Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iron Man/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2024 [1].

---

Iron Man

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm renominating this two weeks after the previous nomination was archived. I'm feeling confident about its chances, as it managed to reach a rough consensus to promote at 3:1 with another review in progress before failing due to a deadline (I probably should have resolved that by doing some quid pro quos to get early reviews like most nominators do, so that's on me). Most of the problems raised by the lone oppose !vote should be addressed per my replies in the previous FAC before it was archived. I justified not acting on the remaining ones, which were largely style preferences or things that I and other reviewers disagreed with. Since the last nomination, I've made two changes: I spent a few minutes addressing the remaining concerns that were cut off when it was archived, and I reverted a few instances of copyediting that I had done during the nomination, as I felt they were detrimental to the article.

I think it's in pretty good shape now, and I look forward to any further feedback! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois, Aoba47, Premeditated Chaos, David Fuchs: Since all of you commented on the short length of the legacy section, I've tried taking a different approach and started looking for sources about more specific stories (despite my philosophy to avoid handpicking sources whenever possible). Do any of you have thoughts about combining several "top Iron Man stories" lists to comment on which were the most well-received? The ones I found from major pop culture websites are: IGN, IGN(2), Slashfilm, Den of Geek, and GamesRadar. If you're all okay with this method of sourcing, would you consider all of these sufficiently high quality to include? Also, Den of Geek is the only one to cover the worst Iron Man stories, so would there be weight concerns there if that alone were used to cover poorly received stories? I feel that there would be, but I've yet to find any other

I did not receive a notification for this ping. I believe that is because the comment was left unsigned. It would probably be best to try and ping them again. This seems like a good idea, and I do not have any issues with the proposed citations. They would be appropriate for a FA. That being said, I would also like to hear from the other editors about this, and I would trust their opinions on it. Apologies if I already asked this in the previous FAC, but have you looked through any newspaper sources? There may be some useful resources there on how the character was viewed prior to the internet. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixing ping. PanagiotisZois, Premeditated Chaos, David Fuchs Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what prose you're intending to draw from the above sources, but for the purposes of citing critic opinions I think they're appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For me at least, all the sources are appropriate for an FA article. You could synthesize them to indicate the most well-received Iron Man stories. As for the "worst" ones... I'm not sure that's soemthing that should be included, primarily because you'd be arguing a given story arc was viewed as bad based solely on just one source.

I do agree with Aoba47 that using something like newspapers.com might be useful for pre-2003 comics-related stuff, but I also understand it would be a pretty tall order to shift through decades worth of material, so simply using the 5 aforementioned, online sources is all right. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added another paragraph of reception based on these sources. I don't know if it's what the article needed or not, but I'll leave that for the reviewers to decide. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

All right. I've checked the new material. I think it works. I do like how that section is to a certain degree based on chronological order, detailing aspects of the character in the 60s and 70s, then discussing some of his storylines from the late 70s to the 2000s, and then discussin how the MCU in 2008 and after affected response to the character. I do also appreciate that the section doesn't just say "X storyline was well-received", but discussed how Iron Man is depicted. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with PanagiotisZois. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from PanagiotisZois

Resolved comments from Panagiotis Zois

Happy to see this article being nominated again. Continuing from where my previous review ended, I'll start with the "Characterization" section. Fictional character biography Paragraph 1: Long Island, New York should be linked. Wong-Chu should be linked. Does the source state when Siancong was created to explain Iron Man's origin? Given the previous sentence, it probably wasn't in the 1990s, but at least by the 2000s. Links added. Siancong is interesting; as far as I can tell, there was no one definitive moment that it was changed. Paragraph 2: It's stated that Tony helped found S.H.I.E.L.D. But if I'm not mistaken, given the "sliding scale of continuity" in Marvel, hasn't this been changed to have Tony's father be the one who helped found the organization? "As he to regret". I guess you meant "As he [comes] to regret". It could also be "Coming to regret" or just "regretting". I'd change "he relapses as part of a plot by Obadiah Stane" to "he relapses due to a plot orchestrated by Obadiah Stane", which makes the point clearer. Also, although this is briefly mentioned in the "Publication history" section, the reference to Stane being Tony's business rival should also appear here. "After he recovers". Although I get you mean Tony, since we've brought up three men in the previous section, it would be best if you specified who "he" is. I've made the grammar changes. Friedenthal (2008) says that he "helped establish" S.H.I.E.L.D. Any thoughts on what other approach you might want to take with this? I tried looking for a source that discusses this, but I've come up with nothing. :/ Not even one source that at least refers to Howard as SHIELD's founder. Taking that into account, there is nothing to do but leave that section as is. Pagragraphs 3 & 4: "After returning, Stark falls under Immortus's control, turning Stark evil". Repetition of Stark. "until the Scarlet Witch alters his mind, causing him to embarrass himself and leave in disgrace". How does Tony embarrass himself? Is it something that happened in public, forcing Tony to resign, or something else? "their real son could". Probably better to replace real with biological. I'm not sure how to handle the Stark repetition, because a "he" there would be ambiguous, even if it can be inferred from context. Made the other changes. Paragraph 5: Best to have "morally corrupt" be hyphenated. "protects himself from the counterspell and takes over San Francisco to augment the residents with Extremis". Does that mean that Tony is still under the effects of the spell? I get that the biography section lists the most important aspects of Tony's life based on what the handbooks and secondary academic sources state, but this is something that would require clarification. The biography sections seems to end at around 2019. Again, understand that it's going based on the handbooks, but could something from the past 4 years be added? Like Tony marrying Emma Frost and becoming her trophy husband? This article clarifies the spell about as much as the writers did. They basically just dropped it and moved on without resolution, and I didn't see any sources that covered their mistake specifically. I have the Emma Frost thing under his relationships, but I added a mention. Iron Man 2020 seems like the obvious inclusion, but there aren't really any good overview sources of its in-universe effects yet. Besides that, I can't find any major developments in his character in the last few years. Comic writers sweeping things under the rug? Wish they'd do that with Wanda and Pietro being non-mutants and not-Magneto's children. If there aren't any good sources detailing Iron Man 2020, I understand leaving it as is. Glad to see the Emma Frost thing included, so that we at least have a relatively recent plot element from the past couple of months being mentioned.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Personality and motivations I would appreciate some explanation over how the 6 paragraphs are structured; as in, which is the topic they cover. Par 2 for example seems to focus on Tony's relationship with his technology and the Iron Man armor, with his fears relating to losing the armor and also himself; clearly, Tony views the armor as integral to his identity. Taking that into account, doesn't the "innovate and improve his technology" section fit better with the second paragraph, rather than the first? Taking the above into account, wouldn't the last paragraph work better as the third one? That way, you discuss Tony's technology, his views on it, and his fears, and then go on talking about how he's actually better with machines than people; with the section outright stating at the end that Tony "identifies with the Iron Man armor as an extension of himself". It seems to me that paragraphs #3 & 4 are connected in that they both deal with Tony's personality traits and specifically his "weaknesses"; whether it's his heart problems, misogyny, or alcoholism. I just wanted to put out that I do think the order could be reversed and they'd still work, but leaving them as is would be fine. "problem solving" would work better hyphenated. "The character is represents" probably goes without the "is". I think the improving his technology aspect is good for the first sentence, as an introduction to who he is first and foremost. There are a lot of notes about the arrangement of this section under PMC's review in the previous nomination, if you're curious about the thought process behind it. But I agree that the last paragraph should be higher up and I moved it accordingly, and I made the grammar fixes. I'll go over the "Themes and motifs" section in its entirety before I post my comments here.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Politics and economics "opposing radicalism associated with 1960s counterculture". I may need a clarification. Do you mean that Tony opposed radicalism in general sense, which in the 1960s was associated with the counterculture movement? As in, he was a liberal and skeptical of the US government, but not to a radical degree; like the counterculturists. "Iron Man opposed the Vietnam War.[127] This gave the" can work as one sentence. "opposed the Vietnman War, which gave the". "examination of both perspectives". In terms of what? The role of invetor and technology? That Iron Man represents the inventor's personal use of technology, while Tony Stark's role as a businessman and owner of his company shows the "bureaucracy of governments and corporations"? Yes, that's what the radicalism part means. Do you think it should be reworded? I also reworded the "both perspectives" part, which is hopefully an improvement. Technology Seeing as you are talking both about technology and technology's impact on society, it should be "are common themes". "and the story's writers". Unless only one Iron Man story deals with this theme, it's plural. Also, wouldn't it be better to say that "various writers have portrayed" In "Iron Man's use", I'd write it as "The character's use", so that you avoid repeating Iron Man twice in the same sentence. "arise from progress and advancement" as in scientific progress and advancement or technological? Or is it speaking about progress and advancement in a broad sense? "Misuse of technology and [the] implications of cybernetics are regular themes" could be combined without previous sentence, especially since it begins discussing what the previous one ends about. Link "automation". I assume the source means both in a broader sense. Made all grammar fixes. Armor "strength from powered armor of" would be either "a powered armor" or "powered armors". "replaced with integrated circuits as real world technology advanced". Is a date provided? "it also protects him internally as it keeps his heart beating". Based on previous data, isn't this somewhat outdated? Since his heart surgery, Iron Many doesn't need his armor to keep his heart beating. No date, it doesn't seem to have been an all-at-once thing. Made the other fixes. Here are the comments regarding the "Themes and motifs" section.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) PanagiotisZois, not sure if you're still in the middle of the review, but I jumped in and addressed everything to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Hey. I was waiting for you to address my current comments before I continued the review. In the past, I've had users drop the peer review or equivalent without addressing my comments, which made me feel like I was wasting my time. I'll go through your changes and then finish with my review. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Allies Still believe it's better to have characters go by first name; Pepper rather than Potts or Happy over Hogan. Considering that many of these characters are rarely even referred to by their last name, it often just comes off weird. Done. "have become Iron Man besides Stark" to "have taken up the Iron Man mantle besides". Done. Romantic interests "Hogan eventually married Potts". Don't suppose a date is provided? It is mentioned in the next sentence that Roxie Gilbert was introduced in the early 1970s. Is that when Pepper and Happy tied the knot? Might be a stupid question, but where it says "The series then introduced", it's referring to Tales of Suspense, not the Iron Man comic, right? This particular source does not give a date; I figured that the relevant part to Tony was that he and Pepper didn't get together in the early comics. And "in the 1970s" would refer to the Iron Man series. "the second-wave feminism encouraged" remove the article. Done. Besides Pepper and Happy's marriage above, are dates provided in the sources for any of his other love interests? Only Emma Frost has a given time period mentioned. Roxie Gilbert and Whitney Frost both have a time period. I added a year for Bethany Cabe. Cultural impact and legacy "Iron Man is credited with redefining the superhero film genre". The character or the movie? I meant the character, but I guess it makes more sense to say the movie. Fixed. Given the character's decade-long existence, the section does seem quite short, and I would prefer if it was somewhat longer. At the same time, given his long existence, there must be various sources out there reviewing the character, so you can't include all of them. I'm assuming the ones present were the ones you could extract from academic sources? There are plenty of sources examining the cultural impact of superheroes, a fair amount analyzing the impact of Marvel and the MCU, and a few analyzing the impact of the 2008 film. If there are lots of sources out there analyzing how the comic book version of Iron Man changed pop culture, they have evaded me. In other media This is more about this section's mention in the lede. Given how influential the MCU's depiction of the character in perception of the comics version and boosting his popularity, it makes sense this would be brought up in the lede. I would recommend adding a brief mention that outside of the MCU, Iron Man has also appeared in animated films, cartoon series, and video games; if you want to specify, you could add "self-titled X Media". Added a sentence at the end of the lead.

Here are my final comments @Thebiguglyalien:. Partly due to the sections being smaller, there's not much to discuss.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois, I've replied to the final comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

All right @Thebiguglyalien:. Thank you for addressing my comments and being patient with me and how anal I can be. You have done a wonderful work with this article, and I am happy to support its promotion to featured article status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: The source review and discussion on primary sources got me thinking about using them to enhance the article. Although I don't think the Iron Man article needs any further changes or has any major omissions, I do think the section about Tony founding SHIELD could be slightly changed with this source. Either as an add-on sentence or as a note, you can add that due to a retcon or Marvel's floating timeline, Tony's role as one of SHIELD's founders was erased. But again, this isn't anything major or something that would make me change my mind about supporting this FAC. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Based on my thorough review at the previous FAC, I am happy to support this article again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from BOZ

This article has gone through some serious improvements leading up to the last FAC and even moreso during the nomination, so I believe it is in excellent shape now. Also repeating my comments from the last one about hoping this sets a precedent: "There are a great many comic book characters, superheroes having dominated the field for most of the media's existence, that have this kind of potential; right now at GA we currently have Captain America, Joker (character), Norman Osborn, and Spider-Man which have the most potential for FA, and several others that are GA but may not be suitable for FA, and easily dozens of other characters that could be GA or better if someone could find the time and energy to find the sources and basically rewrite them from scratch. Batman and Superman are former FA articles, so it would be nice to see a comics character back up there." BOZ (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Since you've brought it up, I'll take this chance to shoutout Morgan695, who's expressed interest in bringing Captain America to FAC. I did the GA review for their work on Captain America's article, which is what got me into writing comic book character articles and heavily influenced how I approached it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Delightful article. I will confess that I haven't read an issue of Iron Man published since the turn of the century. My only comment is that you mention Steve Ditko's brief run, but there is no mention of Gene Colan (aka Adam Austin). While the article says that the switch from Communist villains occurred in response to the failing war in Vietnam, I always thought it was the change from Heck to Colan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't too worried about cataloguing every artist that drew the character, but Colan is a good call. I've added a sentence for him, and for good measure one for George Tuska as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Pleased to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if David Fuchs, who opposed the nomination the last time, would like to review it again. FrB.TG (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think my issues from the last FAC remain, but it doesn't appear to be a majority view. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review (pass)

Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review for this FAC, but I still wanted to help out here. For clarity, I participated in the previous FAC. My comments are below:

• File:Iron Man (circa 2018).png has a clear caption and purpose in the article and a complete WP:FUR. The WP:ALT text is appropriate. I voiced some reservations about the infobox image choice in the previous FAC as I was concerned that the external pieces of armor could potentially confuse readers who are not as familiar with the character design, but it is not a major issue, especially when I do not have a clear alternative in mind.
• File:Errol Flynn1.jpg also has a clear caption and purpose in the article. I would recommend adding WP:ALT text. It may be helpful to note in the caption what year the photo was taken to more readily provide that context for readers, but that is not required. Everything looks appropriate on the licensing and Wikimedia Commons side of things.
• File:7.24.19BrianMichaelBendisByLuigiNovi2.jpg looks good to me. It has a clear purpose in the article and the licensing and permission aspects look good. Again, I would recommend adding ALT text. Adding the year the photo was taken could be helpful, but again, it is not a requirement.
• Both File:Tales of Suspense 39.jpg and File:Iron Man's armors.jpg have clear purposes in the article and appropriate WP:ALT text. I believe that both instances of non-free media are justified as they illustrated points that readers may not fully understand through the prose alone. The WP:FUR are complete for both, but I do have a small comment for the second image. The source link (here) does not display the image and instead has a screen saying the original image is no longer available so that should be revised.
• Everything with File:Robert Downey Jr 2014 Comic Con (cropped).jpg checks out. It has a clear purpose in the article as illustrated with the caption. I am a bit confused on why the summary has non-English text (as in why is it there at all and why is it before the English text), but it is not a major issue.

I hope this image review is helpful. I only have quite nitpick-y suggestions. Two of the images need WP:ALT text while one of the non-free images needs to have the source link updated. Once both are done, I will be more than happy to pass this image review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I checked the ComicsAlliance source for the last non-free image, and the image is actually there. With the exception of the cover image saying that it's not available, all of the other images from the various comics—including Iron Man #258.1—are still up.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me, and I see what you mean now. My only remaining point would be the WP:ALT text then. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Apologies for the ping, but I just wanted to double-check on this. The only thing that is holding up my peer review is the absence of ALT text for some images. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, I must have missed that there was still an issue. I've added the alt-text, but the remaining pictures were just portraits so it's rather plain; I don't know if that's sufficient or not. And I'd also love to replace the infobox image, but the best replacements I could find all had their own problems. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. The ALT text looks good to me. This passes my image review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Igordebraga

Support Well-written article, and my one objection from last time (that the fictional biography ended with Infamous Iron Man) has been fixed, so seems good for promotion. igordebraga ≠ 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Why do #201 and #202 use a section title rather than a page number? It seems like most sources are prominent publishers and authors. I wonder about DK (publisher) though. One major omission is that I don't see any individual comics/issues being cited, or am I wrong? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The #201 and #202 sources are reference works that use entries instead of page numbers, so those are the titles of those entries. You're correct that there are no individual issues cited, and I don't think I'd consider it ready for FAC if there were. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That raises some questions about completeness, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

When you are writing about works of fiction (or as here fictional characters), one generally expects the work itself to be cited at least a couple of times. Secondary sources don't work for every thing; especially when citing basic facts, you risk copying errors committed by the author of the secondary source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen a reviewer say that there should be more primary sources in an article, and I have to say that I disagree with that approach. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Providing a second opinion as requested on WT:FAC: I think Jo-Jo is quite right about fiction articles; the focus on secondary sources is to (ideally) remove bias and provide context & understanding; for most non-fiction things, the "primary source" is contained within the secondary source. For instance, when the New York Times makes an article about something Biden or Trump said or did, they would include whatever they said or did. Sometimes that involves mutation/disagreement of the primary from the secondary source. To provide an example, Trump's famous "They're bringing crime. They're rapists" quote. The primary source, Trump, contends that it was said as "Their rapists" rather than "They're rapists", meaning that rapists who happen to be Mexican are being brought to the US, rather than all Mexicans being rapists. In this case, it is not so much a dispute of interpretation of Trump's words, so much as what words Trump literally said. A more extreme example, but I also think useful in pointing out the usefulness of primary sources: It's possible a secondary source may misunderstand the wording, and therefore unintentionally misrepresent a primary source, especially when you have such a long-running series, our language has not remained unchanged for the last 60-some years that it has been running). Even beyond language, there are many "basic facts" that are best supported by primary sources, for fiction. In this case, as a non-expert in Iron Man, I don't see any glaring omissions, although some might perhaps say that a deeper coverage of the major arcs might be due (though this is not my specialty area) which would presumably involve some primary references. As such, I do not necessarily believe the article needs more primary sourcing, but I think it would be welcome, and Jo-Jo may be more experienced in the comic/pop culture field and more easily able to answer that question. Although, if I'm reading Jo-Jo's comments correctly, I think his concern was more on if primary sources were consulted, than if they are inserted as a citation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

"they would include whatever they said or did." but sometimes they misquote. Not necessarily in a high-profile situation like Trump/Biden and NYT, but with lower-level secondary sources sometimes this reliability issue comes up. If anyone can vouch that this topic is comprehensively covered even with omission of primary sources, that would mostly satisfy my worry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A third opinion I suppose. I completely disagree with the idea that a more thorough article cites the primary source directly. Who is more likely to misquote or misinterpret a primary source, a Wikipedia editor or a published writer/scholar on the topic? The basis of our reliability policies is that we trust established professionals over amateurs. There's no need for TBA (an amateur, one assumes, no offense intended of course) to provide his own analysis of primary source material. His summary of the published analysis of experts should suffice. Ajpolino (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for intruding on this discussion. I do not see an issue with using secondary sources. The character has been around for decade so using secondary sources to determine which parts of the character and his stories are notable enough to discuss makes sense. I think it depends on context; while primary sources are great and can be the best option for some character articles, it is not the case for everything. Secondary sources can get information wrong, as I have even read scholarly articles that make mistakes with even basic plot information, but primary sources can also be misinterpreted and misrepresented. I do see comprehensive work when I look at this article as it brings in different types of sources (ranging from scholarly work to websites), and I have more confidence in Thebiguglyalien after he added further sources in response to concerns with the legacy section. I have been unable to thoroughly look through the article (and apologies again for that), but I do not think the lack of primary sources should be an issue. Again, apologies for intruding and leaving a long message. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus If the current sourcing isn't enough for comprehensiveness, a compromise might be using some TwoMorrows Publishing magazines about comic books and the comics industry. They're high quality, but I've leaned away from them because it would be more granular details and tidbits instead of the broad overview sources and push the article toward excessive detail. But if you think that the article doesn't have enough of the finer details, this might be a good way to get them while still allowing a secondary source to determine which ones have due weight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I went through and added info from the main articles about Iron Man. I can go through further for other places he might be mentioned in passing, but it's over 7,000 words at this point and I don't know what you think the ideal word count is for an article like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, how is this one going? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I must confess that I generally do not opine on article length. That is something other people need to assess. Sourcing-wise, it's probably fine now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from BP!

I am about to nominate my article to FAC also, probably next week I think. But this article caught my attention, thanks to PanagiotisZois' contributions. This article is very well written anyway.

• Add author at ref 218
• Add authors at ref 222
• Add author at ref 223
• I feel like Comicbook is a low-quality source for such a well-known character. Ref 220 and 223 I think should probably be removed.
• SlashFilm is reliable? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Boneless Pizza!, thank you for your review of the sources! SlashFilm has an editorial team and as far as I can tell it's treated the same as other reliable entertainment news websites. I've made the other changes you suggested. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.