Talk:Alex Raymond

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Manner of Death

• The article states that Raymond was killed in a parachuting accident (seemingly after being onboard a plane plummeting to the earth). Yet a category below identifies him as a victim of a "road accident," which suggests an automobile accident... Sir Rhosis 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag

This article, particularly as it regards such an important figure in comics art, is has multiple issues, including POV, unsourced and uncited claims, original research, poor referencing, misformatting, and many, many other errors and policy/guideline violations. I've made a first pass at fixing some of the more egregious problems, and will ask fellow WikiProject: Comics editors to pitch in. Please, read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia before editing articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ntnon & Emperor -- you guys kick ass! Great work in giving Raymond the article he warrants! Jeez, you guys left nothing for me to do!   :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I haven't done much Ntnon has added the bulk of the article - I've just noodled around the edges. (Emperor (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

Addendum: I gotta tell you guys, this article, practically overnight, has gone to what I think is GA status. It should be submitted. I'd do it now, but I've got to run — been Wiki'ing all morning, I'm afraid.... Beautiful work. -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have bumped it up to a B. Before sending it off to be assessed as GA I'd like to see the article 'stablise' (as it has expanded so quickly it still need a light polish here and there) and also have a look round to make sure we have all good resources we can find. Other than that it looks pretty solid and should be set for future quality ratings. (Emperor (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

I took a swing through Google Books and found some bits and bobs:

• Alex Raymond: His Life and Art, forward by George Lucas and introduction by James Bama
• The Best of Draw - plenty of mentions
• Serial Adventures
• Skywalking - influence on George Lucas
• [1]Raymond in Foucalt's Pendulum (probably best for the X9 entry). I read the book and missed that

So not an awful lot other than the "Life and Art" book which sounds worth finding someone who has read it, or can get it through interlibrary loans (you can often get lucky switching between Google Books and Amazon look inside feature but not in that case). (22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

And I've just found Flash Gordon and his other strips in Maurice Horn's encyclopedia 100 Years of American Newspaper Comics. I'll see if there are any gap-fillers.

Also, I just love that Brit phrase "bits and bobs." My wife's family is British, so I hear those kinds of colloquialisms all the time. But then, I'm no better than I should be!   :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got Life and Art, but - scratched record - it's in the wrong country. Similarly, I've got the Serial Adventures book highlighted (although I've never seen that cover... very odd), and it's obviously not really going to be much help here. Draw might be useful, and it couldn't hurt to have some additional sources to tie Lucas to Raymond. There may be more to come from a handful of other places, too. And then I'll try and expand outwards and attack Flash and Rip.

Incidentally, would either of you like to suggest a handy way to fix Flash Gordon? Would it be a good/bad/indifferent idea to make it "Flash Gordon (character)"..? Or to subsection off a "Flash Gordon (comic strip)"..? Or neither, or both...?

(N.B. There's some interesting notes in the MSNBC-linked article about Raymond having an affair, possibly attempting suicide-by-crash, etc. It seemed reasonably well-sourced, BUT a bit gossipy for inclusion.) ntnon (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On your points:

• As long as someone around here has access to the book (eventually) that is good enough for me - it'll be useful on the push to FA but I think the article should be solid enough to get GA without it.
• I was looking at the Flash Gordon page and it pretty much focuses on the media franchise. There are two options:
  • Move the bulk of the current article to Flash Gordon franchise or Flash Gordon (franchise) (I prefer the former but there is no consensus) and expand the article to focus on the comic strip and link through to the franchise page via "in other media"
  • Start Flash Gordon (comic strip) and use {{main}} to link through to it - simplest thing seems to be to go with this option. We clearly need an article on it and starting a separate article wouldn't require any discussion. We can then flag the options on the articles talk page in case anyone cares enough one way or the other. To be honest I suspect this might also be the better long term option as a lot of people would know the character from the TV series (I certainly first encountered him via the old B&W serials and then the film from which I got my nickname - you should see my Xmas card from Brian Blessed!! If I hadn't.... misplaced it :( )
• I saw the mention of a possible crash/suicide elsewhere and did umm and ahh about it. The bottom line I suppose is we have to be dispassionate about it and this is an encyclopaedia - it has come up in reliable sources so it might be worth mentioning in parenthesis and in passing. Don't make a big deal of it but flag the fact some have mentioned it as a possibility. (Emperor (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Also while we are on the subject of the franchise we could certainly consider: Flash Gordon (comics). (Emperor (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

I don't know about "(comics)" because that seems to give undue weight away from the strip, which is, I would think, a bit misleading. "(comic strip)" is probably wiser, but I doubt there's a rush, so as and when I think about it - unless someone jumps in earlier, everything should hold until then.

On the crash note... I've added a little information from Comics Between the Panels which has Drake quoted as saying he probably hit the accelerator instead of the brake since the two were close together. Since Drake is the only witness, and it seems VERY unlikely that anyone would try and crash with a passenger in the car alongside them, I think it's safer to leave it as it now is. If anyone wants to follow through the links, they'll read the theory and make up their own minds. That seems to be reasonable. :o) ntnon (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair, I certainly don't want to make an big thing of it and it is clearly not cut and dried.

Also by Flash Gordon (comics) I was suggesting (slightly off topic I will admit) that we should also look into an article on the comic book appearances as there have been quite a few (one pretty recent too). (Emperor (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

I've expanded this discussion here: WT:CMC#Comics/comic strips in early media franchises. (Emperor (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

GA?

Returning to Tenebrae's suggestion - what do people think about putting this up for GA? Are there any gaps? Any unsourced statements? I've had a read through and it seems pretty solid, but I might think that as I had a (very) minor role with editing it and it might need some extra eyes on it. I'll ask at the Comics Projrct and see what we can do about it. (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I'll take a look. I'm not familiar with the subject at the moment, but I'm about to be. ;) I can at least be there for moral support when we go for GA (and I think the comics project has enough editors to handle two or more GAs at a time, so go for it), and I can at least help out with little gnomey stuff if nothing else. I'll even be bold and nom it if you think it's nearly ready. :) BOZ (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

First thing that strikes me is the lead could use some expansion. However, I'll have to actually read the article first to tell you what needs to be there. :) See Gary Gygax for an article of comparable size and scope, and how big the lead was expected to be to make it through GA. BOZ (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, this article strikes me as pretty much fantastic, given how little I knew about the subject ahead of time. :) Naturally, the best thing about a review is that someone else can give it some fresh eyes. I stand by what I said about the lead though; it will have to be expanded and is just about the article's weakest point at the moment. I'm going to give that a try, and someone more familiar with the artist needs to have another look at what I do to make sure I get down an accurate assessment of this man's life and accomplishments. BOZ (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it is always good to have someone not familiar with the subject give it a once-over, as the article has to be aimed at a general user (so we need to know if we assume too much, if the sections make a good grouping, etc.). I agree about the lead is often somewhere that comics articles need improving. I'll do a more detailed read through later and see what suggests itself. (Emperor (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

OK, I more than doubled the lead. That should be good enough, but feel free to have a go at adding a few more important details. Whenever you're ready, I think it's ready for a nomination. :) BOZ (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. I couldn't really add anything to that, just shifted the words around a little. I also bumped up the image size to 200px. I'll wait and see if there is any other input and will nominate in the next day or so. (Emperor (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

• I may have some stuff here to add to the article, there should be stuff in Brian Walker's The Comics to add at the very least. TCJ 295, which I haven't got yet, includes a feature on him by RC Harvey, so that might be worth waiting for. I think the quote section may have to be transwiki'd to wiki quote. If we wanted to add a further reading section, I just found this, [2]. That link may also prove to be a useful research tool for us at the project, identifying reliable sources for subjects. Here's what it throws up for Spider-Man. Hiding T 11:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I wanted to get in some work on Spidey, but plans look to have me busy for the next 10 hours or so. ;) We'll see! BOZ (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'm happy to wait for you to get TCJ #295, it should mean this article has a better chance of making it. Good link, which should prove useful. What I'd like to do is get a list of what could be useful and then as they are worked through and incorporated (or not) we can tick them off the list. It should mean that we can put this through A-class assessment and then when we are happy we've covered as many bases as possible we can shoot for FA. It seems feasible if we can access what look to be the most important resources we've not yet used. (Emperor (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

I can't imagine it needs much more than a push, so it should be ready for a nomination once you get that in. :) BOZ (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've also dropped Tenebrae and ntnon a note to let them know about this. I can pilot the article through GA assessment but their input would be handy, especially if we want to drive this all the way to FA. (Emperor (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Tenebrae seems to be in one of his inactive periods (too bad, because he's been the most active editor on Spider-Man), but hopefully he'll be back in business sooner rather than later. BOZ (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Would we say this one is ready for a nomination yet? Waiting for Tenebrae seems silly at this point. :) BOZ (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat about, if needed. Although I think I put everything in I could find already... ntnon (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(N.B. The MSU listing is fairly helpful - I thought I'd mentioned it elsewhere before, but maybe not now I think of it - but I don't recall being overly impressed with Mr Walker's Comics. I'll be interested to see what arises from TCJ, though. :o)) ntnon (talk)

• Let me try and run through it and see what I can add from the Journal. Hiding T 10:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, there's stuff I can add. The Journal article is a review of the recent bio of Raymond, and it has a few bits that I can add. Raymond apparently wrote the X-9 strip for a short while after Hammett left, and also may have had more of a hand in writing his own strips. He wasn't allowed back on Flash Gordon when he was demobbed, and he was apparently rather bitter about that. And it appears he crashed because they were in a convertible with the top down and it started raining, so he sped up to get to wherever they were going quicker rather than stop and put the top up. He had his seat belt on, so died instantly. I'll see what I can do in the next few hours. Hiding T 10:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read through Hiding's changes and they look great (although minor quibble - it might be worth linking the first mention of comic strip - it might not be something we need explaining but, as it is a specific medium, it might be that some people need it to explain what it was he was doing) and I'd be happy to nominate it for a GA, (Emperor (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm still working on it, I got sidetracked by creating a page for R. C. Harvey, long overdue. Hiding T 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. :) BOZ (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got to go now, but I've hit a problem as well. Harvey states in TCJ that there's speculation that Raymond was trying to kill himself. Harvey dismisses this, but includes a quote from Drake, who was involved in the car crash. Harvey also documents tales of alleged extra-marital affairs. Not sure how to fit that into the article. Other than that, there's one killer quote left to add to the legacy section. Appreciate comments on what to do regarding the contentious material. Hiding T 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also: Probably the quotes will have to go to WikiQuote as part of teh GA review, I'm not sure on that. Hiding T 16:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We could leave the quotes in there, and pull them if the reviewer says so. I'm not sure that the speculation on suicide and affairs are helpful to the article, but if you want to include them I'd simply state as you have here that Harvey dismisses the speculation of suicide, and has documented tales of alleged affairs, include any significant details to support this, and leave it at that. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I also ran into the claims about suicide but didn't really know what to do with it as it looks like an accident, he never survived to discuss it and there is no evidence. It is possible a lot more road traffic deaths are due to some dark tea time of the soul but we just don't know. As it seems to have come up more than once it may be worth a mention. Perhaps: "There have been some suggestions Raymond committed suicide[REFS] but Drake, who was thrown clear of the car and hospitalized by the crash, has since speculated that Raymond "hit the accelerator by mistake."" or something like that. Then again should we mention everyone odd suggestion and supposition people make? I don't know but if it is out there that fact might need to included for completeness (rather than including it because it is likely or based on evidence).

I saw a broken reference and think I've fixed it [3] but check if that is what was being referred to. (Emperor (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't think it's necessary to discuss, but there's nothing wrong with noting speculation as speculation, if we're talking about people close to him or those who have studied him posthumously. BOZ (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've added what I can, and I added the stuff about suicide and affairs, so see what you all think. I've copy-edited as best I can, I can't see any major errors and I've added as much as I can from TCJ, so I'm done. Anyone else, or shall we go for the GA? Hiding T 14:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Added two images, that's it, I'm out of here. I think we may want to run this all the way to the top, you know. Hiding T 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready for GA when you are. :) BOZ (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK then let's do it. (Emperor (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

For comparison purposes here is how the article stood at the start of the year when Tenebrae gave us a nudge about it: [4] Nice work!! (Emperor (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

I've added collected editions and there is more information over on Checker Book Publishing Group (most, if not all, added by ntnon), some of which might be useful in fleshing out the section. There are also three Flash Gordon covers, one of which (possibly File:Flash Gordon Vol. 1 (Checker).jpg) could be used here. (Emperor (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Good deal; I've got it on my watchlist. Might want to start a thread on the project talk page in case anyone's interested. BOZ (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Already done. (Emperor (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

Wish I had something to add, but glad I don't! This article is fantastic and I think it'll do well being put up for GA nomination. (I've only been on Wikipedia a few weeks, so take that with a grain of salt) Tried to help where I could (style, prose, typos, etc.) but it seems pretty spot on. Well done! Alonsornunez (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped a note at WP:MILHIST, in case they can add anything regarding the war service, or catch any gaffes we might have made. Hiding T 12:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Good move; it's paid off already. :) I imagine you'll find quite a few men born between 1910-1925 in America and Europe would have WW2 service records; something to keep in mind for other Golden Age and earlier creators articles? BOZ (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alex Raymond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some facts needed, but overall okay.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   One of the strong points of the article. Good job editors.

   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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Good job editors with all the great images. Makes the article all the more better.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Very good. Filled with great material. Although I do not necessarily like the Quotes section, it is okay to keep. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

--The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pushing forward

Nice work on the GA, let's push on to higher levels.

Anyone got any thoughts on where it can be improved? Any sources you know of? Any areas that need clarification or expansion?

My main thought is that we basically want to stripmine the last of the useful sources. I listed the ones I found above which need checking for anything useful (some might not be that good but probably need to be looked at). The main one is Alex Raymond: His Life and Art naturally. I know ntnon has a copy, just not to hand, so it might take a while unless anyone can access a copy. Anything else? (Emperor (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

What needs to be done is the incorporation of the "Quotes" section into the article, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm no big fan of those sections either . (Emperor (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm not exactly an article writer, so I will post a request on the Reward Board. -The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK but there is no real need we can sort it out within the Comics Project as part of the general polishing that will be needed as the article gets improved with an eye to eventual FA status. That said it can't hurt. (Emperor (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

Allright, quick pass! :) Only ever been involved in one of those before... BOZ (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so there are two improvements needed for this article:

1. Remove the quotes section  Done
2. Add more citation, which I did mention in my review.

--The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just bumping this as more work has been done and it is looking even more solid. Should it be put up for FA? (Emperor (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Image listed for deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alex Raymond (King Features).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alex Raymond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319000215/http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk2.htm to http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319000215/http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk2.htm to http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319000215/http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk2.htm to http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319000215/http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk2.htm to http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alex Raymond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040618063004/http://profmendez.tripod.com/assets/images/kingfeatures2.jpg to http://profmendez.tripod.com/assets/images/kingfeatures2.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123024313/http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk3.htm to http://profmendez.tripod.com/html/ripk3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228005900/http://www.bailsprojects.com/%28S%285g2znh55tbazfk55jn1lmd3a%29%29/whoswho.aspx to http://www.bailsprojects.com/%28S%28ms034se2gpymucft5hbr3jv1%29%29/whoswho.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)