Comics Portal

WikiProject Comics talk ⇒ Get Involved Intro Notice Board ⇒ Article alerts New! ⇒ Cleanup tasks Help ⇒ Peer Review Help ⇒ Tasks to be Completed Help ⇒ Assessments Help ⇒ B-Class FAQ New! Resources ⇒ Copyright ⇒ Manual of style ⇒ Naming Conventions ⇒ References ⇒ Templates ⇒ Statistics Workgroups ⇒ British comics talk ⇒ Comics creators talk ⇒ Comic strips talk ⇒ DC Comics talk ⇒ European comics talk ⇒ Marvel Comics talk ⇒ Spider-Man talk ⇒ United States comics talk ⇒ Webcomics talk ⇒ World comics talk Category:WikiProject Comics  v • d • e

This page is specifically for requests for Peer review. Please place all Requests for comment on the project's Notice board, and all requests for cleanup on the project's cleanup request page.

The peer review department of the Comics WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Comics WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete.

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 Requesting a review 1.2 Responding to a request 1.3 Archiving 2 Requests 2.1 John Rosenberger 2.2 Star Sapphire (comics) 2.3 Cerebus the Aardvark 2.3.1 Hornoir 2.4 List of The Simpsons comics 2.5 The Order of the Stick 2.6 Scrooge McDuck 2.7 Comics Guaranty LLC 2.8 Marvel: The End 2.9 Batwoman 3 Archives

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{Comicsproj}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

1. Move the existing peer review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing the primary page, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page).
3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Prior peer review here.").

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{Comicsproj}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

[edit] Requests

[edit] John Rosenberger

I wrote a lengthy biography primarily using information from the only major source available for the artist's life and works, an article in Alter Ego #23 (the writing for the Wikipedia article is all original). While I feel this article is a well-written, well-cited, well-supported Good Article, I understand that the subject is only of low to medium importance. Please advise on protocol – should the article be cut down? Is it frowned upon to include "unimportant" life details? Any input is welcome. Thanks, Slugabed (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Star Sapphire (comics)

Not long ago, this article only contained information pertaining to various supervillains in DC Comics that served the position of Star Sapphire. In the Blackest Night story arc in the Green Lantern/Green Lantern Corps series, though, the Star Sapphires are now a group entity and one of the seven Corps that play a major role in the War of Light.

The reason I'm asking for a peer review is because, what I think is, an increased importance of the article despite its previous quality/importance scale. I've made a number of expansions, corrections, added numerous references, corrected grammar (since there was a tagged request), cleaned up the links section (another tagged request), and tried to do a general overhaul of the article. This is what the article looked like before I started editing. What other kinds of improvements should be made? Should this be split into two articles? If the Star Sapphires group became a second article, how would it be titled to Wikipedia standard?

I think I just need general input and advice.

Hooliganb (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cerebus the Aardvark

The article is needing a B-level criteria review, and I figured a full-blown peer review would be a good idea as well. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hornoir

The following corrections to the article need to be made, in my opinion:

1. Noted as "award-winning" but no awards section is provided to substantiate this claim.
2. Tighten language; most areas are too drawn out and/or awkward, using "excessive information" or "poetic prose" to prove a point. In example:

   Now complete, it marks the longest-running originally English-language comic book series ever by a single creative team; Sim refers to it as the "longest sustained narrative in human history."[2][3] Sim began the series in December 1977, running for 300 issues and 6,000 pages, through March 2004.

   could just as easily be written as:

   Cerebus began publication in December 1977 and sustained a regular release schedule until March 2004. At completion, the series numbered 300 issues in length, or approximately 6,000 pages, making it the longest-running English-language comic book series by a single creative team.

   And while I think that is even more than needs to be said on the subject (page count especially), I find the the quote from Sim about the work to be unnecessary in this instance. If there is a reliable citation from someone other than Sim concerning the quoted matter, then that would alter this concern.
3. Move Title character section to be with Supporting characters, subsections of a Characters section.
4. Story arcs and plot summaries should provide separate subsections for each story arc. Throttle the TOC so that it doesn't become unmanageable if you do this.
5. Split parodies and appearances into two lists.
6. Expand the "Cerebus Syndrome" section to be more informative and/or defining of the term; though I'm not certain this term is notable enough for inclusion.
7. References:
   1. There are a lot of uncited statements that should be marked with the {{Fact}} (or citation needed) template.
   2. There exist instances of the {{Fact}} (or citation needed) template which need to be addressed.
   3. The citations should, but are not required, to use the Citation template formatting (esp. {{cite web}}). Due to the number of online references, these references should also be archived.
   4. A considerable lack of print citations. Though a few are present there should be a greater number, especially considering resources like Following Cerebus and the Collected Letters editions exist.
8. External links should be better organized and their descriptions more concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornoir (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Missing:
   1. There is no section or subsection describing the letters, essays, and annotations Sim published with each issue as backmatter.
   2. There is no section or subsection describing critical reception and layperson reception of the series.
   3. As previously noted, there is no section or subsection detailing awards or nominations for awards received.
   4. There is no mention of the non-infamous forged/bootleg edition of Cerebus #1.
   5. There is no mention of the Cerebus #301 Christmas card that Sim and Gerhard sent out in 2004 (?), which seems worthy of inclusion.

At current, I would consider this article C-Class and not B-Class. These are my general, first impression notes. Sorry if I seem overly thorough. I'll be marking this peer review page as watched to further provide information if requested. Thank you for your time.
hornoir (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Simpsons comics

I have listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten most of the article and now I need feedback on how to improve it further. Also, what grade on the assessment scale would you rate it (the article looked like this before I began working on it and it was rated Start-class back then).

Thanks, TheLeftorium 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty damn good to me. We haven't got an A-Class review process in place at the moment, but I'd suggest you request a GA review. Personally I think you may be able to go straight at FL status, but I'm not familiar with the criteria. The only issues the automated peer review came up with that may be relevant are:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, and bloody good work, Hiding T 13:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Order of the Stick

I've been working to bring this article up to speed, particularly with regards to references and real-world context. Traditionally, it (and especially its related sub-articles) have gotten bogged down in lengthy plot regurgitations, and I'd like to see if I've managed to stem that on the main article before I start working on the sub-articles. I'd like to see this go all the way to Featured Article--right now, the only FA on webcomics is Megatokyo--so any help you could give would be appreciated. Thanks --Ig8887 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scrooge McDuck

This article has a lot of potential but really needs some feedback from objective editors. The more details the better, would really appreciate it. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A good start but it need a lot of more work.

• The hole article need to be referenced with reliable sources.
• The lead should be a summery of the article. For example the discussion in the third paragraph is not mentioned in the body of the article.
• The Money Bin should either be merged or the template be removed.
• I think the names in "Also known as" in the infobox should be removed. He have lots and lots of nicknames used in a few stories, "The Master of the Mississippi" etc etc. "Uncle Scrooge" would be suitable here, maybe "The Richest Duck in the World" too.
• "Comics history" is unbalanced. There are a lot of text about "Voodoo Hoodoo" and "Trail of the Unicorn", minor characters and things like his private airplane while more impotant stories like "Only a Poor Old Man" and "Back to the Klondike" is just mentioned in one sentence. Also more important characters like Flintheart, Beagle Boys and Magica de Spell are mentioned very briefly or not at all, same with things like money bin, number one dime etc.
• The transition from supporting to main character when "Uncle Scrooge" was introduced in 1952 should be clearer.
• More information about the time after Barks is needed.

Skizzik (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comics Guaranty LLC

I was concerned that this article was strongly POV. I have tried to rework it to include criticism, but in a more neutral manner. I've finally completed what I think is a satisfactory draft of the article, but I would like to invite fresh eyes to take a look at it. Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel: The End

I tried copy editing the plot summary, but I'm not familiar enough with the story to complete the job. Can someone else take a whack at it? Konczewski 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batwoman

Batwoman was recently promoted to GA and I would like a peer review to prepare it for FA. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by JasonKling213 (talk · contribs)

Introduction

• Batwoman (originally referred to as The Bat-Woman) is a fictional superheroine and the female counterpart to the superhero Batman. This character appears in publications produced by DC Comics and related media, created by Bob Kane and Sheldon Moldoff.

Publication history

• The contents of her utility purse were actually weapons disguised as stereotypical feminine products such as lipstick, cosmetic compacts, charm bracelets and hair nets.

Skills resources and abilities

• While the Siver Age Batwoman used weaponry disguised as feminine products, the Modern Age Batwoman's arsenal includes a baton-like device which can extend from the center in length and has Bat-shaped attachments at each end Batarangs as well as a Batman-inspired grappling hook.[20]

Review by Hornoir (talk · contribs)

1. Consider revising the lead, as the first three sentences are awkward. Perhaps something like:

   Batwoman (originally referred to as the Bat-Woman) is a fictional character, a comic book superhero co-created by writer Bob Kane and artist Sheldon Moldoff, appearing in publications by DC Comics. The character is the female counterpart to the superhero Batman and she first appeared in Detective Comics #233 (1956), introduced as a love interest for Batman to disprove allegations of homosexuality in response to the backlash from the book Seduction of the Innocent (1954).

   Then begin the next paragraph with her original secret identity.
2. The lead paragraphs lack citation. While the information is reiterated later in the article with citation, these first instances should be cited as well.
3. The remainder of the article seems fairly good. I would advise someone to go through it, though, and tighten some of the language as well as add wikilinks where appropriate (I see a few that should be there).

[edit] Archives

• 2009
• 2008
• 2007
• 2006