Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/2009

John Rosenberger

I wrote a lengthy biography primarily using information from the only major source available for the artist's life and works, an article in Alter Ego #23 (the writing for the Wikipedia article is all original). While I feel this article is a well-written, well-cited, well-supported Good Article, I understand that the subject is only of low to medium importance. Please advise on protocol – should the article be cut down? Is it frowned upon to include "unimportant" life details? Any input is welcome. Thanks, Slugabed (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Star Sapphire (comics)

Not long ago, this article only contained information pertaining to various supervillains in DC Comics that served the position of Star Sapphire. In the Blackest Night story arc in the Green Lantern/Green Lantern Corps series, though, the Star Sapphires are now a group entity and one of the seven Corps that play a major role in the War of Light.

The reason I'm asking for a peer review is because, what I think is, an increased importance of the article despite its previous quality/importance scale. I've made a number of expansions, corrections, added numerous references, corrected grammar (since there was a tagged request), cleaned up the links section (another tagged request), and tried to do a general overhaul of the article. This is what the article looked like before I started editing. What other kinds of improvements should be made? Should this be split into two articles? If the Star Sapphires group became a second article, how would it be titled to Wikipedia standard?

I think I just need general input and advice.

Hooliganb (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cerebus the Aardvark

The article is needing a B-level criteria review, and I figured a full-blown peer review would be a good idea as well. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hornoir

The following corrections to the article need to be made, in my opinion:

1. Noted as "award-winning" but no awards section is provided to substantiate this claim.
2. Tighten language; most areas are too drawn out and/or awkward, using "excessive information" or "poetic prose" to prove a point. In example:

   Now complete, it marks the longest-running originally English-language comic book series ever by a single creative team; Sim refers to it as the "longest sustained narrative in human history."[2][3] Sim began the series in December 1977, running for 300 issues and 6,000 pages, through March 2004.

   could just as easily be written as:

   Cerebus began publication in December 1977 and sustained a regular release schedule until March 2004. At completion, the series numbered 300 issues in length, or approximately 6,000 pages, making it the longest-running English-language comic book series by a single creative team.

   And while I think that is even more than needs to be said on the subject (page count especially), I find the the quote from Sim about the work to be unnecessary in this instance. If there is a reliable citation from someone other than Sim concerning the quoted matter, then that would alter this concern.
3. Move Title character section to be with Supporting characters, subsections of a Characters section.
4. Story arcs and plot summaries should provide separate subsections for each story arc. Throttle the TOC so that it doesn't become unmanageable if you do this.
5. Split parodies and appearances into two lists.
6. Expand the "Cerebus Syndrome" section to be more informative and/or defining of the term; though I'm not certain this term is notable enough for inclusion.
7. References:
   1. There are a lot of uncited statements that should be marked with the {{Fact}} (or citation needed) template.
   2. There exist instances of the {{Fact}} (or citation needed) template which need to be addressed.
   3. The citations should, but are not required, to use the Citation template formatting (esp. {{cite web}}). Due to the number of online references, these references should also be archived.
   4. A considerable lack of print citations. Though a few are present there should be a greater number, especially considering resources like Following Cerebus and the Collected Letters editions exist.
8. External links should be better organized and their descriptions more concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornoir (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Missing:
   1. There is no section or subsection describing the letters, essays, and annotations Sim published with each issue as backmatter.
   2. There is no section or subsection describing critical reception and layperson reception of the series.
   3. As previously noted, there is no section or subsection detailing awards or nominations for awards received.
   4. There is no mention of the non-infamous forged/bootleg edition of Cerebus #1.
   5. There is no mention of the Cerebus #301 Christmas card that Sim and Gerhard sent out in 2004 (?), which seems worthy of inclusion.

At current, I would consider this article C-Class and not B-Class. These are my general, first impression notes. Sorry if I seem overly thorough. I'll be marking this peer review page as watched to further provide information if requested. Thank you for your time.
hornoir (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)