Talk:Kevin and Kell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kevin and Kell 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 10, 2007 Peer review Reviewed January 23, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

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. 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. More information: Related work groups (general): Webcomics work group Kevin and Kell 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. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Comedy Portal This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Add comments

Archives

January 2004 –

Contents 1 Not the longest running webcomic 2 Reviews and reception needed 3 Good article nomination on hold 3.1 GA Pass 4 Thoughts on further development 5 History?

[edit] Not the longest running webcomic

Sorry, but Kevin and Kell is not the longest running webcomic. There is another, Argon Zark!, which has been going since June 1995, compared to Kevin and Kell, which started in September 1995. ISD 18:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews and reception needed

Can anyone find some reliable sources which contain reviews of Kevin and Kell please. ISD 11:22, 9 November 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 December 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article is written in clear understandable language, and does not seem too "in-universe".

2. Factually accurate?: Good use of sourcing. Could use more citations in the About section, even though they are already at the end of the paragraph - so we know which sentence is backed up to which source.

3. Broad in coverage?: I would like to see a little more information in the Reception section. Also, the reviews should each be attributed to who said what, as opposed to "some reviwers said this", while "others said that", etc. The large blockquote doesn't look that great, I'd suggest changing it to a smaller quote placed within the rest of the paragraph format. Also, if possible it'd be great if you could find another source to add to the Reception section, but this is not a dealbreaker.

4. Neutral point of view?: Information appears to be presented in a neutral manner.

5. Article stability? Article history appears to be stable going back at least two months.

6. Images?: The one picture satisfies image requirements.

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.— Cirt 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overall, a good article, message my talk page when these above minor issues have been addressed and it should be able to pass. Great work. Cirt 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] GA Pass

Thanks for addressing my above points. Article meets the criteria. Good job. Cirt 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thoughts on further development

I've made a few edits after the request for copyediting at WP:FURRY. However, I don't believe that's the only thing this article needs to fully meet A-class or to attempt FA-class. In general, I feel it fails to hit the "comprehensive" standard of coverage in some areas. In particular:

• The "About" section seems confused - is it about the comic's success, or about the storyline? "About" is a silly name, anyway - the entire article is "about" the comic. I think this section should be split into two sections: "History" and "Storyline and themes". The latter could actually be two sections - "Themes and structure" and "Plot" - but from what I can see the overarching plot appears to be fairly weak as compared to (say) Megatokyo.
• Looking at the history, the article used to have a very long (and totally unreferenced) storyline section which was split off into Storyline of Kevin and Kell, and recently deleted per WP:PLOT. While there appears to be some attempt at summarizing this already, it may be appropriate to scavenge some small parts of this back into the main article (and perhaps all of it could go onto WikiFur - we have no problem with original research of this fashion).
• There is no "See also" section. Such a section is not strictly necessary, of course, and many obvious choices are covered in the body. Still, I suspect there are some related topics which have not yet been mentioned. If nothing else, consideration of this area may lead to additional body text.
• The article has one image. Does this really constitute "well illustrated"? Fair use has its limits, but I don't think we've hit them yet. In particular, a cover of one of the printed works would be nice.

Examination of other featured articles about comics may prove useful. GreenReaper (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have carried out some of these measures. I've added another image, and seperated the history and plot. The plot section into two parts, the main plot and the characters, and has also since been expanded. I don't believe a "See also" section is needed. ISD (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created a WikiFur article containing the storyline section that was deleted from Wikipedia. ISD (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History?

When and where was Kevin and Kell first syndicated? Where exactly did it first appear? I have a vague memory of reading the first strips in black and white on a Compuserve forum and not on the web in 1995. By the way the herdthinner external link for the first strip is dead and also not found on archive.org. -Wikianon (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I just fixed the link. -Wikianon (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The very first citation answers my query: "It began September 3, 1995, as a downloadable feature of CompuServe's Funnies Forum". I now remember that compuserve members could download GIF images from certain forums. Google "Kevin and Kell Compueserve" and find old talk of the comic starting on Compuserve. Now, it seems this information should be included in the History section. -Wikianon (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)