Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Death of Superman/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2019 [1].


The Death of Superman

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Death of Superman" is an infamous 1992—1993 crossover event in which DC Comics killed their icon, Superman. Now, comic book publishers killed major characters all the time— Uncle Ben, Elektra, Jason Todd, the list goes on. Those characters were minor ones who did not have a significant impact on the wider public. But Superman—the Big Blue Boy Scout, the first superhero—was a cultural icon. Chances are, if you can remember what was going on in late 1992, you can at least vaguely recall the media storm that followed the news that Superman had bit the dust because of a giant sunburned Ninja Turtle. Of course, you can't make much money off of the licensing of a corpse, so DC then published this lengthy storyline that involved five different versions of Superman, Green Lantern, Mongul, a missile, and a robotic city. Because comics. "The Death of Superman" has been adapted numerous times, including in the successful but critically panned 2016 film Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Anyway, I've been building this article since April and got it to GA status in May. Since then, I've greatly expanded the article, with numerous interviews, reviews, retrospectives, and other sources. I'd also like to thank Argento Surfer for lots of invaluable research. Now, you'd better review this article quickly before Doomsday comes for you and you lose your chance! JOEBRO64 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by DWB

[edit]

I'll take a more detailed look later but first thing that stands out to me is that the first sentence says "was". It still is a crossover event that took place in DC Comics, so talk about it in present tense. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JOEBRO64 11:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake, just wanted to ask if you were still planning on taking a look (it's 100% fine if you're not, just curious) JOEBRO64 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't get as much time on here as I used to and sadly forgot about this. While the content is robust, has the article gone through a copy edit? There are a lot of re-used words such as "conceived". I've taken a quick run through the opening paragraphs to tidy it up but it may be worth seeing reviewing the text to see if it can be cleared up a bit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look yesterday and did some c/e. I'll do some more tomorrow. JOEBRO64 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: copyedited JOEBRO64 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe, I will take a look tomorrow. If I don't respond tomorrow message me to remind me. I will fit it in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the tidy up and the overall comprehensiveness of the article I am inclined to support. I would have maybe waited to nominate it until the second animated film is released to add commentary on how they differ, if at all, and the reactions, given how soon it comes out, but I don't see that as a reason to withhold my support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Favre1fan93

[edit]

I'm going to leave some comments regarding this article. As I've indicated to the nominator, my time currently editing is limited and I will hopefully get through the full article and review in a timely manner for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These comments have been addressed
Lead
[edit]
  • The crossover, devised by - change devised to conceived
  • It was published in - after this phrase, perhaps add "the titles"
  • "The Death of Superman" is divided into three parts. - change parts to story arcs
  • the rest of the DC Universe mourning to his death - "to" isn't needed
  • ending with his adoptive father Jonathan - pipe the link to Jonathan and Martha Kent to read "Jonathan Kent"
  • "The Death of Superman" established a number of characters - All three characters you listed after this debuted in this storyline, correct? If so, then it "established" should be "introduced". Established seems to indicated they were created previously and gain more prominence because of this storyline
    • Done. I'd chosen established because some of them had technically appeared beforehand, but were not developed much. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great. Yeah, I think for all intents, "introduced" is better, because I'm sure those earlier introductions were for their use in this story line. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
  • received unprecedented coverage from the mainstream media and caused a sensation - what sensation? Please clarify this, or change the word
  • Retrospective reviewers are divided, with some finding the story ambitious and influential, while others dismiss it as a publicity stunt - move "the story" after divided and change its current use to "it", making the sentence Retrospective reviewers are divided on the story, with some finding it ambitious and influential, while others dismiss it as a publicity stunt
  • a beat 'em up video game in 1994 - the link here is an WP:EGG link
  • A loose animated adaptation - add "film" after animated
  • A second animated adaptation will be released as a two-part film, The Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen, in 2018 and 2019. - the first film was already released so "will be released" isn't correct. Please rephrase
Background
[edit]
  • A comma is needed after 1938
  • Superman's comics take place - Should just be "Superman comics"
  • I'm not sure the entire first paragraph is needed. I don't see how having that info is relevant to this particular storyline. The info a reader needs to know as background really starts in the second paragraph about Crisis and Byrne.
    • I've removed a bit about the fact he was created as a villain but I'm hesitant to remove some of the other details. The DCU concept is important because this storyline is a crossover, and the original Superman comic launching in 1939 connects to Byrne's relaunch. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm okay with the reword, and keeping the 1939 info. But I don't think you need these sentences: Superman comics take place within a shared universe called the DC Universe, which also includes characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, and the Flash, among others. This allows plot devices, characters, and settings to cross over with each other. This isn't necessary to know with this storyline being a crossover. If anything, I would rather you expand on this sentence Connecting stories also became harder due to the new, diverse creative teams, whereas Byrne had managed most of them on his own. from paragraph 3, but I think by itself, you are understanding that Byrne did stories himself, and once he left, it was hard for the new teams to make interconnected stories across the books. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does it look now? I've added a mention that under Byrne the Superman comics became interconnected, and added a footnote explaining the DCU stuff.
          • I still don't think you need that. Much like the concern over the Vertigo note, this is some extra info that the reader doesn't need to understand this story. Another thought, looking at this again, is if you gave a very short description of what Crisis did for Superman in the reboot after that opening sentence, or a bit on what Byrne's re-envisioning looked like, I think you'll be good to go. Also, you need to move the first link to DC Universe to this paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Removed the footnote and explained a bit about the reboot. I've clarified what the DC Universe is with this: Its conclusion resulted in the DC Universe—the shared universe that the publisher's comics, including those related to Superman, take place in—being rebooted. JOEBRO64 20:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference after The relaunch was a major success for DC should move to the end of the sentence per WP:REFPUNC
  • Byrne also wrote and illustrated Action Comics and worked on The Adventures of Superman with artist Jerry Ordway. - What was Byrne's work on Adventures? I'm assuming as writer. Please clarify
  • He spent two years on the Superman comics before leaving - after "leaving" put "in 1988", just to help contextualize the time period we are dealing with
  • A unique method of making the writers work together, the summit focused their attention on the next year's worth of stories. - reword to The summit was a unique method of making the writers work together, focusing their attention the the next year's worth of stories. That reads better to me
  • These meetings were often dysfunctional. According to Superman writer/penciler Dan Jurgens, "Generally,... - combine these sentences. Something like These meetings were often dysfunctional, with Superman writer/penciler Dan Jurgens noting, "Generally...
  • Carlin recalled that often had to act like a babysitter for the eighteen divergent, artistic egos crowded in one room. Often, the teams compromised. - missing "he" between "often and "had". Also, combine these sentences as well
  • You need to add a title for Paul Levitz so we know what he was within DC. Was he an editor at this time or the publisher?
  • so a fourth comic, writer Louise Simonson and penciler Jon Bogdanove's Superman: The Man of Steel, started - rephrase as so a fourth comic Superman: The Man of Steel, written by Louise Simonson and pencilled by Jon Bogdanove, started
  • While the teams - add "creative" before teams
  • "a fraction" of the numbers bestselling comics - there should be a hyphen in "bestselling" I believe. Also, can you see if there is a reference quantifying the sales numbers of Spider-Man. It would help for comparison to the Superman numbers
    • "Bestselling" is grammatically correct without a hyphen ([2]). I did find a reference saying that Spider-Man sold 500,000 copies on average in 1992. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since that link is in regards to the Amazing Spider-Man title, and you had the prose formatted to go to the Peter Parker: Spider-Man title, I think you should adjust. Make the prose "a fraction" of the numbers bestselling comics featuring Spider-Man enjoyed (no formatting on Spider-Man to be talking about the character and not a single book). The Washington Post source doesn't indicate they were talking about the Peter Parker title anyways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Development
[edit]
Publication
[edit]
  • The second sentence is a bit confusing to me. Perhaps the first part of that before the semicolon could be adjusted to "Doomsday!" was first alluded to in Simonson's Superman: The Man of Steel #17 (November 1992);
  • Combine the following to: "Doomsday!" began the following issue, in which Doomsday is unleashed and begins to carve a brutal path of destruction across America, leading to Superman's death in Superman #75 (January 1993) Also, only one reference tag is needed to cite all of that since it is the same reference.
  • What was the platinum edition for issue #75? If there is some info available to describe that, that'd be great.
  • The collector's edition cost more than the standard edition. - should be added to the listing in the previous sentence. So a collector's edition sold in a polybag with a black armband, poster, stickers, and a trading card, which cost more than the standard edition;
  • "Funeral for a Friend", which focuses - should start the second paragraph. Also, put some sort of wording in there to indicate this is the second story arc
  • all the Superman comics went on the hiatus - "the" not needed. I know you are referencing the info stated earlier in the article, but if a reader were to jump right here, they might be confused. Also, no need for the ref tag after "hiatus", as it is the same as the next ref tag that comes up
  • which ended with the release of The Adventures of Superman #500. - adjust to until the release of The Adventures of Superman #500 in June 1993.
  • The final part - change "part" to "story arc" for consistency
  • the 46th issue of Green Lantern - make Green Lantern #46
  • DC "aggressively" promoted "The Death of Superman". According to Vulture's Abraham Riesman, the company had financial incentives to do so, as comic book speculation was at its peak. - shift this info to According to Vulture's Abraham Riesman, DC "aggressively" promoted "The Death of Superman" since the company had financial incentives to do so, as comic book speculation was at its peak. this will help attribute the "aggressively" to Riesman
  • Link Vulture to Vulture (blog)
  • For Superman #75, DC issued a press kit... - this could maybe move up earlier in the section to where you talk about Superman 75, but I understand why it currently is where it is since it fits with the preceding sentence
  • Since this section seems tied with "Arcs" below, I would suggest combining the two of them. Alternatively, leave In May 1993, DC published a special issue... and the last paragraph in this section, and move everything else below the table in "Arcs".
Collected editions
[edit]
  • You need sources for the 2007 omnibus collection and the 2016 reissues.
    • These technically don't need references because they're WP:PRIMARY. Anyone who has a copy of the collections can verify the details presented here. A similar thing is done at The Infinity Gauntlet, which is a GA.
      • The book themselves are PRIMARY, but I still would feel better having third party sources to cite the release dates and contents. DC's own website can be used for all of them. Also, it looks like there will be a new Omnibus printing in 2019, per that DC website link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added some of the DC website's info with sources.
  • This section may be better served as a level 2 header between "Reception" and "Adaptions"
    • I don't feel strongly about this, but the collected editions are technically part of the publication history so I feel like it'd be out of place to put it in between the plot and reception and adpatations. JOEBRO64 20:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was suggesting after reception, not right after the plot. Only because the collected editions are a bit "after the fact" and not really a thought when developing the story. This isn't major, but I think it would be good to consider moving the section where I suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arcs
[edit]
  • I think it would be better to have individual rows for each title, so you can better indicate the creative teams for those titles. Here is an example of what I mean for "Doomsday!"
Title Issues Cover dates Writers Pencilers Inkers
"Doomsday!" Action Comics #684 December 1992 – January 1993 Roger Stern Jackson Guice Denis Rodier
The Adventures of Superman #497 Jerry Ordway Tom Grummett Doug Hazelwood
Justice League America #69 Dan Jurgens Dan Jurgens Rick Burchett
Superman: The Man of Steel #18–19 Louise Simonson Jon Bogdanove Dennis Janke
Superman #74–75 Dan Jurgens Dan Jurgens; Brett Breeding Brett Breeding
  • The wikicode needs to be updated for the table. Please use the code I have below:
{| class="wikitable" width=100%
! scope="col" align="center" | Title
! scope="col" align="center" | Issues
! scope="col" align="center" | [[Cover dates]]
! scope="col" align="center" | Writers
! scope="col" align="center" | Pencilers
! scope="col" align="center" | Inkers
|-
! scope="row" | "Doomsday!"
...
|-
! scope="row" | "Funeral for a Friend"
...
|-
! scope="row" | "Reign of the Supermen!"
Updated. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to cite all the creative teams of the issues and the issues involved?
    • I think this also falls under WP:PRIMARY; the authors are on the cover/opening pages of every issue.
  • For "Funeral for a Friend", why does Superman jump from issues 76 and 77 to issue 83? That seems like something good to cover. Also, the "#" before 83 isn't needed
Characters
[edit]
Synopsis
[edit]
At release
[edit]
In later years
[edit]
Legacy in comics
[edit]
Adaptions
[edit]
References
[edit]
Discussion
[edit]

Some initial comments for now. Please note that after I look at text/formatting/links of each section, I will go back and make comments on references if need be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the Development section added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Hey there, I see you've made some adjustments in the article based on my comments. If you wouldn't mind, could you add a "Done" or something below the comments above just so I know where we stand on them all? Thanks! I'm hoping to continue my review where I left off tomorrow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to most; there are a few I still need to work on. JOEBRO64 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments for "Publication", "Collected editions" and "Arcs". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments for "Characters" and "Synopsis". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93, just wanted to let you know that I've moved the page source over to my sandbox so I can update the article there until the Vertigo dispute is settled JOEBRO64 23:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll monitor the changes there, and once you can implement them in the actual article, add your responses above. I hope to get through the last few sections soon with comments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments for "At release". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments for "In later years" and "Legacy in comics". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93, I just wanted to ask if you think the polybagged cover of Superman #75 ([3]) is technically a free image? The Superman logo is PD since it's just a triangle and an "S", and I don't think the drips of blood are original enough to make it copyrighted. JOEBRO64 19:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: I think you're correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the publication section. JOEBRO64 13:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...aaaand someone's tagged it for deletion JOEBRO64 20:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be fine. Maybe you did not use the correct public domain/trademark templates to tag it for use? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last few comments added for "Adaptions" and the references. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have been addressed. I give my support for this nomination. Well done! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Argento Surfer

[edit]

All of my concerns were addressed during the GA review, and I have no concerns with the additions/changes made since then. Excellent work. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaranoFan

[edit]
  • "while the second, Reign of the Supermen, will be released in 2019." -- Change "will be released in" to "is scheduled for release in" as these things can get cancelled or delayed.

Once this is addressed I'll support the article for promotion. Great job on the sourcing and prose. Would appreciate if you took a look at this FLC of mine which is currently inactive. Best!--NØ 06:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan, done. Thank you for taking a look! I'll check your FLC later. JOEBRO64 12:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cognissonance

[edit]
  • Before you go down the list, there are two general things I'd like you to keep an eye out for and fix. 1) Citations need to be in numerical order (e.g. 4, 11, 12, 42). Make sure that's consistent throughout. 2) There are many repeated instances of "and" creating longwinded sentences (e.g. "Steel represents Superman's nickname "the Man of Steel" and wears a suit of armor and wields a hammer. As a boy, he witnessed the death of his parents, and Superman later saved him"). These should be copyedited for better flow.
Lead
[edit]
Publication history
[edit]
Background
[edit]
  • "new, diverse" "new and diverse".
  • "Generally, we all got in a room and toss around story ideas. A lot of times we disagreed, had some big fights, and the last person left standing was the winner and ultimately got their way" This should be paraphrased.
  • "Carlin had to act like a babysitter for the eighteen divergent, artistic egos crowded in one room, and the teams often compromised" Needs more formal language.
Development
[edit]
Publication
[edit]
Overview
[edit]
Characters
[edit]
Synopsis
[edit]
  • "Project Cadmus steals his body from his mausoleum to clone him" Avoid repetition: "Project Cadmus steals Superman's body from his mausoleum to clone him".
  • "they begin to build Engine City, an effort to recreate Mongul's home planet Warworld, in its ruins" Improve prose: "they begin to build Engine City in an effort to recreate Mongul's home planet, Warworld, in its ruins".
Adaptations
[edit]

Cognissonance (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cognissonance, thank you so much for taking the time to review! I've responded to your points above and also did some copyediting to remove some repetition. JOEBRO64 00:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in as support for the nomination. Good luck. Cognissonance (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

Great work with the article! Ths FAC has appeared to received a lot of commentary already, and it is very polished. Once my relatively minor comments are addressed, Once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this nomination. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review on an article that I would ideally like to put through the FAC process sometime in January. I understand if you are not interested or do not have time. Either way, I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47, thank you for taking the time to review! I've responded above and will look at your PR later this week. JOEBRO64 22:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Hawkeye7

[edit]

Not a lot of images in this one.

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain

[edit]

Oppose on 1a thus far. I've just been through the lead but I find the writing to be clunky and inelegant. It's possibly at a GA standard but not what's required for a Featured article. Some examples, and I hope to make it through the rest of the text today:

  • I had trouble following the explanation in the lead of why the marriage storyline was postponed. They wanted to ensure the comic was running the story at the same time as the show? Prose needs clarity.
  • "[T]he writing teams felt the concept would allow them to explore why the character matters" This strikes me as clunky writing and I'm sure the underlying idea can be conveyed more elegantly.
  • "The third sees the emergence of the Supermen, four individuals claiming to be Superman, and the original's return." This isn't particularly clear... I had to read through a few times to understand what you are conveying.
  • "'The Death of Superman' introduced a number of characters" You're switching tenses in writing about the arc, even in the lead. --Laser brain (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: thanks for taking a look at this so far; I've just done a copyedit of the lead and Publication history. I'll get to the rest of the article very soon JOEBRO64 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indopug

[edit]

I might come in with a more detailed review soon. For now, I think you should remove all the ISBNs from the prose; they make the text ugly and somewhat unreadable. In any case they're probably useless; surely search for books by googling their names rather than looking up ISBNs?—indopug (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug, done. Replaced the ISBNs with normal citations JOEBRO64 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro

[edit]

Oppose on 1b and 1c: It's actually quite hard to see what references have been used as there is no bibliography with this article. There are a few print sources used, but they are listed in among the references rather than in a bibliography. And I'm not sure how well used they are; for example, the phrase "to immediate success" is cited to the whole Larry Tye book, which seems a little strange. A whole book to cite three words? Has the book even been consulted?

Furthermore, I don't think we have consulted all the available sources. I'm a little concerned that we have few print sources when a huge amount of written (as opposed to drawn) material exists about Superman, some of it quite scholarly. For example, I'm not at all an expert on Superman, but I know there is a book "Superman: The Unauthorised Biography" which would probably have quite a lot on this topic. Our article on Superman, although no longer a FA, has a list of print sources which will presumably have plenty of information on his death. A quick check on Google revealed that there is writing on the death in The Ages of Superman: Essays on the Man of Steel in Changing Times edited by Joseph J. Darowski. And a search of JSTOR shows several academic articles looking at the death of Superman. Now, it is possible that none of these sources have much in them, but I suspect they will; they were easy enough to find with just a few minutes searching. The fact that they are not used, and have possibly not even been looked at makes me think we are failing on criteria 1b and 1c (particularly the "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" part). And more academic sources are preferable to the online reviews and specialist websites which we seem to be mainly using for references at the moment.

A final point (again with the qualification that I'm NOT a comics expert by any means): if I recall correctly, in the 1990s there was a huge collapse in the comics market, and we only hint at this in the article. But I'm pretty sure that this was attributed to a large extent to the cash in of Death of Superman, and things like multiple printings and variant covers. It's possible I'm not making sense as this isn't my area. Just a few points on the sourcing of this topic as well:

  • "However, many retailers say The Adventures of Superman #500 was the beginning of a decline in the comic industry. Retailers and distributors were stuck with unsold copies" is referenced to page 135 of the Gearino book. I cannot see the page numbers in a google preview but I'm interested in what the source says to back up this statement. "and thousands of stores closed" is referenced to a book on Batman.
  • "Additionally, those who bought Superman #75 could only sell first printings for cover price a few months after its release" is not quite the same emphasis as in the Randy Duncan book it is sourced to. The source says "They could only recover their purchase price if they had a first printing", which is very slightly different. Our article reads as if they were selling first printings and only getting the cover price. The source says that the only way to recover the cover price is if they had a first printing. Subtly different, but still different. Incidentally, this source covers this ground quite thoroughly.

I think this article has quite a way to go on sourcing to meet the FA criteria so I'm afraid I have to oppose. Sarastro (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1, I had spent days looking for sources on this article and never came across those... I can't believe that. @FAC coordinators: you can archive this one. I'll spend a month or so doing more research. JOEBRO64 20:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Joe. Can I suggest that after doing your research and improvements you ping the reviewers above for a reality check (a peer review in effect, either formal or just a discussion on the article talk page) before renominating here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Death_of_Superman/archive1&oldid=1052827208"