Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/New Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 New Universe 1.1 Hiding 1.2 A Man In Black 1.3 Hob 1.4 jc37 1.5 leigh (φθόγγος) 1.6 Tenebrae 1.7 DDG

[edit] New Universe

Peer review requested, for the following reasons...

• Firstly, because we've got a lot of sections and issue references, but I'm not convinced that this article works as a useful introduction to (or overview of) the New Universe. I'd like a second opinion as to what's missing and/or hard to follow.
• Secondly, I think this is the perfect time to do this. Newuniversal (which has now been split to its own article) is about to revive the characters and concepts. It seems likely that some of the 'original' versions will also reappear again as a consequence of this.
• ...but for the moment, this is more or less static. This month's comics aren't going to change anything that's written here, so we should be able to get it into shape, given a few more pointers.
• Currently, I'd consider this to be a start-class article. I'd like to see that improved. Hopefully, this will help.

Thanks! --Mrph 15:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiding

For me, the article needs better outside sourcing. I'm not clear what the further reading section is, but if that is the references section it should be so titled, otherwise it should be trimmed, as it unbalances the page. The lead needs to be trimmed a little, perhaps the huge second paragraph could be moved into the main body. There is no real description of the creation of the New Universe, fan reaction or any attempt to place the fictional construct in our universe. The sections are heavily listified, for example the titles section. These should be presented as bodies of text, not bulleted lists, and written from an out of universe perspective as well. New Universe is important. It ties into Shooter's reign at Marvel, his departure and other politics of the time, and was a big failure for Marvel. This article barely covers any of that ground. Also, listings of comic book issues should be done through footnotes rather than as bulleted within the text. You also have sections which consist of one paragraph, and in one case, one sentence. That's really bad on the eye, and not really Wiki-style. Sorry to be so negative, but this is an important topic. You are right, this is a good start, but it would look even better with the formatting issues corrected. Hiding Talk 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Man In Black

I'll second the need for outside commentary, but for now let's concentrate on style.

• This article is exceedingly listy, and it leads to a visual imbalance. For example, the unnecessarily header- and bullet-laden section on minor mentions in 2005 and 2006 is almost as long as the section about the line and its initial comic books. The lists of 2005-2006 minor appearances can be boiled down to a section about UTotNU, placing it in context as a lead-up to New Universal.
• All of "Reintroduction" could be condensed into a paragraph. The cameos can go.
• Second Era seems undeveloped.
• The tone is awfully conversational. There's never any need to refer to Marvel as "the House of Ideas", we could lose "It seems Marvel had moved on..." and so forth.

Hope this helps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hob

Agree with all of the above, plus:

• The descriptive paragraphs for each title in the Titles section look like quotes from comic-book narration or promotional material; if so, they should've been sourced, but if not, some editor put considerable effort into writing really unencylopedic copy. Reduce them to one or two sentences about the basic premise of each title, without the Marvel-style prose.

• The "Problems" section needs at least one specific source. Otherwise it's not clear whether the stuff about (for example) Jim Shooter not being able to "give the line as much attention as he would have liked" is based on something Shooter said, or our own speculation, or what. ←Hob 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jc37

First, I would suggest that someone also do a bit more cleanup on Star Brand, since this article relies on it (it being a central theme to the universe, and directly involved in its status throughout the chronology).

Also, did Wikipedians actually write the blurbs for each series? They sound like something promotional (and possibly copyvio?)

Premise/problems/introduction/parody/second era should all be merged/organised. With the series list presented after.

And the offical Marvel universe designations (for continuity purposes) gets somewhat confusing, as well.

This is just first glance... I'll take a closer look later, when I have more time : ) - jc37 02:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leigh (φθόγγος)

• The Titles section needs an overhaul in tone -- were these paragraphs copied from Marvel's promotional text? If so, that needs to be documented; otherwise their tone is quite unencyclopedic.
• More images. I suggest that every "=="-level heading have an image to accompany it. Perhaps a photo of Shooter? Scans of a climactic moment in the narrative? I do like the lead image (the house ad) -- maybe an example of the "timeline in the back of the comics" mentioned in paragraph 3?
• In general, I feel that the universe's original incarnation should comprise the majority of this article. It currently feels overshadowed by the endless trivia regarding minor references to the NU after the fact. leigh (φθόγγος)

I think the advice on images is probably best not followed, unless we have any free images of Shooter. There's no need to illustrate anything in this article strong enough to justify using any fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenebrae

The editors above all make excellent and helpfully specific points. I can mostly only reiterate and concur.

Some wordiness can be streamlined, which is easy enough. And the writing can be a bit repetitious, such as the multiple references in the lead to "realism" (which in this context isn't actually the right word — see naturalism (literature)).

It's a good start — I particularly like the dispassionate specificity of the caption for the first image — and I would constructively suggest rewriting it while asking oneself, "If I were writing this as a newspaper report, how would I phrase things?" I think that'll help find a proper tone. Oh, and footnote, footnote, footnote — even if you decide later to remove the footnote after deciding a reader can reasonably assume that a particular thing is s information culled from the general references, footnoting is still a really good exercise in making sure that everything that's said can be backed up. Kudos, by the way, for asking for a peer review! Now that's community minded!

[edit] DDG

There are serious tone issues in this article. I agree with Leigh above who says that the description in the "Titles" section sounds like marketing drivel. Lines like "And that's just the beginning." and "What choice does he have?" are clearly unencyclopedic. --DDG 15:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)