Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Fade Out/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2017 [1].

The Fade Out

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the comic book series The Fade Out by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips. It was promoted to GA status in Sept 2013 and has been stable since then. I recently updated it to include information on the hardcover edition. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Cover_to_Fade_Out_1.jpg: FUR needs work - for example, "n.a" parameters should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Per comment below, a second image has been added to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The FUR of the first will need updating to reflect that, and as with the first the second will need its "na" parameters filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've read through a couple of times and made one minor tweak; can't find anything wrong with the prose. Short, concise, and clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Syek88

I think this is very well-written. Tight, focused, and easy to read.

My only comment is about comprehensiveness. I make the comment tentatively because I have never read a comic book in my life and don't want to barge in here and start tanking a candidacy with ill-informed criticisms.

After reading the article a few times I was left wondering "how was this series illustrated? What do the comics actually look like?" At the bottom of "Development" there is a sentence or two on digital illustration tools, and a couple of reviews talk about Phillips' illustrations. But what we don't have is a section of the article that puts these things into context. Nothing explains the style of illustration, which would extend from graphic portrayal of characters to font of texts. The Featured Article Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book has two paragraphs (under "Style and themes") dedicated to these questions.

Just a comment at this stage for the purpose of discussion. Syek88 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. There won't be a large amount of citable information about Phillips' style in The Fade Out in part because it looks like every other comic he's drawn for the last decade, but I may be able to find more on the topic. Alternatively, would including a panel or two adequately address your concern? Using the bottom left panel from this image would show the artwork, lettering, and the colorist's effects. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we would have both image and text, the latter being Wikipedia's primary method of communication and the former being a helpful option. But I take your point about there not being much referenceable information, at least specific to this comic. Maybe it would be possible to shoehorn into the article something general about Phillips' style? But it would probably be better for me to leave this to your judgement and support however you choose to do it. The image you have suggested is certainly very good and we might not need much if any text to supplement it. Syek88 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the image to the reception section to accompany the reviewer's comments on the artwork. I considered putting in Development near the part about how Phillips drew it, but I thought it might be too close to the infobox to look nice. I will look for citable discussions about his style, but it may take a few days. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line discussing his use of spotted blacks and negative space. I'm still looking for a good reference for his line work. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Syek88:, I've been unable to find a good source that describes Phillips' art style with better terms than "gritty" or "rough". Hopefully the line I was able to add along with the interior image addresses your concern? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems the article has all that it can now, and the image in particular conveys the drawing and text styles. I'm happy to support as I had no other comments or issues. Syek88 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

Unless I missed it above, feel free to seek a source review at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cas Liber

References formatted consistently.
Earwig's copyvio tool clear
FN 1, used five times - material faithful to source x 5
FN 9, used 2 times - material faithful to source x 2
FN 12, used once - material faithful to source

Ok, I'm happy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.