Wikipedia:Peer review/Pride & Joy (comics)/archive1

Pride & Joy (comics)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to help make turn this article into a brilliant source of information. I've added multiple amounts of sources and (I won't lie) I'd like the GA nomination. ;)

Thanks in advance, A _talk 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Okay, here's a garbled PR. I'm sorry, I'm not very by the books with my peer reviews, so bear with me. Firstly, I like the article. I like that it's very to the point, but there's an issue with some basic fluff language and unnecessary talk. Using terms like "very first" is cool if you're talking casually (and bear in mind, while I'll talk like this here, I wouldn't in an article). The whole Lead does need some expansion and depth. Typically, any article over a page long (depending on your browser size) ought to have two or three paragraphs. No more than 4 or 5, and even that many is a massively exceptional case. See WP:LEAD. I'm going to whizz through and make some basic suggestions, but I'll explain why in here. You don't need to duplicate the cast list reference for every single character in the characters section. Once is plenty. The next area is really the sticking point to me. Its language is far too in-universe and you need to be more detached than you are. Also, I'm not a fan of summarising each of the books in their own section. That, to me, leads to individual issue articles, which I'm not ruling out, but it's not quite appropriate for this article. Basically, a plot section should summarise the various following points in an essaic format: This is how it started, what the characters were like and their character was established as such, these are the major and key points that occurred within the middle and this is how it ended, how the characters were affected etc. Next, you have a vastly undersized production section. This section's weight should ideally be about the same as the size of the plot section, which is currently about twice as long as I'd give a GA for. The cultural references is huge. Check out WP:TRIVIA. These items are informative, but really ought to be on the Marvel Wikia, but are a bit crufty to be on Wikipedia. I'll chop out the things I think don't need to be there, and put how I think it ought to be. If you don't like it, go for it. Ummm.... oh yeah, the reception section needs to be fille dup some more. You ought to have some broad responses. There are plenty of people who review comics, but I'd expand it into "promotion and reception" so you can include the promotional paraphernalia that was published, the articles in Wizard and whatnot preceding its release. Also, you note that it was so successful that its tenure was extended into an ongoing from a miniseries. That's definitely a reception matter. Anyway, see what I do and if you have any comments, let me know on my page. I don't watch any articles so that's the only way I'll know. If you jump on in the next little while, it may take me a couple of hours. Bear with me. --rm 'w avu 10:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've Done it, and I realise how unliked I'll be, but trust me, voluminously, it's looking much more how it ought to. Now you need to expand on the base I've given you. Good luck! I'll continue to keep an eye on how things go. --rm 'w a vu 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dana boomer

In response to your query on my talk page, here are some suggestions for the improvement of this article. Please bear in mind that I have never reviewed a comic book article before (I don't really have all that much interest in them), and so I'm not really up-to-date on WP:Comic guidelines (if there are any). I know you said that you would like to go to GA and possibly FA with this article, so I am completing the review with that in mind. Now, on to the suggestions:

The Production and Reception sections need to be expanded. They should include as much information as you can find on these issues. In WP, these sections are generally considered more important than the plot itself.
The lead sections should be a summary of the entire article. At the moment, it contains quite a bit of information that is not contained in the body of the article, and it is referenced nowhere in the article. For example, you go into more detail in the production and reception in the lead then in the individual sections.
In your references, titles should not be in all capital letters, even if they were that way in the original source.
The Setting section reads too much like a disunited list of trivia. Try to take out some of the less important things, combined them, or just reference them generally. For example, rather than listing individually with different sentences all of the TV shows that they mention, say something like "The books reference various popular TV shows, such as Sesame Street, The Prisoner and Batman".
Because the lead is supposed to be a summary, it should have no original information and therefore shouldn't need references. What you can do is make sure that all of the information in the lead is repeated (not verbatim, but the same general concept) somewhere in the body, and move the references to the body of the article.

Drop me a note on my talk page if you have any other questions. Like I said, I don't work on comic articles, so I probably won't do the GA review of the article when you nominate it, but I hope the suggestions I've given you here help with the review when it does happen. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Mattisse

I would echo the comments made above by Dana boomer. (Like him, I am not very familiar with comic articles, so I can't add much specific advice.) I'll add the following comments.

You did well by eliminating the content that the first peer reviewer suggested.
Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. They have lots of good suggestions. They have a list of Comics editorial guidelines and Comics layout advice.
Your list of characters is formatted in a way that leave only one character in the third column which looks strange.
The Comics layout advice is particularly good and describes how you should layout Characters.
Check out Comics - Outstanding content you can get some good ideas about what a good article on comics should contain. For example, Newshounds, although about a web comic, has a typical Characters section. Kevin and Kell shows another way of presenting Characters.
Be sure to take the all caps out of the titles in your references.
Check out theMarvel Comics work group. There is a list of other editors who are interested in Marvel Comics plus a list of resources.

I wish I good be more helpful at this point. If I were you, I would follow the Comics layout. I would also find some comic articles that are of good quality and on a topic similar to mine, and then model my article on those. Feel free to contact me again. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]