Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Death in the Family (comics)/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [1].

A Death in the Family (comics)[edit]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 17:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A Death in the Family" is one of the most infamous comic book stories ever released by a major publisher. When DC Comics realized that Jason Todd, who had replaced Dick Grayson as Batman's sidekick Robin in 1983, was an obnoxious little snot who many fans hated, it made what at the time was an unprecedented decision—the fans could decide if he would die or not. They voted to off the little punk, and sure enough, this story—by The Infinity Gauntlet writer Jim Starlin and veteran artist Jim Aparo—saw the Joker beat Todd to a pulp with a crowbar before blowing him up. "A Death in the Family" left a massive impact on future Batman stories and, to this day, Batman's failure to save his adopted son remains one of the most shocking and disturbing moments in his 80-year history.

Now this was an article I've been meaning to tackle for a long time. I made an attempt in early 2018 when I was still relatively inexperienced, but finally got around to giving it a thorough treatment throughout the last month. This article is probably the most comprehensive resource on this subject on the entire internet, spanning from its background and development to its legacy and influence on Batman media. I hope you enjoy it! JOEBRO64 17:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:The_Death_of_Jason_Todd.jpg: is this the cover or interior artwork? The FUR is contradictory
    • Interior artwork, fixed JOEBRO64 17:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Death_of_Robin_Alt.jpeg: what was the date of first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I believe I've addressed all points. JOEBRO64 17:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My question on the last point was the first publication - I know it was published in 2020, but that source seems to indicate it had been published before that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: I believe that particular page has been floating around on the internet for a while prior to its formal unveiling. The one that was floating around doesn't have the DC logo watermark though, which this one does. I can upload the non-watermarked scan if I can pinpoint its publication date if that sounds good. JOEBRO64 01:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is it unwatermarked because it was unauthorized? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the publication history here... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, TheJoebro64, was this resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joebro, were you able to track down any more details? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and Ian Rose: so this was floating around on the internet circa 2010, and it seems like it was the art Les Daniels shared in his book in 1999. As you can see, it is part of the page that's in the article currently, but it's not the full page. That full page, which is the one in the article, was first seen in full in 2020. A modified version of it was used in Batman Annual #25 in 2006, but again, it's not the scan from 2020, and it's quite different from how the page was originally intended. For the image we have here, 2020 would be an accurate publication date. Hope that clears everything up. JOEBRO64 17:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for that info. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the caption in the infobox image, I do not think it should have a period at the end as it is not a complete sentence.
  • 900 numbers is linked more than once in the article.
  • I do not think Dick Grayson should be linked in the "Synopsis" section as he is already linked in an earlier section. I have the same comment for Superman.
  • I have a question about this part, when characters such as Phoenix and Elektra were killed. It has been a while since I read "The Dark Phoenix Saga", but I thought it was more so Jean Grey's death not the Phoenix?
    • I actually wouldn't know because I've never read the Phoenix Saga! However, the link does go to Grey's article already. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the response. I agree that since the link already directs to the Grey article, it should be fine as it currently stands. I really enjoy The Dark Phoenix Saga and weirdly enough, I actually just bought a super cheap copy of it at a library book store. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, a damaged Robin suit on display in the Batcave, would it be beneficial to link Batcave? I do not think it is linked earlier.
    • Batcomputer, which is linked earlier in the article, redirects to Batcave. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me, and I think the Batcave is pretty self-explanatory anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think words should be in all caps in the citation titles. See citations 3, 44, and 48 for examples of this.
  • There is an issue with the "Pearson & Uricchio 1991" citations in that the links in the "References" section do not link down to the "Bibliography" section.
  • I would link Looper in the citations.

I hope my review is helpful. TarkusAB has covered a lot of points in their review below and I have tried to not overlap with that. Once all my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. You have done a wonderful job with the article and it was a very engaging read. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you for taking the time to review! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. I really enjoyed reading this article. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TarkusAB[edit]

I just happen to have the next week off so I should have time to do this. Actually just going to do the review now.

  • [The fans] did hate him. I don't know if it was fan craziness... I think maybe this quote would work better in a quote box to the right, as it is pretty long, and also summarizes the background quite well.
  • Note sure where the AIDS thing plays in. In the following sentence, it says Starlin filled the suggestion box with papers saying to kill off Todd. Was the intent to kill him off from AIDS? It's not clear.
    • Yeah the idea was to kill off a DC character using AIDS for AIDS education (a respectful way to handle the topic, amirite?). I've reworded the sentence to say "... requested that writers submit suggestions for characters to kill off from AIDS." If this still needs work in your view just let me know. JOEBRO64 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starlin wrote scripts for a six-part story, and the decision was made to publish the first two parts in a single issue and the next two parts in the following issue to speed up the story because of the reader participation angle. I was a little confused reading this, maybe because I'm not familiar with comics very much. Are "parts" normally not published together, meaning the original intent was to publish across six issues? Was it still in six parts or were the parts combined? Was this an unusual practice? Maybe this could be made a little more clear (without getting much more wordy).
    • Comic book stories are usually serialized a part per issue. In this case, DC decided to publish four parts (which would've been four issues normally) in double-sized issues. I've reworded it to: "Starlin wrote scripts for a six-issue story, and the decision was made to combine the first four across two issues..." Hopefully this is clearer. JOEBRO64 22:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, regarding the same phrase, the part "because of the reader participation angle"...I'm not understanding why they would need to rush the story because of the audience participation. Did the 900 numbers cost a lot of money and they wanted to get it done ASAP to cut the lines?
    • O'Neil's exact quote on the matter is: "The whole idea was reader participation, so speeding up the story-telling process by publishing double-issues seemed in the spirit of it all." My interpretation of this is that the Batman team felt like the story needed to be faster since fans were participating. I've reworded it to: "... to speed up the story because fans were participating." JOEBRO64 22:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you mentioned the numbers on the backcover, I would mention that specific times on when to call were also printed. The first time you mentioned the numbers on the back, I assumed they were open for a month, or whatever the timing for an issue was. When I came across the line saying the lines were only open for 35 hours, I felt confused, like they only opted to get a small sampling of callers. Only when I saw the image of the back cover online, did I understand.
    • I added the specific times. I used EST because DC was headquartered in NYC at the time. JOEBRO64 22:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the letters pages broke out into debate" over whether... By "letters pages", I assume you mean pages in the comics where they publish letters sent in by fans? It's kind of a strange term that I had to think about for a second. Maybe say: fan letters published in the comic "broke out into debate" over whether...
    • The quote is referring to comic book letter columns, which are (or were, I don't know if publishers still do it) where the editors published and responded to letters from fans. I've changed it to say "the Batman letter column "broke out into debate" over whether Todd should live or die", with the link. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the same sentence above, am I understanding right that upon the announcement of the storyline, fans already understood that the nature of the storyline was Robin's death, and began debating from that? I'm just thinking if they had to have some previous knowledge, but I don't know how they would. They didn't know he was at death's doorstep until 427, and the next issue he died, so these fan letters would not have much opportunity to debate.
    • Well, here's the thing that the source doesn't mention: DC announced the story a few months in advance, after The Killing Joke came out (The Killing Joke came out in March or May if I'm not mistaken). They originally didn't reveal that it was Todd who was in danger when they announced the story, fans at the time just immediately figured out that it was him. It didn't become official that it was going to be about Robin when Batman #426 was published that August. I hope this clears it up, I'm fine with scrubbing the sentence altogether, or adding the release date of The Killing Joke so it becomes clear it was some time in advance. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Not required, but may be better to say: ...the Batman letter column immediately concluded the storyline concerned Todd and "broke out into debate" over... Which brings the clarity that fans concluded he was the subject by themselves, and brings the nuance that perhaps they deep down expected/wanted him to be the subject. But the writing here is not terribly misleading, and I'm not sure what the source says exactly, so I'll leave that to you to decide. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others lamented how bloodthirsty comic book readers had become. Maybe I'm reading too much into "had become", but were there other cases at the time of readers wanting character deaths in their comics?
    • I've changed it to "were", because I can see how this can be a bit confusing if you're not familiar with comics history. Basically, the death of Robin came early during the Modern Age of Comic Books, a time when it was really cool and trendy to have your comic as brutally bloody and violent as possible. Weldon mentions in his book that upon hearing that Robin could be killed, many fans jumped at the opportunity because they wanted the mainstream Batman comics to be as savage and adult as The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now towards the end of the article, I'm getting the impression that Todd is a child, or at least was in this storyline. Is that mentioned earlier, and did I just miss it? I think his age (or at least the fact that he's a teen/child) should be mentioned in the Background section if that is the case, as it brings a fascinating spin.
    • Yeah, Robin is almost always depicted as an adolescent. According to The Batman Files, Todd was canonically 15 during this storyline, so he was still a child. I've added that Robin is an adolescent to the introductory sentence in Background. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the fact that Todd was brought back to life as the Red Hood be in the lead? Seems important
    • I've added it. I also threw in that Tim Drake replaced Todd as I felt that was important for context as well. JOEBRO64 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really great read. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TarkusAB: responded to all points. Thank you for taking the time to review! JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You put so much work into these articles, I knew it would be a good read. The only comic I was ever subscribed to was the Sonic Archie series when I was young, and those were meh. Reading about mature comics like this, I can see how good comic book writers and artists can really push the boundaries of artistic expression, and it gives me an appreciation for the medium I didn't have before. All the fixes you made above were satisfactory and cleared up any confusion I had. I made one recommendation above, but it's minor. I support this article for promotion! TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank yoi! JOEBRO64 16:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broken citations

There is a problem with citations 1 and 27, "Pearson, Roberta E.; Uricchio, William, eds. (1991). The Many Lives of The Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media. London: BFI Publishing. pp. 18–32. ISBN 0415903475. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFPearson_Uricchio1991." Graham Beards (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: all fixed. I'd accidentally mistyped the ref while writing. JOEBRO64 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have fixed it for you, but I couldn't find the problem.-Graham Beards (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from indopug[edit]

  • Throughout this article, you mainly talk about "A Death in the Family" and rarely about Batman: A Death in the Family—and rightly so. But the article title should reflect this; I recommend moving the article to A Death in the Family (Batman) (or whatever is appropriate). I also feel "collected in trade paperback form as Batman: A Death in the Family" should be relegated from the first sentence to the fourth paragraph of the lead. The collected TPB is simply not very important compared to that of the story of Batman #426–429.
  • I don't understand the point of the sentences "Both issues bore a cover date of December 1988" and "The last two issues bore January 1989 cover dates". They're not sourced to independent sources either, rather the comics themselves.
  • I've removed them. I had included the cover dates as I thought it'd be helpful, since the cover dates are always different from the actual publication dates, but looking at it now I don't think it's entirely necessary JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should trim the Miller quote to avoid the "most cynical" repetition.
    • Done, just chopped off "..., and the most cynical" from the end. JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raspler was chastised by future DC president Paul Levitz"—he became president over a decade later. I think he should be introduced with his then title (otherwise it seems like a much bigger deal than it was).
  • "a scene in which Wayne beat the Joker with a crowbar"—I wonder if you should explicitly explain that this was a reference/reversal of what happened in ADITF?
  • While you say "DC editors took the lessons they learned from the controversy and used media coverage for publicity when killing off major characters in the future" in general, shouldn't you give Superman's death (and maybe even the Knightfall storyline) as specific examples of this?
    • I've added Superman, as I think it's the best example. JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

more to come...—indopug (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: I've responded above. Thank you for taking the time to take a look! JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: I hope you don't mind me giving you a little nudge JOEBRO64 13:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I will finish my review and copyedit later today.—indopug (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second paragraph of the lede: I don't think you need the Teen Titans and Crisis stuff at all, just say they made him rebellious and impulsive after 1986 or whatever. Reboots etc are way too complicated for the lay reader.
  • There's an abrupt segue from "the reboot characterized Todd as rebellious and impulsive" to O'Neil wanting to setup a public voting system (which comes out of nowhere). You need to include a sentence or two incorporating material from the first few paragraphs of Development, explaining that they were thinking of axing Todd one way or the other.
    • I've done some rewriting. Let me know how you think it looks. JOEBRO64 16:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you doublecheck this copyedit? The text now says "The poll received 10,614 votes and 5,343 voted for Todd's death and over 5,271 for his survival"; isn't it actually exactly 5271 votes?—indopug (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "and" was accidentally left in from a copyedit. I've fixed this. JOEBRO64 12:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: responded above. JOEBRO64 16:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have been addressed. I hope you bring equally important Batman articles such as Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns to such a high standard as this in the future.—indopug (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the new section

It's a great addition, and I'd be fine if this passed as it is. My only suggestions:

  • "Starlin writes Batman as speaking Farsi, the Persian language, in Beirut". Maybe add "(where Arabic is actually the lingua franca/commonly spoken language)" after Beirut.
  • Maybe add a pic of the Joker in the Arab headdress.
  • In para 3 I'm not clear what the closeness of the vote and the motivations of the Save Todd voters have to do with the interdiegetic stuff in the rest of the paragraph? In any case I feel the interdiegetics stuff is unnecessary (doesn't seem important enough to mention in the abstract and its point is not quite clear in the short summary here. I took a shot at removing that stuff and recasting the Save Todd stuff a little, but don't feel compelled to use it.—indopug (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on Criterion 1a from Graham Beards[edit]

I think the prose if FA standard. I made a couple of edits rather than list nit-picks here. You can revert them if you want. Graham Beards (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Your copyedits are very appreciated, I don't have any issue with them) JOEBRO64 14:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)[edit]

Addressed comments
  • What makes Looper a high-quality source or one that would be appropriate for a featured article? There was a discussion about this site on the WP:RSN, but that could just be one editor's opinion. My concern is that one of the Looper citations (i.e. Citation 8) is used rather frequently in the article to support factual information. I am not saying this is a bad source or it should be removed or anything that extreme. I just want to get your rationale for its use in a FAC/FA space.
    • Looper is owned by ZergNet, and we consider its sister site SVG reliable (see WP:VG/S). Their policy page lists strict adherence to fact-checking and accuracy and always providing sources for claims. Additionally, the primary Looper reference I cited was written by Chris Sims, a published author who's written for multiple reliable sources. JOEBRO64 15:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the explanation. It seems like an appropriate source then to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Citation 16 and 18, I would avoid putting the title in all caps, even if the sources themselves do that. If there are other instances of this that I have missed in the citations, then please correct them as well.
  • For Citation 46, wouldn't ComiXology be considered the platform rather than the publisher? I would think it should go in the "via=" parameter while DC Comics should be in the "publisher=" parameter. I would think this would be a similar case to how YouTube is represented in Citation 65.
  • Why use Den of Geek!, which is a redirect, rather than Den of Geek?
  • When looking through the citations, I noticed there was not any scholarly or academic coverage. I did a brief Google Scholar search, and I found items such 72 Votes: Theorizing the Scapegoat Sidekick in Batman: A Death in the Family, Arab images in American comic books, and Holy Islamophobia, Batman! Demonization of Muslims and Arabs in Mainstream American Comic Books. Have you checked through the more academic coverage of this storyline?
    • I did some searching through Google Scholar and EbscoHost when I started writing the article but wasn't able to find anything I found particularly noteworthy. I'll parse through those sources later this week to see if I can pull anything up worth including. (Looks like that 72 votes one was only recently published too, after I did the rewrite) JOEBRO64 16:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for looking into this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm working on incorporating them right now. I did want to point out though—there's shockingly little scholarly coverage of the story, to the point that the first sentence of the Tembo article is "There has been surprisingly little scholarly attention paid towards the death of arguably the most famous sidekick in comic book history". JOEBRO64 12:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for the update. I am also surprised there is little scholarly coverage given how big this storyline was. If there is just not scholarly coverage, then it is understandable why those sources are not really used in this article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note about coverage, I am somewhat surprised Dennis O'Neil's "It would be a really sleazy stunt to bring him back." quote/defense is not used in the article since it was published on the back cover of the trade paperback. Is there a reason for its absence?
    • I didn't include it because overall, I didn't really deem it important to understanding the story. I did find some commentary in Batman Unauthorized: Vigilantes, Jokers, and Heroes in Gotham City connecting it to how Todd's death was intended to remain permanent so I will see if I can incorporate that. JOEBRO64 16:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. I could understand why the quote itself is not particularly necessary. Thank you for the explanation for that. I think it would be helpful to add a brief part about his death was intended to be permanent. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks to me. Aside from my question about Looper, the citations seem appropriate for a featured article on a comic book storyline (as context does matter with that), and they are well-structured. I greatly appreciate the time stamp for Citation 52. I have looked through some of the citations (i.e. spot checks) and the information is supported. I will do a few more tomorrow just to make sure. I hope this review is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions and have a great rest of your day/night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I just wanted to let you know I'm still working on this. I've got some classes and other things to clear up so I may be a bit slower than I'd like but I should get this over with by the end of the week. JOEBRO64 17:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. Take as much time as you need. Thank you for taking the time to look through this and best of luck with your classes! Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47, TarkusAB, Indopug, and Graham Beards: per Aoba47's request, I have added a "literary analysis" section to the article. I wanted to ping you all, as it's a decent-sized addition, to make sure if it affects your supports at all. If it does, just let me know and I can resolve any issues you have with it. JOEBRO64 01:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to do this. I know that this kind of work can be a pain so I appreciate the time and energy you have put into this. I will read through this section momentarily. There are three other points in my source review that have not been addressed so I would appreciate responses for those (and they are way more minor and should not take nearly as much time or energy). Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section looks very good to me. My only suggestion would be to add a descriptive phrase for Kwasu Tembo when you first mention him in the prose to provide the reader with further context. I would introduce him through his specialty. I have used a Tembo citation in the past, and I have gone with literary critic, but you might have a better idea. Other than that, great work with putting this together so quickly. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a couple of edits to the addition. The section adds useful content.Graham Beards (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! JOEBRO64 02:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am just glad that I can help. Thank you for pulling out the pings. For some reason, I had completely forgotten about them so apologies for collapsing them. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2021 (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/A_Death_in_the_Family_(comics)/archive1&oldid=1045033695"