Talk:Batman: Anarky/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Collection background section, "Detective Comics" is mentioned, but later on "DC Comics" appears. Now, I know that "Detective Comics" is "DC Comics", but how 'bout the reader. So maybe saying "DC Comics" formerly "Detective Comics".
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Collection themes section, it would be best if "Plato", "Aristotle", "bicameralism", and any other words that are overlinked, per here.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Is there a source for this ---> "Published on February 22, 1999, Batman: Anarky collected nine Batman-related comic books, comprising four unique stories connected by their featured character: Anarky. The collected material, originally published in 1989, 1995, and 1997, includes Anarky's first appearance; the revelation of Anarky's origin story; and Anarky's first limited series, which revamped the character with a new set of abilities and new costume. Other stories from the early 90s in which the character guest-starred were omitted, as they were not self-contained. While all of the collected stories were written by Alan Grant, contributing pencillers include Norm Breyfogle, Staz Johnson, and John Paul Leon, with various others assisting as inkers, colorists, and letterers"?

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for taking the time to review this article. Now let us get to the list issues you raise:

At no point is "DC Comics" used as a synonym for the comic Detective Comics. The fact that this mistake was made at all implies that the flaw must be corrected, but the sentences seem to make sense in context. I have opted to link the only use of "DC Comics" which was not linked (assuming this is where you came to your confusion), so that this will not happen again. Now there can be no confusion between the company and the comic.
"In the Collection themes section, it would be best if 'Plato', 'Aristotle', 'bicameralism', and any other words that are overlinked, per here"
Did you intend to finish this sentence differently, or was it meant to end as seen? The sentence seems incomplete, and I'm not sure what you were about to recommend. "...it would be best if...?" I have removed some of the links and rewritten some of these sentences so that words which are linked are now spread apart, and perhaps more aesthetically pleasing, but I am not entirely satisfied with the results. If I have assumed your desires incorrectly, and you would care to express your note more clearly, I'd be more than happy to rewrite the sentences.
I meant it would be best if the "Plato", "Aristotle", and "bicameralism", are linked once. Also, if any other term is linked over once, please, unlink it. I hope it make sense now. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot always remember exactly what my reasoning was for a segment of text written a good deal of time ago, but I do remember writing this paragraph with the intention that it would only contain a few statements that would require citations, and that the majority of it would be uncontroversial statements. I later eliminated certain sections and the citations for this section. Rather than confusing the problem by attempting to justify two, out of place and unnecessary sentences in that paragraph, I've deleted them. All that remains are simple, descriptive sentences that can be verified by the source material.

I hope the changes made so far are steps in the right direction. I await your reassessment. --Cast (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the first note, an editor has just corrected what I believe you were referring to and I have undone my edit.--Cast (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "DC Comics" refers to the company and Detective Comics refers to the comic series. There was some ambiguity which I rectified. In the second point the "here" (WP:Easter egg) is wikilinked to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking which suggests when to wikilink and when not to. The wikilinks to commonly known subjects like Plato and Aristotle, in the "Various books can be seen..." sentence, do not add anything that the "Greek philosophers" adjective doesn't explain. However, wikilinks to the articles are valuable in the "...political philosophy of Plato and Aristotle" sentence. I would suggest keeping 'bicameralism' because I consider it psychology-jargon. Some unnecessary wikilinks in that section (and it is a judgment call) include poverty, environmental issues, and high tech. --maclean 05:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I suggest removing the "Publication" heading. I think "Collection background", "Collected work" and "Themes" can stand on their own as sections. --maclean 05:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to move this along, I've addressed the issues you've raised. Understand, I understood that there was a wikilink in ThinkBlue's comment. The point is that, as the sentence is written, it does not make sense. "...it would be best if..." what? What would be best? The sentence just drops off with a wikilink, leaving me to infer the intended meaning.
Moving along, I have been considering moving about the sections to what WP:Comics advises in its format guide for graphic novels and storylines. The article, as I laid out, was slightly based on the Anarky character article; emphasis is placed publication history (hence "publication"). I've now shifted the Themes and Characters to be nearer to the end of the article. The summary of the background leading up to the collection, and information on the individual comic books that are collected, is kept together under the heading of Collection. My reasoning for this is that to a degree, we're breaking ground here. There are currently no articles for Trade Paperback Collections over B quality. This will be the first TPB to achieve GA status, and will likely set a certain standard. I'm basing the general layout on FA articles for graphic novels, but this article has to be uniquely designed for what (I think/hope) future collection articles should focus on. So the article focus will be on the work the collection holds, because a collection is itself not likely to be notable, except for what information it includes in its introduction, and what notable stories it contains. The "Background" section covers what notable history of the character Anarky is covered in this story; in this case, certain incidents between 1989 and 1997, as they relate to the stories within the collection, are given reference. This is aided by the fact that much of this history is detailed within the collection introductions themselves. The "Collected work" section notes the significance of the individual comics which have been brought together. These are dual aspects of the same topic, and I don't think they should be broken up. In fact, it was with this in mind that I kept the "Themes" section tied to them -- I thought the themes of the collection might make a it notable. I've decided to break them off, since I don't feel that they do. Only in one sense is the collection made notable due to a theme. This collection holds the first time Neo-Tech was ever used as the basis for a comic book. I'll add that to the section on the significance on the collected work.--Cast (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both Cast and maclean for responding to the queries I left at the talkpage. Congratulations to both, I have gone off and promoted the article. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]