Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleG.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
April 13, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
June 13, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 12, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Requested move[edit]

{{movereq}}

G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel) → G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics publication) — See MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#G.I._Joe:_A_Real_American_Hero_.28Marvel_Comics_publication.29. —Soap— 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead does not suitably summarise the artcile, see WP:LEAD. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The prose is good enough, but there are a number of single sentences and short paragraphs which should be concatenated.
Expanded the lead. Wasn't sure about citations of material which is cited later, so please let me know if I need to fix anything. Also changed some things around to combine sentences and paragraphs. Hopefully it's an improvement. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I believe that the sources are reliable enough and support the cited statements.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Yes
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    ''Another early highlight was 1984's "Snake-Eyes: The Origin" Parts I & II, published in issues #26-27. Says whom? Needs attribution.
    ''However, it eventually became one of the series' most enduring issues. needs a cite, otherwise it is a point of view.
Sources added. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    One image used with an appropriate FUR
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, on hold for seven days. Combine short stray sentences and paragraphs, cite the POV statements, and make the lead a concise summary of the article as per WP:LEAD. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, that looks good now, happy to pass as GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this to Featured Article[edit]

Regardless of whether you think it's a feasible goal, what would it take to get this article to FA status? The boilerplate criteria is here Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing it could benefit from is a "Characters" section for some of the most enduring characters, since the series really centered around them. Other than that, we might need to do a peer review to determine what work needs to be done. I haven't done any work on FAs before. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it may be worth doing, at least to get some respect from the Wiki-community at large, if nothing else. I'm happy to help flesh things out, but I can't really give an estimate on time frame. What's the best way to do this (i.e. a comprehensive re-write) without inadvertently messing up the current GA rating, considering that at some point the revised article needs to be published in order to be reviewed? - Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be an awesome thing to do! You can simply work on the article here in the mainspace if you like, but if you are doing a full rewrite you may want to start out in userspace and then move it here after you are finished. Don't worry too much about messing up the GA rating - it'll be an FA soon anyway, right? ; ) I think the move you proposed below would be fine, and if you are taking requests then I would also like to see a section on some of the spin-offs, like Special Missions, the Yearbooks, and European Missions. I would love to help out any way I can, but don't feel like you have to ask before making a change - be bold! Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First draft, it's messy and I'm glad I took it to a userpage instead of editing it here directly. Please feel free to let me know how it can be improved. It's too bad this comic's run was pre-internet - FA-quality sourcing is going to be an issue. As much as it pains me to admit it, I'm inclined to think of the various Larry Hama interviews as being primary source. Here's the link User:Jake fuersturm/Work-in-Progress-1 Thanks. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's look good! I'm really glad that you are doing this. The one concern I have right now is sourcing for the "Relation to the Cartoon" section. As I understand it, G.I. Joe was one of the biggest comics of the 80s, so maybe some of the old comics magazines or books about the comics industry have some info we can use.
At FA, are primary sources discouraged? Cause if so that could be a problem, I wasn't thinking in terms of secondary sources when I was working on this for GA. I've put together a directory of sources for G.I. Joe comic book articles at User:Cerebellum/G.I. Joe, maybe there's something there that would help. It's mostly interviews and press releases though, a lot of it is focused on the more recent comics. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about FA specifically, but given the [1] general attitude around here on primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary, I can see it being a problem. Unfortunately I don't have access to old trade publications etc. - the various fansites seem to be the be all to end all, which is understandable since the old cartoon predates the internet. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more work on it, cleaning up the structure and adding additional cite refs. Although it's probably in need of copy-editing, I think it's ready to get dropped back into the main link for the article. Let me know what you think. As I said before, I don't want to mess up the existing GA-rating. Thanks. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - do you recall seeing a quote from Hama about how kids got into reading other comics by reading GI Joe first? I know I've read it somewhere, but I can't find the article. I'm 100% sure it was in one of the Hama interviews posted online. I'd like to add it as a cite ref if I can actually find it. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it looks pretty good, I see no problem with adding it to the main article. As for kids getting into comics through G.I. Joe, I don't remember that from a Hama interview but I have talked with a lot of people on message boards and such who have said that that was the case for them. Not that that helps with referencing here, unfortunately. Anyways, as I said at the merge discussion, I'm not really going to be active on Wikipedia for the next few days, so you'll be flying solo on this I guess. You're doing really well though, keep it up! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good rule of thumb would be to compare this article, to other FA-class Comics article, and see what the differences are. Be careful in your revision of the article, that you don't accidentally remove what made it a GA-class article in the first place. Otherwise, I would say the more information you can include the better, as long as it's properly sourced. Good Luck! Fortdj33 (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and that's why I've been editting it on my userpage until it was ready. On the bright side, if I do something really bad, at least it can be reverted :) -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move has been done[edit]

Just imported the changes en masse. In case we ever need to revert the entire thing, or need to review the changes, it was done as of this edit. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, but since no one has taken the time to go through the article with a fine-toothed comb, I decided that I would give it my best shot, according to Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. Therefore, I have made some necessary edits to the spelling, grammar and punctuation of the article, and removed the copy edit tag. There is still some information that it might be beneficial to include, but as of now, I think that the article is ready to be reviewed. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the help :) Question though: you think the article is ready to be reviewed - but what type of review? The article just underwent Peer Review and various points raised by Ruhrfisch still need to be addressed, so I don't think it's ready for FAC either. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, jumped the gun a little bit there. I forgot that there were issues in the Peer Review that still need to be addressed. I intend to add more information myself, so we'll have to come to a consensus here on the talk page, for when we think the article is ready. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks again for your support. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting close now. Just a couple of points left from the Peer Review, and I'd still like to dig up a few more refs. Thoughts? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I've been tweaking it, as you add quotes and pictures, but let me know when you think it's ready, and I'll run it through AWB again, and scan it for copy editing one more time. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions for a few more refs? I'm going blind scanning thru google searches. Mainly for the Spin-offs, Chain-of-command, and Relation to cartoon sections. Also, re: Copy Edit, would you rather do it yourself or send it to GOCE? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't envy you taking on the task of referencing everything, but you seem to be doing an excellent job. As far as copy editing goes, it seems that anyone can become a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, as long as they follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. I would join the project myself, if I was interested in doing it on a regular basis, but I'll be happy to do it again for this article when the time comes, if you'd like. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copy Edit, I'm not terribly fussed about who does it, as long as they know what they're doing. I haven't been around here long, so just wondering: when an article goes to FAC, does the FAC reviewer tend to place more weight on an article that has had the copy edit done by a GOCE'er, or do they not look at that as long as there's evidence that someone's done it? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know the answer to that. But in your quest to make the article "perfect", be careful that that you don't overdo it. You might want to take a break from changing tenses and trying to remove OOU style, and have someone else who's not so involved take a look, before you deem the article ready for review. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was trying to remove IU style and make it more OOU. My first try was in the wrong direction, which is why I did it again. Note that per WP:IN-U, past tense is considered in universe -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree that another pair of eyes is needed, I'm too close to this now. My attempt to make the Characters and Plot sections more OOU was in direct response to the Peer Review points (see below). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: references, is it worth going through the references to change any dates (access dates, publication dates) from D-M-Y into M-D-Y for consistency? Would a gadget like AWB do something like that? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the article through AWB again, and also did a copy edit on the references. I don't think that the date format on the references is a big deal, because each type of source is going to have its own date format. But if you're satisfied that the article meets the points of the peer review, then I think it's time to have the article judged again. Otherwise, let me know if there's anything more that I can do. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only reservation is that we may still be a bit thin on references in places, but otherwise looks good. Just to close the loop, before submitting, can you please either respond to or strikeout the highlighted red comments in the peer review section below. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick thought - do you want me to submit and shepherd this through FAC? Or will you? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before nominating the article, we need to ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria, and that the peer review is closed. I figured I would leave that to your judgment, since you have been focusing more on the content of the article, and I have been focusing more on the format and Wikipedia standards. I think that the references look sufficient, but I don't know if they will meet the FA criteria, that's why I asked if you're satisfied that the article meets the points of the peer review. If so, you need to close the peer review, and then submit it for FAC, or I can do it if you don't have the time. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Been a bit busy in RL this week, but I'll try to find some time on the weekend to go through it (albeit golf season's starting :) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping out[edit]

Guys, heads up - I'm outta here. Sorry, but you'll have to walk the last few steps to FAC on your own. I've had it with this place, and I seriously need to take a break from Wikipedia. Take care, and best of luck. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Article Name?[edit]

Would it be warranted to change the article title to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (comics) since the IDW series is really a direct continuation of the Marvel series, especially with Hama writing both? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to maintain status quo for the time being, there's enough material on the Marvel run for it to stay separate. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fansite references used in this article[edit]

They need removing, there is now exsessive use of unreliable sources. Blogspot is the worst of these. Other sources proved unreliable recently too. This won't get past the source check at FAC because of the chosen sources. It's made it's GA status questionable now too because of the amount used.Rain the 1 BAM 20:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please direct me to the specific source in wikipedia that states the unreliability of the each of the sources you mention? Given the amount of work Ive done here, I'm only going to remove stuff that's been definitively quashed. As for the GA status being in question, I deliberately did most of the recent edits in a separate userpage, and I can easily revert to an unquestioned GA version if need be!!!! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. in case you hadn't noticed, this article is currently undergoing peer review. I'll let the peer reviewer be the final arbiter on what sources pass and what don't. Fair enough? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyone can contest to be fair. The initial concern came from WP fictional chaarcters over sources, but you raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#G.I._Joe_characters which these editors who deal with verifing sources daily said they were not reliable. Blogspot is not considered reliable anyway, should be removed now, like wise with any other blogs it has been discussed on many occasion here. A forum is not a reliable source either, that needs removing. Again youtube is not a reliable source. Quite few others too.Rain the 1 BAM 23:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may like adding forums meesages, youtube videos, blogs - but they just aren't notable. I had a look at Cere's source page and behold over half are non notable. Anyone can manipulate scans, videos and make false interviews up and post them to forums. Hopefully the peer review picks up on the choice of sources. I did stress before elsewhere about these sources. No one takes a bit of notice. Much like the lists having no real world content still.Rain the 1 BAM 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The peer review pulled up on sources saying some do not meet the guideline. Jake, are you going to take some out now then? Sorry to be a pain, just keen for it to stay at GA. :)Rain the 1 BAM 05:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are being a pain ;) But yes, I'll be going through them - I'm not going to arbitrarily remove them all en masse just for the sake of taking them out, as I still think some of these have merit. And I am well aware that this area is a weakness, hence it was a very specific "ask" in my peer review request (feel free to check if you don't believe me). (Also keep in mind that the reviewer did say that he is "not an expert on comic book sources by any means.") -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. if you really are that worried about the article losing its GA, I can revert it back to this edit amd continue editing in userspace. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jake, with all due respect, I think that you're doing a great job on improving the article. But please keep in mind that you are not the only person interested in improving it. By offering to revert the article to a previous edit, and continue working on it in your userspace, you are close to claiming ownership of the article. I agree that Raintheone and Harry Blue5 seem to be all about disputing sources and opposing the notability of G.I. Joe articles, but hopefully everyone can eventually come to a consensus on what will make this article better. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fort - it's not about WP:OWN, it's about the risk of the article losing its GA due to the edits I made, and if that is the case, wouldn't it be better to continuing editing in userspace so that this doesn't happen after all the work you guys did to get it to GA in the first place? I think of it more as taking responsibility for the (unintended) negative consequences of my actions, rather than ownership per se. What's more, I would welcome other editors becoming involved - if they were being constructive, that is. In the words of Spock (Capt(ret.), UFP Starfleet): "As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create." -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Unreliable Sources (sub-thread)[edit]

Comment' Halfbattle.com, Yojoe and YouTube are not reliable sources. Ii'm afraid I think they'll need to removed (and replaced by the dreaded {{Citation needed}} in some case). Harry Blue5 (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply How about you help us find some new sources (i.e. the hard part) instead of just deleting stuff and citing policy (i.e. the easy part)? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have no idea about finding and locating G.I. Joe sources and have no knowledge of the show whatsoever. Also, just because I'm doing the easy part, doesn't make me less right, yknow. Harry Blue5 (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~sigh~ If you have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever, then why are you here? You may be right, but I would prefer helpful, and sometimes I think editors forget that. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I have no idea how to locate sources for this subject (video games are my speciality) doesn't mean I'm not interested in it. Pointing out that some things need to be removed is just as helpful (heck, perhaps even more) as adding data. When it comes to reliable sources, deletionism is very important, in a way. If we could just cite anything, Wikipedia would be a useless piece of junk that couldn't properly distinct between fact and fiction. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you say that you're interested in it, yet as you say in my talk page "I don't even know it outside of a reference to it made in Family Guy". Maybe if you bothered to learn a bit more about it, you'd come to appreciate to the difficulties we have and the fact that these days I find myself wasting more time dealing with deletionists rather than actually working on solving the problems identified. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness we are just trying to help with the sources. It's better to get that clear before you edit more articles with the sources currently being generated. We have no vendetta agaisnt GI Joe like you suggested via talk. I nominated a article for deletion to get the ball rolling, knowing there is some reliable sources around. Behold another editor has infact started the process in adding some. You are one of the core editors so it is essential that you find reliable content for the articles. We are trying to offer guideance. If this is taken to FAC with these sources, they may request GA reassessment. I am not a deltionist, i want to improve and build.Rain the 1 BAM 15:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but it can be a bit frustrating when I really am trying to work on the issues and things like this keep coming up, (not to mention that I'm busy trying to shepherd another article up to GA as well), so trust me when I say that the point is noted and I'm working on it. Rome wasn't built in day, and neither was Waikipedia. FYI - I wouldn't be foolhardy enough to take this to FAC without it being properly vetted in a peer review and copy edit first. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could make a few changes. One thing that bugged me I will change now.Rain the 1 BAM 15:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed that. Cool, thanks :) (I used was because the Marvel series has been out of publication since 1994 - but your edit is probably just as valid - it's a subtle distinction). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and the was in the wrong place, it needed to state it was published. If it was a magazine, that is suggesting the magazine no longer exists. The same with anything from the toyline, is "Blah is a character from the toyline and is no longer in production" Wasc is for dead people because they cease to exist.Rain the 1 BAM 15:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero _is_ a magazine and it is ouit of publication, so it no longer exists .... or am I misunderstanding what you meant? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah missing the point. That is in universe thinking on your part. Think outside the box, is this magazine in existasnce or was every copy detroyed? If there are copies in collectors stores, if people have saved them for personal reading etc... they still exist. So in encyclopedic terms and the real world perspective. These comics exist, so it is a comic.. however it is no longer in production.. so it IS a magazine that WAS published... (IF there were no copies left in the world, it would be was a magazine)Rain the 1 BAM 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough - although to assume that every copy in existence was destroyed is a pretty far-fetched leap for the reader to make based on "was" vs. "is" -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really have to point out my username in your edit summary? I mean, surely that's just uncouth. You pretty much did the exact same edit I did... Anyway, I'm going to remove the unreliable sources for now. I might try and find sources later, but I might get busy doing something else. Oh, in future if you're doing major constructions on an article, you should probably try using {{Under construction}}, just to avoid any nasty edit conflicts. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uncouth? The edit history has a record of everything that's been done, so it doesn't really matter if I mention you or not, but it sure as heck makes me feel better. FYI - the {{Under construction}} tag doesn't prevent edit conflicts, the {{In use}} tag does. And no, I did not do the same edit you did - you deleted, I transplanted. So fine, go ahead and delete stuff. I'll be checking up later to see if you were able to find any better sources. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - I noticed your comment in the edit summary for the last edit you made. I think you misunderstood when I earlier said "I'm in the middle of editing this puppy, do you mind? Refer to the discussion on the talk page", I meant editing in more of a big-picture sense rather than right that moment -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, if it was in the big picture, why did you revert me? If you really needed anything from my deletion you could've checked the edit history. Seriously, deletion is a very important thing about, especially when it comes to reliable sources. Never ever use an unreliable source except when in certain occasions. Oh, and soz, my mistake about the under construction template. I knew there was at least one template for that kind of thing... Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're going to disagree, but IMO a poor source is better than no source. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are openly speaking agaisnt the guidelines regarding sourcing. If there is no reliable source it is not to be included. Since you have decided that these sources are fine and should not be removed, I'll have to notify GAR about this as the article does not comply with the critrea.Rain the 1 BAM 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you were going to do that. If that's the case, then I will revert the entire article to the point prior to where I started working on it, and copy the current version to my userspace. Fair enough? And no, I'm not saying that they are "fine" as you put it - I know they're poor, but I don't seem to be getting much support in improving them. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The no not include then and seek other sources. It is not hard, an hour of searching online and you should gather some things useful. You have two other active editors in this project to work with, another from WP Fictional characters offered to help. As one of your fellow WP editors pointed out, reverting and working in your userspace to overide any progress made in the meantime is implicating ownership. You have just had a peer review and not started working on it, rather contesting the content to be okay. I just see complaining about the guidelines and no real indication of willingness to change. Asking for reassment is the last thing I wanted.Rain the 1 BAM 16:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, I have started working on it, but I keep having to respond to you and Harry. Let's be very clear here: I'm not contesting the results of the Peer Review, I'm well aware that its points must be adequately addressed before we can take this to FAC, and I'd like to you to back up your assertion that I'm contesting the Peer Review. And as noted in a different part of this discussion, I am also working on shepherding another article to GA. Even Harry admitted earler that he might get busy later, as do we all, I'm sorry if I can't be on top of this particular article 24/7 and the other article I'm contributing to is almost 80,000 bytes in size, so I'm sure you understand that it's a bit more time-consuming than this one.
And I disagree that I am speaking out against WP:RS - even you admit that it's a guideline, just as its own wikipedia page does - it's not a blunt-force instrument!
As for ownership - did you read my response to the other editor? Given that the vast majority of edits since 25 March 2011 were by me, it doesn't really impact on the edits of other editors. But since you're so fond of quoting the guidelines, there's nothing that says I can't take an article offline to the sandbox/userspace/offline to work on my edits. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "poor source is better than no source", I'm going to have to thoroughly disagree. Why don't we allow unreliable sources? Because they could be completely wrong or a total lie. If there's no editorial stuff going on, there is nothing whatsoever to stop them simply from lying (or making a mistake). Just because you know it is true doesn't mean we can use it because it is not verifable. How do you know it's true? Where did you find out it was true? Source that, if anything. Verifiability is more important than "truth", in the words of something in the Wikipedia namespace I've completely and totally forgotten about. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See: Wikipedia:Verifiability it's in the first line. Fine, let's go with that, you've worn me down, I'm too tired to argue. YOU WIN! CHEERS ALL AROUND!! (Aside: I guess Captain Picard was wrong, after all) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query to Raintheone: if blogspot is such an unreliable source, then why hasn't it been blacklisted? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not not know. It shouldn't be far off, page after page of been told no at the notice board. I'd say don't use it again.Rain the 1 BAM 16:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that blogs are unreliable sources. And youtube for that matter I already noted Jake about that. If you feel the information that cited by the unreliable source should still be kept. I propose you all work together to find a new one if need be. If a certain editor is busy at the time the in use tag must be placed. And please don't bring up WP:Own. Jake's just a very active contributor and hopefully he's thinking of what's best for the article. But any editor should be encouraged to participate no matter what. Jhenderson 777 17:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JH: thanks very much for your comments. Agree with you 100% And agree about WP:OWN - if I am being perceived as taking "ownership" of this project, it is only in the sense of monitoring its progress and making sure that constructive things get done (much as in real life, as a project manager I am often asked to "take ownership" of specific work - I'm not actually owning anything, the Partner does), as opposed to preventing other editors from contributing, which I totally encourage, but it seems that not much has been happening since the article made it to GA at the beginning of March. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you contest everything. Even changing the the sense in line one.Rain the 1 BAM 17:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NO. There's an important distinction between "contesting" and "querying". Note that I didn't revert that edit. Rather than risk an edit war, I discussed it with you and left it alone afterwards. I even thanked you for it! And note: every time a user edits (i.e. modifies, rather than just add) something written by another user, are they not in essence contesting it? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. if I were, as you suggest, contesting the Peer Review, then why would I copy the results onto this talk page in full view of everyone who can track the progress of those points being addressed?? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:We don't need edit conflicts on articles that are strived to be FA's. Reviewer's actually determine if articles are to be worthy of FA's and GA's by this. So please work together like you're minds are one. Jhenderson 777 17:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Results - (copied over from Wikipedia:Peer review/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/archive1)[edit]

Rather than mark up the archive page, I'll be using the following as my checklist as each point is addressed -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: You are very welcome. Thanks for all your work on this interesting article. I think this needs a fair amount more work before it would have a good chance at FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The {{Copy edit}} template at the top of the page would be a quick fail at FAC, and technically disqualifies the article from receiving a peer review (no major cleanup banners). Please make sure a copy edit is done and this banner is then removed before FAC.
  • Noted - I posted a copy edit request concurrently with requesting this peer review, as I'm aware that it care take some time before a copy editor takes on the request (if at all) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on comic books, one of which is Watchmen - since that has a tie in with a movie and this has the tie in with the cartoon, it may be a useful model.
  • Pending - looking through it, and considering what aspects we can model into this - Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done we've re-arranged and relabelled a few of the sections to make the flow make more sense -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see the other language versions or reprints or revival mentioned in the lead. Even more importantly, I see no mention of the cartoon and its relation to the comic book in the lead.
  • Have also added images of The Baroness, the "Silent Interlude" issue, and the G.I. Joe cartoon's title screen -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the WP:MOS, English units like 3 and 3/4 inch should have their metric equivalents given too. The {{convert}} template does this nicely.
  • Done - that's a pretty nifty little function
  • Looking at the FA criteria, one of the most difficult for most articles to achieve is a professional level of English. I agree this needs a copyedit to reach that standard.
  • Pending - this article has had a Copy Edit request posted with the GOCE since 25 March 2010 - still waiting for one of them to take it on -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just removed the request - am going to repost after I finish addressing all the peer review points - no point in copy editing if everything is going to change anyways. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness. Looking at the GI Joe page, I see that Hasbro also discontinued the 3.75" figures in 1994. I think (if this is correct) that that fact should be mentioned here, as it seems to tie in to the book's cancellation that year.
  • This article also mentions the Devil's Due GI Joe comics in passing - I think there needs to be a little bit more on this book in this article (it is not even linked except in the nav box at the bottom).
  • Not sure if there are sources for this or not, but what was the business arrangement between Hasbro and Marvel? Did Hasbro pay Marvel to do the book (like an ad)? Did Marvel have to pay Hasbro to license the characters? How were the profits shared? If there is material touching on this, that would be good to include.
  • Partial - as stated in the section "Background and early development", Hasbro contracted Marvel to do it, but I'll have to do more digging to see if there's anything on the exact business arrangement between the two -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - Added more info regarding the Hasbro/Marvel business arrangement (specifically the animation). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also almost no material on critical response to the comics - I know they were a toy commerical, but surely in 14 years some critic must have said something about them (besides Hama's comments).
  • Pending - still looking for sources, hopefully one of the other editors will have better luck - I've found a few newspaper articles, but they focus excluisively on the toyline rather than the comic book -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done as much as I think is possible - as mentioned, the comic wasn't really considered "critic worthy" back in the day, and the run was mostly was pre-internet as well -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue that would raise real problems at FAC is a lack of references in places. For example this paragraph from the "Promotion and Reception" section: The comic was also credited with bringing in a new generation of comic readers - young boys who were drawn to the comic book through its association with the toy line, who then went on to other comics. Who credited it? Any statements that seem to be quoting someone should be sourced.
  • Pending - agreed. I know I have a source for the above quotation, but I'm having trouble digging it out -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial - I've managed to find the source for that particular quote, and I'm continuing to look for sources for other statements made -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly done - added a ton of refs in the past few days, hopefully another editor can close the loop on this -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spin offs and reprints and Cahin of command sections have no (zero) refs that I can see. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Second paragraph about the cartoon also has no refs - again, these would be quick fails at FAC. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Partially done beefed it up, Chain of Command is still a bit lacking, but spin-offs and reprints is well cited -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also am not sure if all the sources used meet WP:RS - I am not an expert on comic book sources by any means.
  • Done - we've gone over this in some detail now, deleted some and added a ton -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which break up the narrative flow. Wherever possible, I would either combine these with others or perhaps expand them.
  • Done - did this in the "Plot" and "Publication History" sections, and tweaked bit to improve overall narrative flow -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same goes for short sections - Foreign language versions is one sentence long. Could it be combined with Reprints (esp. since translations are a kind of reprint?) The Reprints section has three paragraphs which are each only 2 sentences long - not sure if they can be combined or not.
  • The Characters section seems a little too in-universe to me - ymmv
  • Avoid phrases like todate in To date, ten volumes have been published. as these can quickly get out of date. Use things like "As of March (or April) 2011" instead.
  • Per WP:See also, the See also section is usually for links not already in the article.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, did that too - and ended up getting dragging into a GA push :) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the Reception section[edit]

I think we should move the "Promotion and reception" section to the bottom of the page (just above see also). It doesn't really seem to fit under "Publication history". Any opposition? Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind reception being moved, as that seems to be a fairly accepted convention around here and you're right about it not fitting perfectly with the Publicatio History. However, I'm not so sure about moving the promotion bit (perhaps we should fission the two parts?) as the use of televised ads (whether animated or not) to promote a comic book was unique for its time (and still is, now that I think about it), and it is closely tied in with the series' publication history. Thoughts on that? (P.S. thanks for being helpful!) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and split this. What do you think? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good. I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and changed the capitalisation of some of the sections to match the "Publication history" and other sections (plus all lowercase apart from the first word is also the most common version used on Wikipedia). Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, those were dumb errors on my part - that's another reason why I posted this article for Copy Edit, but so far no one from GOCE has taken this one. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Okay, here is an explanation of the recent edits I have been making and suggestions for other changes. We should make the article at least as good as this revision, from when it was a GA, but at the same time a lot of editors have done a lot of work on it since then, and made it much more comprehensive than it was at first (I'm looking at you, Fortdj - you and Jake have put a ton of effort into this article). As long as this new material can be properly sourced and seems important, we should keep it.

As a rule of thumb, I figure that if something is important enough to include in this article, it has probably been talked about in a reliable secondary source. Our challenge is to find those secondary sources.

Here are some specifics. Please let me know what you think. :)

  • Reprints - This section seems good, but I don't know if enough references exist to keep it around in its present form.
    • First paragraph: This is all good information, but only citation for the paragraph is what seems to be an Indonesian translation of G.I. Joe. This helps us to verify the part about translation into Indonesian, but not the rest. Unless we can find more sources, I favor removing this paragraph. The translations stuff is interesting and helps to show the importance of the series though, so I will try to find sources for that.
  • Second paragraph - No references. I will try to find some, otherwise we should remove.
  • Third paragraph - This part is easy to source. If we remove the rest of the information, I think it makes sense to move this stuff down to the section on remakes and revivals and incorporate it their. Do you agree?
  • Relation to the cartoon - I have removed this section. Frankly, I'm not sure how important it is, and the sourcing seems dubious.
  • Spin-Offs - Again, this information is nice, but sourcing will be difficult. What I would like to do is keep the information on Special Missions, moving it up into the publication history, and remove the rest. You'll note that the sources for Order of Battle and Joe/Transformers are the works themselves, which in my opinion does not indicate importance. This information is in G.I. Joe (comics) anyway.
  • Plot - This information used to be in the publication history, in slightly different form. I'm almost tempted to move it back there, since it describes things from an out-of-universe perspective anyways, but I'm not sure. It probably doesn't matter that much.
  • Characters - I don't really know what to do this section. Either we should expand it, with more info on some of the important characters, or we should get rid of it and put the Characterization subsection under Writing style. Do you think we can find enough sources to expand it? Maybe in Bellomo's character profiles or Order of Battle. (Assuming Order of Battle is an acceptable source? I dunno.) If we expand it, though, we have to decide which characters are important enough to be included, which could be tough.

Please don't take any of this as a criticism of the work that has been done already. You guys have done a wonderful job, especially with replacing fansites with reliable sources. Also, I apologize for cutting out material without discussion - I am not trying to assert any kind of ownership over this page, so please call me out whenever I make mistakes.

One last thing - this article used to have some cool information from Half the Battle's history of G.I. Joe releases, but I see it's been removed. Is there any way we can still use this site, or is it totally unreliable?

Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment - I was wrong about the translations thing. According to this, the Indonesian comic contained a list of all the countries G.I. Joe was published in, so the source was good. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's my two cents on the points that you've made (and my explanation of recent edits I've made myself):
  • Reprints - I re-added this section, because everything in it pertains to the Marvel comic book specifically. The info about the IDW reprints was moved, because it fits better with the other IDW information. I'm in favor of finding references, in order to keep this information separate, because I think there should be a distinction between Marvel's reprints, and remakes from other companies.
  • Spin-offs - Same with this section, I added this information, back when we were trying to prevent the article from being delisted. I think that information about any G.I. Joe comics published by Marvel deserves to at least be mentioned here, and probably moreso here than in G.I. Joe (comics), which is more of a general article.
  • Plot - I could see this information being re-integrated into the Publication history section, as long as the Promotion section is made into a primary section of its own. But I don't think any of the information needs to be removed, and the out-of-universe perspective is easily fixable.
  • Characterization - I consolidated this section, but otherwise I think it's fine, especially now that you cut out the info better suited to the G.I. Joe Team article. We could possibly expand on individual characters, by providing links to the character lists that you created, which contain summaries of each character.
Jake did add a lot to the article, but at second glance, not all of it needed to be here (e.g. the information about the relation to the cartoon). Unfortunately, Jake's ego got the better of him, but I have kept an eye on this article ever since he pushed for it to be a FA-class article. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on what the article needs, to improve the classification of it once again. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hope this isn't premature, but I've gone ahead and nominated the article for GA status. I can't find anything wrong with it. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 22:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry - did not forget about this. Very busy lately, so I'll complete the review by Friday.AstroCog (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No dablinks - good!
  • A check using the external links tool (on the top-right of this page) shows that a few links have minor issues, but one, the ugo.com Larry Hama interview, is completely dead. Maybe the Way Back Machine has an archive of that? I HIGHLY recommend getting archived versions of any webpages used as sources, which makes them easier to verify.
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. * The lead doesn't encompass the entire article. Make sure that for each section, you've got at least a sentence or two that summarizes that in the lead.
  • In the "Promotion" section, there's a sentence that says, "Between the toy line, comic books, commercials and subsequent cartoon series, Hasbro had "put forward a marketing plan that was to become an industry standard, and a model for non-film properties to survive in other mediums",and became an early example of an industry practice that what would years later be described by Jenkins as a "transmedia narrative." - Even though there are citations here, you still need to say who is being quoted. Naked quotes are confusing to readers. Check the rest of the article for instances of this.
  • When a person is introduced in the article, Archie Goodwin for example, you only need to give his full name once, and then on just use his last name. Again, check the rest of the article for instances of this.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Several of the external link sources have incomplete citations. Make sure that things like author, date, publisher, etc are given. For example #44 and #46 are just links with not other info in the citations.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research. No apparent problems with OR.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • The article does a good job of describing the development and lifetime of the comics series, but doesn't give much detail about the hero characters themselves. I feel like a general reader would walk away knowing more about the villains than the heroes (to be honest, the villains in G.I. Joe are more interesting!), and the ongoing or over-arching story arcs are not described. I think a separate section on "Main plot" or "Story arc" should be part of this article for basic broadness. It doesn't have to be overly detailed or comprehensive, but a general reader will need at least that.
  • Perhaps the first section could be divided into two smaller sections? "Development" or "Early development" is fine for the first section. I feel like the paragraphs about "Silent Interlude" belong in a "Reception" section.
  • Speaking of reception, I don't see much in the way of straight-up reviews from comics critics. GIJ was a long-running and popular series, so I would expect there be some critique or discussion in comics magazines, journals, etc. The Comics Journal?
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I think it's enough to say at the beginning that the president's of Hasbro and Marvel had a chance encounter in which led to the development of the series. Emphasizing the fact that they met in the men's restroom and talked while peeing (seen in the article text and in the associated quote box) is a strange digression that a general reader doesn't need.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article is neutral.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No apparent problems here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. The non-free images need to clearly say who the copyright holder is. The first one just says something like "It is believed that Marvel own the copyright." Find out definitively if that's correct. Does IDW own it now? I'm not sure.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images require alt-text, including the main image. I'm not sure what MOS for comics articles says about a caption for the main info box image, but it should probably have a basic caption as well.
7. Overall assessment. Decent article, but has some issues outstanding. I'll put it on hold to see if editors will make improvements. I read this comic quite a bit as a kid, so it warms my heart to see a good article for it. In the future, it will be nice to have more reviews from major sources (if they exist), but that's an FAC thing. This is plenty for GA.


Editor Comments[edit]

Hey! Sorry, I haven't done anything yet, but I do plan to this weekend. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK lots of stuff fixed, I'm continuing to work on the rest. Regarding your comment on the reception, I've posted a thread at an external forum here to try to find some old reviews. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all done. Let me know if I missed anything. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cerebellum, great work in getting the article back to GA-status! A couple things that I still think need to be addressed are:
  • The intro has some redundancy. Specifically, it mentions being translated into multiple languages more than once. Also, the promotion and characterization sections are summarized sufficiently, but I'm not sure about the others.
  • And now that the info about issue #21 has been moved to the Reception section, the image from issue #21 now seems out of place in the Early Development section. I like the image where it is, but there should probably be a mention of issue #21 there, or the image should be removed.
Other than that, the article looks great! I'm happy to make these changes myself, but I though I should mention them here first, so that there's not too much back and forth editing. Please let me know what you think! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are totally right. Please go ahead and make as many changes as you like. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics). 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:

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) 17:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G.I._Joe:_A_Real_American_Hero_(Marvel_Comics)&oldid=1207335938"