User talk:Spencerqolney/sandbox

Grant Morrison •	Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything seemed appropriately relevant and nothing distracting.

Morrison is a comic book writer whose work is inspired by an infamously bizarre philosophy but the article remains neutral. If anything there is only basic information about the man’s history. •	Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

All of the information seems up to date. Morrison maintains a strong following within the comic book community and has ventured into the world of film and television and even music: he exploits are well documented. However, there are large chunks of his publication that seem to be overlooked, or lacking a satisfying richness. In addition to this, possibly due to the debated nature of comic books as a form of literature, there is very little information about the writer’s style or recurring themes or anything to do with the book aspect of comic books, which is somewhat shameful as he employs of number of complex literary tactics and tropes and has written passages on par with Pynchon’s. •	What else could be improved?

In his autobiographical work, Morrison mentions a significant moment in his life in which he was hiking in Kathmandu, possibly in the company of psychedelic drugs, and was then adducted by fifth dimensional beings who showed him all of time and space. While the validity of this story is questionable at best, it does certainly play a role in his philosophy of writing and heavily influenced a large number of his works. I believed it is more than possible to add the information in a neutral tone. •	Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are certainly moments in which the fanboys and their obsessiveness are evident.

•	Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Most of the article focuses on publication and character history, describing how Morrison fits into the larger scheme of DC Comics. But any of his qualified literary merits are either overlooked or were never intended to be mentioned in the first place. If anything, there may be a slight negative bias. •	Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes and yes. •	Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

For the most part, yes. There is quite a bit of information from independent sites generated around the idea of “comic book news”. This is without a doubt one of the strongest legions of fans out there, so there is quite a bit of bias on the sites themselves, and it does seem to creep into the article. •	What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes – – i.e. on the Talk page – – about how to represent this topic?

Others have reached the same conclusion as myself, agreeing that there is bias present as well as information lacking.

Feedback
I've moved your article evaluation to your sandbox page - - to preserve the talk page for feedback etc. The [Grant Morrison] article already looks pretty good and very replete. I'm not sure what you want to add or improve. Perhaps there are topics (comic titles etc.) within the article that could use a separate or improved page. Profhanley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing
I don't see any sourcing. Profhanley (talk)

Topic feedback
Of the two topics, I think Jeff Lemire is going to be a bit easier to handle. Is Descender "notable" by Wikipedia's standards? If it's won awards, I think so. LA in post-apocalyptic culture/representation looks really interesting - - it's just going to be a bit trickier to handle, imo. ProfHanley (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)