Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards

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 19:48, 21 March 2008.

Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards[edit]

previous FAC
Check external links

Renominating as per lack of support/oppose and after adding in Laser Brain's suggestions. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Looks good, covers all aspects of this book, its origin, and its reception. I wonder if you could find any images of the book itself to see the art style used, I am curious myself. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Just looking at sources and photos, haven't looked at MOS or prose issues.
    • Is The Comics Reporter a blog? A magazine?
    • Same for Sequential Tart, it looks like a Webzine.
    • And the same for BookSlut.com?
    • Footnote 18 is to a comic book letterer's blog. While it's mainly to source his comments, I'm not sure why he's important enough to be considered a good critical source (Our article on him isn't very helpful, and is unsourced, ugh.)
    • Ditto with 19. Is Johanna Draper Carlson a well-known comic critic?
    • The images look okay, although I'd like to see something in the article itself discussing the fact that the artist is basing the panel on a famous painting. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out reliability concerns, I hadn't even though about them. To address concerns; Comics Reporter is written/run by Tom Spurgeon (who definitely is reliable); SequentialTart is has been referenced by third parties, but it is a webzine. BookSlut has been referenced other places, and is an amalgam of writers; her editor, Jessa Crispin, appears places too. Johanna Draper Carlson also has credits to her name, so I’m pretty sure looking back at them they satisfy WP:V. Footnote 18, I’m iffy. The letterer is important in the industry, however he does have no significant connection to actual reviewing of graphic novels/comics. If that seems questionable, I guess we can strike his comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a recent crash course from Sandy about RS and websites and all that fun stuff, I think we can live with the letterer, although it might be a good compromise to point out he's a letterer in the industry, which would do the full disclosure thing. Another that might influence it is if a lot of folks look to his blog for recommendations? As it is now, I think if we says he's a letterer, the source can probably handle it. I reserve the right to have Sandy come in and say "Nope!" though...Ealdgyth | Talk 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's fine with me. As for the famous painting thing, I'll see if I can find something that references it or other works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see several sources of questionably reliability, and the answers above don't complete the info necessary to establish that WP:V is met. Who are the authors of these pieces, where is their expertise established, and why are bulletin board blog postings used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bulletin board postings? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, David, by the time I got back here to type it up, I mixed up bulletin board and blog. I meant, for example, this; we need to know what makes these authors reliable, as in published by independent reliable sources as experts in their fields. If you can just provide that specific info, that will cover it for anyone who questions in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clearing up. I'll get digging. For Johanna Draper, would being published in Publisher's Weekly count? [1] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing needed, just to show that the sources aren't Joe Bloe's Blog. Don't want you getting criticized if you hit the main page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be unfortunate... I'll look at the others and provide justification here when I'm done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, for the other two sources which have questionable notability: Colleen Mondor is an editor/author at Bookslut as well as Eclectica Magazine and Booklist. She does guest columns at minor publications as well. Carol Fox is a published author of her own books as well as one of the editors of The Dreaming (Tokyopop comic). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "illustrated by the company Big Time Attic" - I dunno...is "the company" necessary?
  • "of a real historical event known as the Bone Wars" - trim this...just having the wlink "proves" it's a historical event
  • "first work Ottaviani has written which had elements of fiction" --> "first semi-fictional work written by Ottaviani", perhaps?
  • Fix the date linking on ref 1
  • "Ottaviani has the Cope and Marsh interact" - why the "the"?
  • ", according to Ottaviani," - not necessary as you've said its unlike HIS books
  • "about the Bone Wars" - if you're wlinking Cope and Marsh again, you may as well wlink Bone Wars again
  • "One of Ottaviani's bits of creative license" - Never seen "bits" in professional writing before...
  • Charles Knight is a dab page
  • So are "Bone Sharps", "Cowboys", and "Thunder Lizards" different chapters, or how does that work?
  • Does ref 16 make mention specifically of the novel? I suppose you don't have to...but yeah...
  • Is it worth doing a review scores table like we do on VG articles?

Nice work as always, David. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all the fixes you noted. Since there aren't as many just-book reviewers, I'm not sure if the table is worth anything- most publications don't actually assign a 'grade', as it were. As for the "Bone Sharps", et al, yes, they are three different sections. I'll add a line saying its broken up into three parts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support all seems good now. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added (I was trying to figure out how to nest multiple images in one box). 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops: "as the official scientist form the U.S. Geological Survey"
  • Can someone change the curly quotes to straight ones? MOS requires this.
  • Odd placement of "that" in the final rather than the initial item of the list: "it is here he learns that his USGS expense tab (to which he had been charging drinks) has been withdrawn, his publication has been suspended, and that the fossils he found as part of the USGS are to be returned to the Survey".
  • Audit the use of semicolons, which sometimes seem a little arbitrary compared with the periods. Just which sentence parts are best glued together in this way?
  • responds that "it is not a story about science. It is about men."—Nope, MOS requires logical punctuation where a quote starts within a WP sentence.
  • Doesn't MOS require sentence case for titles, both the title of the article and of publications appearing in the main text?

Further scrutiny by someone new to the article would be good, although I'm not opposing. Tony (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a few semis, and fixed the quotes, et al- I don't know what you mean by sentence case for titles... as far as I know it is capitalized? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from indopug (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: looking good,
  • Are you sure "A Tale of Edward Drinker Cope, Othniel Charles Marsh, and the Gilded Age of Paleontology" needs to be in the title? I think its a caption (or whatever the appropriate word is) rather than the actual title of the piece.
  • "A newly formed studio taking on a 160-page graphic novel is ambitious; again, I'm really lucky" to have had the book published. — might be better to include that last bit also in the quotes inside [this thing]. Reads awkwardly and I don't know whether its a accepted method either.
  • American West - link.
  • "One [instance] of Ottaviani [using] creative license was to transport the artist Charles R. Knight earlier into the story than [was] originally intended in early drafts."
  • "Ottaviani's granddaughter forwarded the author a copy of Knight's autobiographical manuscript, and Ottaviani made Knight's role prominent." - make that simpler please. Not clear how the two clauses are related. Took me a moment before i figured that "the author" referred to Ottaviani.
  • "Ottaviani's company G.T. Labs eventually published Knight's biography, with notes by Ottaviani and forewords by Ray Bradbury and Ray Harryhausen." - that's rather abrupt, seems totally unrelated to previous sentences.
  • No need to link everything again in the plot section.
  • "with the intention to visit" - "of visiting"
  • President of the United States of America, US Geological Survey - links
  • money in attacking Marsh
  • "granted him favor and status in politics and society. By the end of Bone Sharps, Marsh is seen to have lost favor" - variety please.
  • real events, and certain artistic - remove comma
  • "A major change made to complement the story was the insertion of Charles Knight into the narrative; in real life, Knight did not meet Cope until much later in his career." - repetition; its already mentioned earlier. Come to think of it; that entire bit after the first para from Background can be transferred here.
  • motivations", is still relevant to today' society.
  • "intricate details" - in the plot? or in the art? or what?
  • "educational settings" - what does that mean? like educational institutions?
  • "as part of a test to educate young children using comic books" could you make this a little more clear? Something, I can't quite put my finger on it, is wrong. What is this "test" trying to achieve?
indopug (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work; but I don't see the merit of having "One instance..." and that quote about Knight in the background section; its rather abrupt there. For one thing the reader has not yet read the plot summary, and the description of Knight's role might be difficult to appreciate. Why don't you shift the whole thing to the Fact vs fiction section? (and then reword accordingly to ensure smooth flow of prose) indopug (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And is linking Jim Ottiavani in each cite required? What is 90 and 57–58 at the end of cite # 16,17? indopug (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the links, and clarified the numbers are for pages. As for the Knight section, I've moved it to the fact vs fiction section, and made some transitional statements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SupportAll concerns taken care of; very interesting article. indopug (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2008 (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/Bone_Sharps,_Cowboys,_and_Thunder_Lizards&oldid=1126593517"