User talk:Masonbissada

Greetings

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profhanley (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Greating

Hi, Welcome to WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyebasooda (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoyoyoyoyooooo

What’s up dork KassideSE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Masonbissada, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

Hi, I wanted to give you a head's up about the Good Article (GA) nomination process. The process is meant to determine if an article meets the GA criteria, which require that the article be well written, be properly sourced and not contain original research, be broad in its coverage (ie, cover the topic without going off into too much detail), be neutral, and stable. While not overwhelmingly difficult to meet, it does take a lot of work for an article to meet those criteria.

The review process itself is something that can take a long time to occur, as the GA review process is always backlogged. As such, it can be months (some have even taken about a year to be reviewed) before a GA review is completed and the expectation is that you will remain and fix anything that the reviewer brings up, even if this is after the class ends. I'm not trying to discourage you by any means, but I do want you to be aware of the time involvement. If you do not think that you can fulfill the time requirement, it may be a good idea to remove the nomination.

I'll try to give you a review, but it will take me a bit of time. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would review articles on comics series that have been rated GAs, like Kill or Be Killed (comics), God of War (DC Comics), Love and Rockets X, and Midnighter (2015 comic book). There are more listed here as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Review

Hi, here are my notes:

• The publication section needs to be expanded. This should cover information such as when the comic first started publishing, how many were printed, if there were any second printings of the first issue, and so on. It should also cover any other publishing highlights, such as notable variant covers, hallmarks, or if there were any controversies as far as publication goes. You could also have the comic's development in this section under its own subheader, akin to how it's styled in this page, however you could also have development be its own section.

Something else to keep in mind is that you should keep all of the publication section in the same section. So far there's publishing information in the summary section as well as a separate section for the collected volumes. This is all content that should be in the publication section.

• The character section is unsourced - you definitely need to source this. You can use independent sources for this, however you can also use primary sources such as interviews with Liu or even the comic book itself. The only catch is that any interpretation of events should be sourced with either an independent reliable source where someone posts their own interpretation or a primary source where Liu specifically states that this is how the scene is meant to be interpreted.

• The reception section could be expanded further.

• The deluxe edition should be in a separate template from the non-deluxe volumes as this can otherwise be confusing to readers and will mess up the template. You can set it up like this section on the Fables page. The article has its issues but it is definitely good to use as an example of the formatting.

• The summary section could be expanded to include recent events. You could choose to do a section akin to this one on the Fables article where instead of listing the plot out in depth, they list story arcs and show which comics the arcs stretch over. It looks like each volume is its own story arc, so each story arc would be named after the respective volume.

This is what I have so far - when your article is reviewed, make sure that you stay on top of the review and resolve issues as soon as they're brought up. If you have questions about their notes, definitely feel free to ask questions of the reviewer or ask me about them. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)