Talk:Comics/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be happy to undertake this review. I have read it and it appears to be in very good shape. Prhartcom (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asessment[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a well-written article that covers an intimidatingly vast topic.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Reviewer comments[edit]

  • Surprising there is no Wikipedia article for the thing called "captions", one of the three textual devices of comics, so important a term that it appears in the second sentence of this article. It's true that, of the other two (which do have articles), only one is exclusively associated with comics. I believe I have run into this startling conclusion before when trying to link to this non-existent article that would describe comics narration. The closest I ever found was "Letterer". I suppose there are a few reliable sources in existence for such an article, should there ever be one. Do you think there should be an article to link to? Do you think the Letterer article should someday be moved and expanded into this term? Should there be a red link in this sentence?
    • A lot of these articles that should exist, dont, partly because it's hard to find sufficient RSes to write about them. Take a look at cartoonist—which should really be at cartooning. That's an article I'd love to build up, but there's really very little in the way of RSes to build it up properly. Much related to comics and cartooning is assumed and little written about. My answer is, I suppose, Yes, there should be such an article, but ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must have considered linking to comics album in the sentence the term appears; why not link to it? (Ah, because we already have or already will link to the entire article this section is in; I see now.)
  • "particularly in the US, western Europe ..., and Japan." I was expecting to see three links for these three important geographic/cultural areas of comics, particularly since a different link existed in the sentence and it signaled me to look for others: a nice orderly set of links in this orderly list. Further down I saw the problem: All three certainly do have articles, except two are called "History of [geographic area]" and one is called "[geographic area] comics", and since immediately following this sentence under discussion are three sentences each devoted to the history of comics for that geographic area, you chose a linking solution that went partly one way (linking from this sentence) and partly the other (linking from the following three sentences). I think we should do it all one way or the other, despite the name of that one article. Let's use the three links in each of their three history sentences, and not use them here in this sentence. Assuming you agree with that, it means moving one link European comics into its "history of European comics" sentence, and out of this sentence, which is really just a list of places. Note 1: That begs the question of what to do with the "different link" I mentioned above, the one to Franco-Belgian comics. It's a tough call but I think it should also be moved to the "history of European comics" sentence, and out of here; leaving it here is what signaled me to look for links to the other three places in the first place. Note 2: Perhaps the word "US" could be "United States" just this one time. Your thoughts?
    • I'm not sure this was the best, but I've taken the American comics redirect and re-redirected it to History of American comics (it was pointing to List of American comics). There really should be an American comics article, though, so I'm linking to that rather than the "History" article it redirects to. I've linked "in Japan" to "Manga". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like it; good idea changing that one redirect, but just checking: Are you sure you're okay with removing the links to these three or four major articles in the next three sentences, then? Because I was thinking that you wouldn't be, and since we shouldn't link from both places I had suggested as above. You may want to reconsider my suggestion. Note that "manga" and "history of American comics" are actually linked from both places now, not good, see what I mean? So here's the suggestion again: You could have the one "list of three places" sentence with no links at all to set the stage, then provide the three sentences, one for each place, each of them beginning with the phrase "The history of [place] comics ..." which is the link. Prhartcom (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see what you're saying. I think there are some issues that need to be cleared up at those articles first. Really, History of American comics should be at American comics in the first place, I think. Manga and History of manga likely should stay separate, though, especially since ideas of just where "manga" starts in Japanese history is complicated enough as it is. Other than that, I think I've redone the paragraph as you suggested. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I admit I haven't read much in those three articles. Tell you what, all I am asking for at this point is as much consistency as you can manage, and also we certainly can't have two links to the same article in two nearby sentences. To reach some consistency I had suggested the list of places be the place to have no links (except maybe the Franco-Belgium comics one) and then the three sentences to follow be the place to have links to those three articles. Prhartcom (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I'd already removed the double links, I was just thinking aloud. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah so you had, got it. It looks good now—wait, we lost the link to European comics ("The history of European comics is ...)
            • Okay, I fixed it. Prhartcom (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Adventures of Tintin's "success in the 1920s": This should probably be "1930s" which is just as accurate, as Tintin appeared late in the 20s decade in 1929 and dominated European comics in the 1930s and beyond. Then we don't conjure up an image of Tintin existing throughout the entire 20s decade.
  • When the term bandes dessinées is introduced we may want to also introduce the more common abbreviation: BD. Also, I wonder if you would like to link to other Wikipedias; here is the link to this term.
    • I usually only do that if the abbreviation is going to be used more than once in the article—it kind of creates that expectation that the article will be doing so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that. To that point, the topic of bandes dessinées is raised three times in the article body. However, the frequency wasn't what I was trying to say, I was referring to what I believe is the fact that "BDs" are simply what they call them over there. I don't think anyone says the words bandes dessinées. What do the sources say the people call them? That's all that matters. My intention was to not to abbreviate for article convenience but to not miss encyclopedic information. Prhartcom (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That it's often referred to as Bandes dessinnées in English is sourced, and actually appears in the titles of books and articles, such as Masters of the Ninth Art: Bandes Dessinées and Franco-Belgian Identity by Matthew Screech and Comics in French: The European Bande Dessinée in Context by Laurence Grove. My gut feeling is that it has less currency than "manga", but then their sales figures hardly match those of manga, either. I tried to sidestep the issue by wording it that the term was used without trying to imply that it was used primarily. As for "BD", if its use is truly prevalent then it should be remarked on, but its use outside of English is irrelevant to an English-language article of this one's scope. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have a little too much about Japanese comics here in the lede. Compare the weight they are given here (three sentences) compared to the other two (one sentence). Perhaps trim this it down a bit; combine into one sentence.
    • I've cut back and reworded a bit.

More review will come later. This is a very well-done article, which is not surprising considering the nominator, and it is an honor to be the reviewer of it. Prhartcom (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a fun update: Check out the 5-page Preface George R. R. Martin wrote in 2012 to the graphic novelization of his epic and very famous story that discusses a little history of comics (that I purchased for my son's Christmas present). I'm assuming you know who this gentleman is. This is a fun and interesting read; do enjoy. (You have to click the book cover to "Look inside!" and then scroll or page to the Preface; I hope it works for you.) Prhartcom (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know his name, but I only have the vaguest clue about what he writes about (a bunch of long books where lots of people die, and people cry about it all over Facebook? That's the extent of my knowledge). He pretty much gives the standard history of mainstream American comic books—it's nice to see him acknowledge that it wasn't all superheroes, and gives a personal perspective from the '50s. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You made me laugh. He's a pretty good story-teller. I'm caught up with the television show. The comics are quite good. More review later. Prhartcom (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell me what you know about * {{cite isbn}}, which I would like to use, but I hear we shouldn't anymore because templates should not contain article content.
    • Well, it allows you to use the same book for several articles, and if you happen to make a mistake in one, you don't have to remember all the articles you used it in to fix it—just fix it in one spot and it's done. You just go {{cite isbn|isbn number without hyphens|ref=harv}}, then after you save a link in its spot in the list of sources will appear—click through and fill in the ref. You could put the "|ref=harv" in the citation itself, but then you're forcing anybody else who uses it to use your preferred short reffing style. It's only really worth it if you know you're going to use the book multiple times. I also throw in a hidden comment to show what the {{cite isbn}} is citing, because it's not obvious in the source. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I notice it says per consensus we're not supposed to use it, but maybe they mean only for new isbns.
        • What a weird outcome—there were more opposes than supports, an it doesn't looks like someone's used the close to recode {{sfn}} to exclude {{cite doi}}s. Doesn't seem to have affected {{cite isbn}}, though. I hope a solution arises, I like using Wikidata to store this info. It looks like the only objection is to storing the info in Template space. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would like to use it too (the Tintin articles use the same sources); but I guess I won't since it says not to, regardless that the discussion seemed to be about something else. I see their point and agree with not putting content in templates. I would taper off your usage, but I won't let this affect this review. Prhartcom (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origins and traditions[edit]

  • I appreciate that several sources are often used per footnote, something I also try to do, and for a section like this one of course there should be. I see that more of that is coming; please ensure you do this whenever your sources are really corroborating. This section is masterful. In the last sentence, I suppose you deliberately chose "amongst" over the more common "among" (both are of course correct).
    • People have been on my case about that before. I grew up saying "amongst", and I don't quite understand the prejudice against it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the images in the gallery here can be in the order they are mentioned: Töpffer, Outcault, Hokusai, Ross.
    • I would if they were floated along the text
      • Not sure what you mean. I was simply asking if they could not be in the seemingly random order they are now but be put in the order above, the order the reader reads about them. Prhartcom (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still looking for an action here. Prhartcom (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I accidentally saved an incomplete thought. Let me ponder this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hadn't considered the alternating narrow-wide-narrow-wide order of images, if that is your concern. If that should be preserved, I have an idea: Move the manga to the end of the row. Ignoring Ally Sloper for a moment, this puts them in the order of appearance. Ally Sloper appears in the next section anyway. Prhartcom (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think what my unfinished thought was trying to express was that it would make sense to place the images in the order they're referred to in the text if they appeared along with the flow of the text; as they appear as a block introducing the section, though, I think it's more logical that they appear chronologically—the logic of the ordering wouldn't be clear otherwise on first read-through. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay. Just FYI, when I was reading, my eyes kept going up to the gallery to keep an image of whoever I was reading about straight in my head (remember, I represent the casual reader who just doesn't know), and I remember I had a little bit of a hard time jumping around because they were not in the order I was reading. Hey, wait, maybe keep the order of the images but change the order of appearance in the text?? I'll let you sort this one out; if you hear me but decide it's not important, then I'm okay with that. Prhartcom (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English-language comics[edit]

  • Ally Sloper needs italics and the usual few words of introduction we do when we mention something or someone for the first time (so the reader doesn't have to be interrupted to click).
    • I added "the character"; characters don't receive italics, and my understanding is there wasn't actually as series called Ally Sloper. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, okay, but what about the italics used in the gallery above? That's what gave me the idea that it must be the name of the comics. Prhartcom (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still looking for an action here. Prhartcom (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thin periodicals called comic books": "comic books" needs a link.
  • "while comic book sales continued to increase as genres" → "while comic book sales in other genres proliferated, such as"
    • It's supposed to indicate that overall sales continued to climb even as superhero titles were cancelled en masse—the decline of superheroes had no effect on the industry as a whole. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, because the sales in other genres proliferated, right? I was just suggesting the wording above is slightly better. Prhartcom (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still looking for an action here. Prhartcom (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the content of comic books (particularly crime and horror) was subjected to scrutiny" needs a source.
    • All these sentences are sourced to the Gabilliet cite a couple of sentences later, but I've doubled up. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Code has been blamed ..." needs a source, since we're pointing fingers. If it is really the source appearing in the next sentence (a completely different topic) then copy it here too.

Franco-Belgian and European comics[edit]

  • "clear line" → "ligne claire ("clear line")", per the principle of least astonishment (plus, it's cool).
    • I disagree—we should keep these articles in English, and having ligne claire would require an English gloss, breaking up the prose when the style is only really being mentioned in passing. I'd agree if the style were being examined in detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Miller 2007 says Tintin appeared in 1929 then put the inline reference at the end of the sentence. (If not, I believe I can get you a source that says that.)
  • Brilliant that you have two actual quotes in French from two (completely wrong) commentators of the time.
  • Please search in your lit for a source (Grove 2005?) to add the encyclopedic information "or BD". It's got to be there. Here is one contemporary online source I easily found (here). I'm just not sure if they used that term immediately after they came up with bandes dessinée. Just asking you to check the sources, if not, too bad. (Here is some more of the landscape today: www.bdnet.com)
    • I can't see in Grove where he actually says people refer to it as "BD"—he introduces the term as if it were a personal shorthand that he will use throughout the book. Yes, I know that's not the case, but the source doesn't indicate this is a term that's actually used outside the book. I'll need to find a source that explicitly states this. There's this source, for example, that says they are called that in France, Belgium, and Quebec, but it doesn't say they are called so in English. I'm sure I'll find something eventually. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for earnestly checking into this. It just stood out to me as a term that was missing since I believe they call them that now (but I actually don't know if they were called that back then). I would hate for someone else to add it later; if anyone is going to add it, it should be you. This source is encouraging! Now that I know you will do the usual due diligence of checking into this, I will no longer mention it here and let you decide what to do depending on what you find or do not find. Prhartcom (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spirou magazine emerged after Le Journal de Mickey then Raymond Leblanc founded Tintin magazine immediately after the war was won—years before the third competitor Pilote and both arguably much more influential, perhaps a mention?
    • Possibly, but I was trying to go with milestones rather than simple popularity. Pilote wasn't just popular, it represented a new approach. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true, we don't have a lot of time. You know, earlier you rightly lingered on Punch but just put others in a list: "Puck, Life, and Judge"; maybe that is the answer here. Prhartcom (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still looking for an action here. Prhartcom (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm having trouble finding a source that singles out those magazines in this context. The closest I can find is this. but this is specifically in the context of Belgian holding its own against French publishing—all the other sources I can find mix n those two magazines with a slew of others from around Europe. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe I have the sources that discuss Tintin magazine but not Spirou; shall I check? I will check for you. Prhartcom (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update: Okay, I have checked, and I found something in Pierre Assouline (2009). I have sent you an actual email; check it. Prhartcom (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update: Okay, sorry if the page I found is not a high-enough level overview you may need; I had simply noticed the journals in question were all mentioned in context. Let me know what you think about this source or the source you found or my original suggestion (just mentioning the journals in a list). Prhartcom (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry about that. It's not an issue of quality—it's obviously a high-quality source—it's an issue of context. The source puts Spirou as a direct Belgian competitor to Tintin, but it doesn't put the magazine's significance into the greater context of Franco-Belgian or European comics. There were other popular magazines at the time as well, especially in France, but also in Italy that sources refer to. We'd need a source that singles out Spirou in that context—or otherwise list all the other popular magazines, but I don't think that's a good idea at this scope. I want the histories to give an overall gist of the major traditions without dominating the article. For instance, in the Anglo-American section, you get mention of Superman as a milestone, but there's no mention of Batman or Spider-Man, nor of Walt Disney's Comics and Stories, Archie, or Zap. Those are all important characters and titles in the tradition, but including all things at that level would make the histoy sections the dominant part of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's true, and I suppose even to ever-so briefly mention them in a list would require the high-level source. I was considering that someone may try to mention the titles in the article in the future; if they do, they would probably be required by the community to have such a source. Prhartcom (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really well-done writing and research in this section. Fun news from just yesterday: Tintin Shooting Star Cover Art Sells for $2.9 Million
    • Definitely my favourite cover—but somehow lacks its punch without the colour, eh? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and webcomics became common" reference: There is no Thorne 2010 in the list of sources.
  • Weiner 2003: No inline reference uses this source.

Japanese comics[edit]

  • "comics supplements began to appear"; Say where they appeared, i.e. find the city or area if possible or just say "in Japan", because unfortunately this passage has a lot of Western places heavily mentioned so it is actually possible the reader may forget we are talking about Japan. (We said "to Japan" recently I know, but I think it's needed.)
    • Still looking for an action here. Prhartcom (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source itself doesn't say—it just mentions it as a general trend at the time. It may be assuming Tokyo, as much of this output came from those from the ukiyo-e industry, which was overwhelmingly a Tokyo thing—but perhaps less so by the 1890s. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • All right, now my comment made an provision in that case, what do you think? Re-read my comment and your passage and consider whether the simple reminder might be needed. Prhartcom (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Genres and audiences diversified over the following decades and are usually first serialized"; Both the genres and audiences are serialized?
    • That was dumb. Reworded to "Genres and audiences diversified over the following decades. Stories are usually first serialized..." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good section; I'm assuming you had to hold yourself back.

Forms and formats[edit]

  • " In American comic strips, daily strips"; is there a way to avoid the redundant "strips"?
  • Nice original photo! I suppose that's your living room or hallway, and those are books from your personal collection (I remember you telling me you owned L'Étoile mystérieuse ages ago). If you ever want to re-shoot it, I would suggest a little lower angle (sorry, my dad was a pro photographer and some of his advice stuck).
    • I'm fairly sure any photo advice you give me will never get through to me. It would be better to find someone with the skillz & access to a diverse collection to do it. Also, I probably should have thrown in some comic books and manga magazines—unfortunately, I don't have any European magazines, and it's unlikely I'll find someone who does in Shizuoka. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comics studies[edit]

  • Didn't find any issues here.

Vocabulary and idioms[edit]

  • "a study dubbed 'closure'" and then later "a process called 'closure'". Did you really want both? Was it McCould that defined the term "closure" or was it Duncan & Smith (McCloud wasn't mentioned or referenced the second time).
    • No, it's McCloud's term, but it's become so generally accepted that it's not always credited to McCloud anymore. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still looking for an action here (at the second introduction of the term the article is acting like there wasn't a first time; probably fix the second one). Prhartcom (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I think this went over my head. Could you restate the issue? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure; I was just pointing out that the article introduces the term "closure", complete with quote marks and definition, which is fine, then further down it does so yet again, complete with quote marks and (sort of) a definition again. Clearly that term had already been introduced and defined to the reader so we don't need to say "a process called 'closure'" and we definitely don't need the quote marks. (You probably wrote one sentence one day and then other another day, forgetting about the first day.) We should just say "closure", or even better would be to say the term while somehow quickly reminding us what the already-introduced term means. Prhartcom (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm ... I took a couple stabs at rewording this, but I'm not sure. Not all readers are going to read the article sequentially, and "closure" is a bit sticky, as it has a long list of non-comics meanings as well. Closure has a distinct meaning in film, and another in literature, concepts that could easily be applied to comics. I'm going to think on this and try to come up with a better way to word it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see that you fixed this, to my satisfaction anyway. I think I know what you mean, certainly about the multiple meanings. Good luck with it. Prhartcom (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The size, shape, a placement of panels affect" → "The size, shape, and placement of panels each affect"
  • "The contents of a panel may by asynchronous" → "The contents of a panel may be asynchronous"

Etymology[edit]

  • We've heard most of this before. Oh well, can't be helped, I suppose.
  • It would be very nice if there was a way to end with an emotion. Perhaps a Legacy section?
    • How would you approach it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not the expert of course, you are, but I am wondering if you can search the sources for any text that perhaps looks back at the history, looks at the present, then looks forward to the future. Maybe in the last paragraph of an author's introduction or the last paragraph of their book. Then write a new short section that wraps it all up, perhaps is a summary of the entire article while looking forward also, helping the article "end with a chord" as I say. Something that causes the reader to feel an emotion. In my opinion, if this can be accomplished while still keeping the usual encyclopedic style it pushes the article closer into the "brilliant writing" requirement of FA. Just a thought, I know this is only GA, but of course you are taking this article forward. Still looking for an action here (or just hoping). Prhartcom (talk) Update: This last one of course is not a GA requirement. It is just a suggestion to make the article better, if the sources support it. It's not anything I don't also ask of myself. Prhartcom (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're right—there should be a section on the impact of comics on wider culture, but this will take some work. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is exciting news for me. I can't wait to read what you come up with. Sounds like you understand what I am saying: find a way to end on a high note or otherwise cause the reader to feel an emotion. But of course it depends on what the sources say. This note of mine here is not about a GA requirement so I am good with just knowing you get what I am saying and plan to improve it before FA. Prhartcom (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All end notes[edit]

  • Impressive.

Conclusion[edit]

Very well done! Prhartcom (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please search the text above for the phrase "Still looking for an action here". Then I believe we'll be done. Prhartcom (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of the seven I flagged for attention in the manner stated above, 2 have been resolved, 2 I am satisfied will be addressed at a later time (and are not a GA requirement), 1 is currently being looked into and I am simply waiting for resolution or some sort of further response, and 2 have not yet been acknowledged. If these last 3 could be dealt with, then I believe we'll be done. Prhartcom (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have a few remaining points you are thinking about improving before you take this to FA, and I applaud you for that. For this GA review, the last few items have been resolved to my satisfaction and I am awarding this article its well-deserved GA. Prhartcom (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comics/GA1&oldid=646973139"