Talk:Saga (comics)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why is the article called Saga (comics) rather than Saga (comic). Was there more than one Saga comic?

Lead

• "The series, which is heavily influenced by Star Wars, and based on ideas Vaughan conceived both as a child and as a parent, depicts two lovers from long-warring extraterrestrial races, Alana and Marko, who struggle to survive amid a galactic war with their newborn daughter, Hazel, who occasionally narrates the series." That sentence needs to be broken up. Also, presumably Alana and Marko aren't actually at war with Hazel.

• "The book, which was described in solicitations ...". What's a solicitation in this context?

• "The book, which was described in solicitations as "Star Wars meets A Game of Thrones", and by critics as being evocative of both science fiction and fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings and classic works like Romeo & Juliet,[1][2][3] is Vaughan's first creator-owned work to be published through Image Comics, and represents the first time he employs third-person narration in his comics writing." Another far too long sentence.

Publication history

• "Writer Brian K. Vaughan first conceived Saga when he was a child ...". When did conceive it for the second, third ... time?

• "The book was first announced at the 2011 San Diego Comic-Con International ...". When was it announced for the second, third ... time?

• "... in the children's books he reads with his children, and by Vaughan's desire to try something new". Why the rather awkward switch from "his" to "Vaughan's"?

• "... he stresses that he developed Saga to be strictly to be a comic book".

• "... and not adapted to other media". What does that mean?

• "... he knows what he is doing five issues ahead". What he will be doing?

• "... who was introduced to Vaughan through their mutual friend ...". By their mutual friend?

• "... which would have ended with the two main characters die on the rocketship launch pad".

Reception

• "The first issue received wide acclaim from numerous reviewers, including MTV, Ain't it Cool News, Complex magazine, Comic Book Resources, iFanboy and ComicsAlliance ...". None of those are reviewers.

• "Multiple reviewers likened the book to a combination of sci-fi/fantasy works such as Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings and classic works of literature such as Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and the New Testament,[1][2][3][5][23] with AICN singling out the use of the newborn Hazel as a lone individual to chronicle large-scale events from a past perspective,[2] and Alex Zalben of MTV Geek remarking that he could hear a John Williams score as he read the book." Another run-on sentence.

Good point about the disambiguation parenthetical. I guess I'm so used to editing articles on comic book creators and characters that I was less familiar with the parenthetical for specific books. I've moved it now. I also addressed the line about Hazel, and broke up that sentence and the one about the description by solicitations and critics and it being Vaughan's first c.o. series through Image, the "first conceived" line, and the other issues you raised. Regarding three of them, however:

What's a solicitation in this context? The solicitations published by the distributors who sell the books to comic book stores. Should this be rewritten?

I think it should. Publicity material from the distributors? Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? Is it not sufficiently explanatory? He does not intend to have the series adapted into a movie or TV show. Isn't that clear with the full quote: He stresses that he developed Saga to be strictly to be a comic book, and not adapted to other media, explaining, "I wanted to do something that was way too expensive to be TV and too dirty and grown-up to be a four-quadrant blockbuster." Should this be reworded in some way?

The tenses aren't right. Surely you can see a problem with "to be strictly to be"? And it ought to be "not be adapted" rather than "not adapted". Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

die on the rocketship launch pad I assume that you were pointing out that the word "die" should have been "dying", right? I fixed that too.

I was, yes. Malleus Fatuorum

I look forward to your continued suggestions and thoughts. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I bet you do. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot

• "The opening story arc introduces the series' leads, Alana and Marko ...". My understanding of "story arc" is a theme that runs through the series, or at least several episodes, so I'm not sure what's meant by "opening story arc".

• "... whose people wield magic". You can't "wield" magic. Have magical powers?

• *"Because the destruction of one of the worlds would only send the other spinning out of orbit ...". Oh, is that all, nothing to worry about then. You need to rethink that "only"; is it really necessary?

• "They escaped together twelve hours after meeting, slaughtering a team of robot Coalition Baron police in the process, and in the beginning of the series' first issue, Alana gives birth to their daughter, Hazel, who occasionally narrates the series. Another run-on sentence.

Issues

• "On a planet called Cleave, Alana gives birth to their daughter, Hazel, while fleeing from their people." Which people? The people of Cleave?

• "... where they are surprised by what they find there ..." See any redundancy in that?

I think it should. Publicity material from the distributors?

They're not publicity material. They're the solicitations from which retailers order materials from the distributor. Solicitations is what they're called in the industry.

The tenses aren't right

Whoops! I missed that double "to be". Makes me sound like Shakespeare with a stutter. How does it look now?

Opening story arc

"Story arc" is another term for episodic storyline that is used in comics, television and other serial story media, not theme. The story arc article corroborates this.

You can't "wield" magic. Have magical powers?

Of course you can wield magic. According to sources like The American Heritage Dictionary and Dictionary.com, to wield means 1. to handle something capably, especially a tool or weapon, or 2. to handle something effectively, especially power. It is for this reason that "wielding magic" is a term that is used throughout fantasy fiction in which magic features as an element, and both of these definitions apply directly to the article, because the passage in question is referring to soldiers in a war using magic as a weapon. "Have magical powers" does not convey this point in as pertinent a manner.

You need to rethink that "only".....Another run-on sentence.....Which people? The people of Cleave?

Point taken. All three passages are fixed.

See any redundancy in that?

No, I'm afraid I'm stumped. Can you elaborate? Nightscream (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is the "there" at the end. For me it is redundant. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It was, fixed now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Second pass

Lead

• "The series is heavily influenced by Star Wars, and based on ideas Vaughan conceived both as a child and as a parent." That doesn't really work, as it suggests that Vaughan was a parent as a child. What about something like "... based on ideas Vaughan conceived as a child and developed after he became a father"?

• "The book was described in solicitations ...". Which book? I thought we were talking about a book series?

Publication history

• "... having been inspired by such influences as Star Wars, Flash Gordon and children's books". "Children's books" is pretty vague. All children's books?

• " Despite these early influences, it was not until his wife became pregnant with his second daughter that he began to develop the series in earnest, as the underlying theme of parenthood is present in the form of Alana and Marko, two lovers from warring extraterrestrial races who struggle to survive with their newborn daughter, Hazel, who occasionally narrates the series." You need to split that sentence after the word earnest, as the second half isn't a consequence of the first, as the linking word "as" implies: "... he began to develop the series in earnest. The underlying theme of parenthood is present ...".

• "... he developed Saga strictly to be strictly a comic book". Not certain what you're trying to say there, but that "strictly ... strictly" doesn't work.

• "At the Image Expo, Staples described her the process by which she produces the art ...".

• "... which featured a public conversation with Vaughan's former co-worker, Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof". Could we not say something like "former colleague" instead of "former co-worker", to avoid that rather ugly "co- ... co-"?

• "The book is priced at $2.99, and will remain at that price for the duration of its run, which Vaughan arranged as part of his contract with Image, along with the stipulation that it never be less than 22 pages long. Once again, which book? Each book in the series?

• "After the publication of issue 6 in August 2012, Vaughan announced in that issue's letter page ...". How does that work? His announcement was in issue 6, but he made the announcement after its publication?

• "That same month, Vaughan and Staples will promote the series by appearing together at the 2012 New York Comic Con". That's over now isn't it? If so, the tense is wrong.

• "... Staples described her the process by which she produces the art as harkening back to animation cels, in which emphasis is placed on figures and backgrounds." Clearly "described her the process" needs to be fixed, but I'm also a little concerned at the closeness of this text to what the cited source says: "... she described her art process and going back to animation cells [not cels] and thinking about figure and backgrounds."

Reception

• "The first issue was widely acclaimed in publications such as including Publishers Weekly ...". Which do you want? "Such as" or "including"?

• "Also universally praised was Fiona Staples' artwork, which was characterized as 'glorious', with Zalben predicting that readers would 'fall head over heels in love' with it, and Greg McElhatton of Comic Book Resources positively comparing it to that of Leinil Francis Yu, specifically her use of delicate lines to frame characters with large, bold figures, and Staples' mixture of the familiar and the foreign together in her character designs to create a visually cohesive universe. By about halfway through you start to get the feeling that that sentence will never end.

• "... hurting the story's pace with copious exposition of Alana and Marko's initial meeting and courtship". You can't hurt pace, it has no feelings.

• "AICN singled out the use of the newborn Hazel as a lone individual to chronicle large-scale events from a past perspective, and Alex Zalben of MTV Geek remarking that he could hear a John Williams score as he read the book." I have no idea what the first half of that sentence means, or how the second half relates to the first.

• "Also universally praised was Fiona Staples' artworkAlso universally praised was Fiona Staples' artwork". This section started out by saying that the series was "widely acclaimed", yet now we're implying that it was "universally praised", a much bolder statement that I doubt can be justified. I'm struck by the fact that there is absolutely no critical commentary included in this section. Is it really credible that no reviewer took exception to some aspect of the series?

Cast

• "Twelve hours later, she helped him escape, married him, and later bore his daughter, Hazel. So she married him twelve hours after meeting him? And "Twelve hours later ... later bore his child" is a bit grim.

Plot

• What I'm just not getting any sense of from this section is why Landfall and Wreath care about Alana and Marko enough to try and hunt them down. In what way are they significant enough to take the trouble?

Which book? I thought we were talking about a book series?

In the comic book industry the words "book" and "title" are used interchangeably with "series". However, in the latter instance, in which the price is mentioned, I altered it a bit.

Children's books" is pretty vague. All children's books?

The source was not more specific than that.

Could we not say something like "former colleague" instead of "former co-worker", to avoid that rather ugly "co- ... co-"?

Sure, I guess. But is that really universally considered an aspect of poor writing? It's not like that word is slang, or anything, is it?

If your question is "Is awkward repetition considered an aspect of poor writing?" then the answer is yes, it is. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned at the closeness of this text to what the cited source says: "... she described her art process and going back to animation cells [not cels] and thinking about figure and backgrounds."

What do you think the source is trying to say in that passage?

I don't care what the source is trying to say, that's for you to paraphrase, not simply copy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't hurt pace, it has no feelings.

Feelings are not required for hurt, since that word also means to to affect adversely, harm, damage or decrease the efficiency of, as when moths damage a suit, or dirty oil hurts a car engine. (Dictionary.com) But if you think a different word would work better, I'm open to suggestions.

This section started out by saying that the series was "widely acclaimed", yet now we're implying that it was "universally praised", a much bolder statement that I doubt can be justified. I'm struck by the fact that there is absolutely no critical commentary included in this section. Is it really credible that no reviewer took exception to some aspect of the series?

Good point about the word "widely" being a more easily justified adverb than "universally". Regarding the lack of critical commentary, I can assure you, if I found any, I'd have added it. Feel free to point me to any should you find it.

A quick Google search revealed this, in which the reviewer expresses some disappointment with the second issue, and I very much that there aren't others. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So she married him twelve hours after meeting him? And "Twelve hours later ... later bore his child" is a bit grim.

I broke up that passage into two different sentences in order to clarify this.

What I'm just not getting any sense of from this section is why Landfall and Wreath care about Alana and Marko enough to try and hunt them down. In what way are they significant enough to take the trouble?

He's an escaped prisoner. She's a turncoat who helped him escape. Together they slaughtered a team of robot Coalition Baron police in the process. Is that not enough?

As for your other suggestions and errors you pointed out, I corrected them. However, if you don't mind my asking, is it really constructive, when coming across an error, to address it with comments like "Which do you want? 'Such as' or 'including'?" Since you've decided to assist in the editing of the article yourself, why not just fix things like that? Don't get wrong, I know you don't have to, but if you're willing to go expend the effort of cutting and pasting the offending passage and commenting on it, wouldn't that effort have been better spent just fixing it? This is like coming across a break in a levee or dam, through which water is pouring, seeing a bunch of sandbags nearby, and using the sandbags to spell "HELP" for passing helicopters, instead of just using the sandbags to plug up the hole. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know how best to respond that. I have fixed a great many things myself, but in this particular case I thought it best to give you the choice between "such as" or "including", as having no knowledge of the publications you're talking about I can't judge whether "such as" or "including" would be preferable. But if you're not happy with the way I've conducted this review than I'll be quite happy to fail it and you can relist the article at GAN and wait for another reviewer or take it to WP:GAR. I'll quite happily go along with whatever you decide. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on fixing the paraphrasing and lack of critical reception issues, or shall we close this review now? Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: on looking through the lack of response to the most recent issues I've raised it seems quite clear that the nominator has no intention of addressing them, therefore I am now closing this review. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google search revealed this, in which the reviewer expresses some disappointment with the second issue, and I very much that there aren't others.

You apparently didn't read that review very closely. Hell, the title itself kinda gives away its sentiment: "'Saga #2' Continues The Most Exciting New Series In Comics". As for the review's content, here are some excerpts:

Is the second issue as jam-packed with inventiveness, creativity, and emotion as the first issue? Nope. But does it affirm that this is an epic journey well worth following in the long term? Yup....Like any good second issue, though, Saga #2 affirms what I liked about issue one, offers some exciting new characters and spectacular designs, deepens what we know about existing characters, and ends with one heck of a cliffhanger....We don’t know whether Alana and Marko will survive, and by the end of issue two, things look more dire than ever. That’s no mean feat: making a reader one hundred percent invested in the fates of characters they’ve barely met...It’s certainly taken me six issues or more of a comic to get invested in mainstream characters I know very well before, and here I’d be heartbroken if anything happened to Alana or Marko in under two....That’s due not just to Vaughan’s excellent characterization, which simply implies both the long histories of the characters through hints and small mentions, but also Staples beautiful framing. A scene where the whole family falls asleep in this issue has more implications of relationships than most comics - or books - do in their entire runs....Saga continues to be the most original, exciting new series not just in comics, but all of entertainment. There’s still time to get in on the ground floor, so do that, won’t you?

The only negative that reviewer Alex Zalben gave any space to was how "one little qualm" about how the lengthy first issue spoiled him for the regular-sized second one. But for the most part, Zalben's review was an overwhelmingly positive one.

If your question is "Is awkward repetition considered an aspect of poor writing?" then the answer is yes, it is.

Which word or passage is being awkwardly repeated?

I don't care what the source is trying to say, that's for you to paraphrase, not simply copy.

Which is what I did. The passage I wrote reads, "At the Image Expo, Staples described her the process by which she produces the art as harkening back to animation cels, in which emphasis is placed on figures and backgrounds." From your previous comment, I thought you were trying to say that you didn't think that my paraphrase conveyed what the source was trying to say. Can you clarify?

Well, I don't really know how best to respond that. I have fixed a great many things myself, but in this particular case I thought it best to give you the choice between "such as" or "including", as having no knowledge of the publications you're talking about I can't judge whether "such as" or "including" would be preferable. But if you're not happy with the way I've conducted this review than I'll be quite happy to fail it and you can relist the article at GAN and wait for another reviewer or take it to WP:GAR.....Update: on looking through the lack of response to the most recent issues I've raised it seems quite clear that the nominator has no intention of addressing them, therefore I am now closing this review.

Excuse me?

You're closing the GA review because you didn't like the fact that I questioned one of issues you raised? Seriously? Are you that petty?

I have "no intention of addressing" the most recent issues? How do you figure this? I've responded every single one of them, and you drew the conclusion that I have no intention of responding to your 23:08, 23 October 2012 post just over a day after it? Are you serious? Do you really want to go down that route? Nightscream (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)