I am happy to hear reasons for not addressing any of the points I raised as you've read the source material, so we can do that as we go :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand my comment as meaning "go away until I've had a response from someone else." The idea was to gain consensus from several editors as to where to strike a balance between good prose and faithfullness to source materials. Please do let me have your thoughts on this point! My position is that I chose to stick to the sources more closely than I might have liked if I were writing it all myself because I'm a fan and didn't want to inadvertantly introduce my own bias or OR into the article. I think I can represent the sources fairly without following them as closely as at present - and can write pretty good prose when I choose to (honest!) - but would appreciate guidance on whether I should. GDallimore (Talk) 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Why all the citations in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, you should only cite controversial or challengable statements in the lead. Otherwise, they are repeated and cited later in the article.
  • "Since October 2002, Critchlow has continued to develop his new artistic style in several different 2000 AD stories, contributing to the success of Lobster Random in particular." I had to go read the source to figure out that Critchlow's artwork has make the Lobster Random series of 2000AD stories successful, not the character itself. Please clarify this in the prose.
  • In the Initial publications heading, you wikilink The Black Currant but it goes somewhere else in this same article. I'm not crazy about that, although I can't find anything about it in WP:MOSLINK.
  • You hyphenated "full-length" in the prose but not in the heading.
  • When we get to the full-length comic, you say that the first four covers were hand-drawn, but then you show an image of the cover of Issue 1 and say it illustrates Critchlow's new computer art style(?).
  • The prose in the Fictional character biography is not up to standard - please copyedit. There is too much "in-world" language: "...dark secrets of fighting and drinking beer."
  • Intelligence of a "garden snail" should be in quotes as they are not your own words.

--Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Taking your points in turn
    • Disagree with this one. The discussion in the lead is more general than and not quite the same as in the article. For example, I refer to the Golden Age of White Dwarf in the lead as I decided it was a good summary phrase but expand on this in slightly different ways in the article itself using a range of different sources. A citation is useful to identify where that "Golden Age" comment came from. Your also misrepresent WP:LEAD by your comment, in my view.
      • We'll have to settle for agreeing to disagree. It's not a dealbreaker. --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Missing italics added. Thanks
    • I see nothing wrong with this, and it could be useful for a reader to know that this character is discussed in more detail.
    • Fixed, thanks.
    • I think you must be misreading something somewhere. The picture to the side of this text is from issue 1, but is not the cover of issue 1 and is not related to this particular bit of text but to the discussion of cg art in general.
      • I did misread, apologies. --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The "in-world" language is there for a purpose and is kept to a minimum throughout the article, in my view. Thrud is all about satire and parody, and certain sections of the article are written in a style that highlights that. I think that helps give a better flavour of the character and his comics. Do you still feel that is inappropriate.
      • Even discounting the language concern, I feel the prose could be improved. Is there a second pair of eyes you can grab from the comics WikiProject or anywhere? --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure I understand why this needs to be in quotes. It's a description of the character based on a reference, like every other description of the character: "eight-foot tall barbarian", "exaggerated physique", "small head" "wielding an enormous axe", "caricature of Scwharzenegger". Should they all be in quotes? Again, this partly goes back to a point raised by Tony1 that I am still waiting for comments on.
      • Well, "intelligence of a garden snail" is a unique turn of phrase that is a direct quote from the source. So it should be written as a quote, not presented as your own words. Make sense? --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts. GDallimore (Talk) 16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a pattern here - better prose rather than sticking to source material. I'll do an appropriate copyedit which will hopefully respond to comments by Tony1, Laserbrain and Casliber. GDallimore (Talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that's necessarily true, I haven't seen the third party sources - my only contact is the original comics in WD. At least some of the material I pointed out is simple redundancy. Anyway, what is also important is ensuring the meaning is not changed from the original sources too, which you're the best judge of. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 14 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.