Talk:Jack (webcomic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Jack (webcomic) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Jack (webcomic) is within the scope of WikiProject Furry, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to furry fandom. For more information, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] References to 'Real' world?

I think there should be a section where references to the real world in Hell and Heaven are highlighted. There are many throughout the comic. - Anon. 04/03/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.122.2 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overanalyzation?

A lot of this seems like it's trying to dissect a fairly unimpressive comic strip and reconstruct it into a great work of art. The "symbolism" section seems to include a lot of speculation, and the character lists are unnecessarily detailed for the average reader. This comic isn't that important. I'm going to size this down. --Krishva 09:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, there's no such thing as too much information... Sippan 09:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why'd you cut it down? It seemed to be better before. I agree though, that there is no such thing as too much info. (On certain topics of course.) Ian Rubin 02:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It could do with a trivia section, JACK features a lot of seemingly pointless or inexplicible elements. For example; all the comics end in "TTFN", meaning Ta-Ta For Now. Also, the rapist dolphins of hell confuse a lot of people, and some think there is hidden signifigance in them. They're actually there to annoy a former boyfriend of D. Hopkins' spouse, who was fond of dolphins. -Anonymous

I disagree with Krishva; you may find that it is a fairly unimpressive comic strip but this is only your personal oppinion, and wikipedia articles arent based on personal oppinions. This webcomic is very popular and i, for one, consider it a work of art. This article is obviously just a beginning. instead of sizing it down, information should be added to this article, as there is much more to Jack then what is shown here. --Anonymous 22:40, 14 Sep 2006

Do you think there should be any mention of Drip's illegitimate daughter Lina in his article? --Anonymous, Unknown Date

Well. sofar only 1 single strip feautured her so i do not think she is (sofar) relevant to the story. she will probably/possibly become more relevant in the future, but nobody knows what david has planned --anonymous 02:00, 18 Sep 2006

Actually she appears in two, "Father" and "Falling Angels" (although she has a completely different personality "Falling Angels", possibly because she did not know Drip was her father and she was concieved of rape at the time). -- Anonymous, Unknown Date

I don't see why opinions from someone who has little interest in the comic are relevant, nor why the same person should edit the page at all. Much of this page was written by members of the artist's forum, some of which are in direct contact with him, so the "speculation" the OP is speaking of is often the truth. The TWF 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Krishva's oppinion is just that; an oppinion. Someone should revert this article to what it was before Krishva removed most of it. 62.194.170.62 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recurring/Minor characters

I've been toying with this idea, maybe a "Minor and recurring characters in Jack" article could be made, it could include characters like SilverBlue, Dr. Thalmus, Arloest, Satan, Jatter, just to name a few. -- Lord Crayak

I think that would work better as a seperate page. Depends on how large the main page gets. It's already pretty large as it is. The TWF 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangsian fantasy?

Jack is not a Bangsian fantasy. A huge portion of the narrative does not take place in the afterlife. Moreover, it lacks the other famous characteristics of Bangsian fantasy, such as an absence of fictional characters. Is there a source for this description, or is it original research? -Silence 22:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have edited it out. Camann 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Story Arcs

I see that someone has been making summaries of several of Jack's story-arcs and shorts, perhaps since these summaries are pretty large and take up alot of space the should be moved to their own, perhaps "Jack shorts and story-arcs" or something. -- Lord Crayak

Possibly, but I think we should hold off splitting the Article for now. CharonX/talk 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering on the Arcs/Shorts

How about we change the numbering on the Shorts from Roman numberals to normal digits or have the titles in italics? Things are becoming hard to keep apart. CharonX/talk 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] too much summary

From just casually coming across this wikipedia article, and subsequently viewing the comic's webpage, I think that the summaries of each individual arc should be removed. It's more information than is needed in a Wikipedia article and is uninteresting to someone who is not a fan. A fan can easily access this kind of information through the archives on the Jack site, and reread the strips if necessary. Also, a lot of the information contained in the blow-by-blow summaries is contained in the character summaries. Ettiesniffs 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a better idea of moving the summaries from the main article into a sub-article, such as Story arcs in Jack. ISD 08:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I, as well, agree that the plot summaries take a lot of space and have very little purpoce. There are probably some other things that could be put in the place, like information about the printed versions. Maybe, instead of summareies, we could have a list of arcs with a description no longer than a few paragrapsh topped with a link to the beginnig of the arc. Pirtu 16:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to shrink them down to 3 Sentences (or less for shorts) CharonX/talk 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -> B-Class

During the last couple of weeks, the article underwent considerable improvement. Now it has a great deal of useful, non-trivial information, informative images and a few references. I think the article can now be considered as B-class.Canis lupus familiaris 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The text needs some clarity; there are a lot of 'extra' words, ie, 'plot revolves basically around' doesn't need 'basically'. On the other hand, some parts don't provide *enough* info. Unfamiliar with the comic, phrases like 'forcing him to see all the death that made him wrathful' don't quite make sense. Should it read something like, 'In life, the unfairness of some deaths made him angry. In his position as Grim Reaper, he now has to bring about the deaths that caused his wrath.'?
2. Factually accurate?: I would really like to see some more coverage from another media source; more than half the cites are to the comic and most of the rest are to awards and noms. Webcomics don't require extensive coverage in The Times, but stable referrals to reviews, author interviews, etc., will provide a more thorough view of the subject.
3. Broad in coverage?: Improvements to accuracy/breadth will improve this.
4. Neutral point of view?: good
5. Article stability? fine
6. Images?: fine

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. I will watch this page, but please feel free to ask direct questions on my talk page for slightly faster answers. — Thespian 19:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found a couple of reviews of Jack, and included some more references to give a more in-depth description of the comic and some of the characters. ISD 09:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Very good job. Exactly what I think this article needed. Releasing the hold. --Thespian 11:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure how this has got to GA - it is completely lacking in reliable sources and the referencing is thin - largely references to awards sites and the comic itself. This is particularly noticeable in the themes and reception sections which should be heavily referenced to reliable third party sources and they aren't. (Emperor 13:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
Well, it is hard to find reliable third party sources for webcomics. If you can find some better ones for this webcomic, show me them. ISD 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Not being able to find reliable third party sources is certainly an issue but they are important and (I thought) required - as it stands the themes section could easily be flagged as original research (such sections are always tricky without heavy referencing). (Emperor 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Opposition to speedy deletion

I oppose the speedy deletion of this article for a few main reasons.

  1. I find it rather odd that this article should be put up for speedy deletion almost immiedietly after it has been promoted to "Good article" status, by a user apparently not logged in. (70.116.31.203)
  2. This webcomic is an award winning comic, having won the award for "Best Dramatic Comic" at the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards in 2004. ISD 13:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. The article is well written, well referenced, and as a good article, an example of some of Wikipedia's best work.

ISD 13:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

From the nominators page it seems a bad faith nomination to make a point. I'm going to remove the tags and if an editor seriously thinks this needs deleting they can raise it here and we'll discuss it. (Emperor 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
OK the nominator did while I was typing. (Emperor 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC))