Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashcan copy/archive1

Ashcan copy

 * Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a type of comic book that publishers used to secure trademarks in the 1930s and 40s. They were never meant to be seen publically and were considered worthless, hence the name. Years later, they're extremely valuable and considered an important part of comic history. As knowledge of them spread in the late 1980s, the term was co-opted to lend significance to newer comics. The ashcans that are published today have very little in common with their namesake. The article is on the short side, but I believe it's fully comprehensive. It passed GA in July 2018 and has since been expanded with an extra source or two. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47
I hope these comments are somewhat helpful. I am completely unfamiliar with the comic book industry, but I have heard of television and film companies doing this to preserve a licensed character/property. I remember hearing some speculation that the 2015 film Fantastic Four was done solely to keep the licensing. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For this sentence (The term was revived in the 1980s by Bob Burden, who used the term for prototypes of his self-published comic book.), I would avoid the repetition of "term" twice in the same sentence.
 * This one has been addressed by User:Eric Corbett. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A wikilink for "American comic book" is used in the lead, but "comic book" is not linked in any way in the body of the article. Should a wikilink be added to the body of the article for consistency?
 * Added. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that the article should be written in American English considering the topic. This leads me to a question about this part (At the time, waste containers were commonly called). As an American, I personally use either "trash can" or "garbage can" and the article being linked mentions that "can" is the preferred wording in America. "Waste containers" might be used in certain U.S. regions or in the past though., It is a super nitpicky point, but I did pause when I read that phrase.
 * I couldn't think of a good way to phrase that at the time and chose to go with "waste container" because that was the name of the article. I've revised it to "garbage can" for now, but I'd welcome suggestions on restructuring the whole sentence. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Every little bit helps! I also recall that film being close to the deadline for the rights to expire, but I'm not sure it would count as an ashcan considering the effort they put into production and promotion. The only mention the article makes about the rights is the 2022 deadline for a sequel or reboot. I'd be happy to look over your FAC, but I need to complete a couple other items on my to-do list first. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. It is an interesting and enjoyable read. Good luck with all the items on your to-do list! I have a quite a few things on my own list too so I can definitely understand that. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Eric Corbett
Eric  Corbett  13:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "An ashcan copy is a type of American comic book publication created solely to establish trademarks on potential titles and not intended for sale, which was done in the 1930s and 1940s when the comic book industry was in its infancy." This would almost certainly be better recast as two sentences, perhaps along the lines of "An ashcan copy is a type of American comic book publication created solely to establish trademarks on potential titles and not intended for sale; the practice took root during the 1930s and 1940s, when the comic book industry was in its infancy." But there does seem to be some inconsistency with the rest of the article, which tells us that some modern ashcans are intended for publication, so maybe "not usually intended for sale" might be more accurate? Also, something can't really begin in the 1930s and 1940s, as it must have begun in one or the other.
 * I have revised the opening statement. I believe the new language addresses all of your concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Some ashcans lacked interior pages of any kind." Is that just a rather unusual way of saying that they had no interior pages at all?
 * Yes. This wording matched the tone of the source, and I've rephrased it to match the tone of this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "The term was applied to these editions of comics because they had no value.[4] However, some spare copies were given to editors, employees, and visitors to keep as souvenirs." "However" can't be the correct linking word here, as there's no contradiction with what's gone before.
 * It's contradicting the first sentence of the paragraph. I've reorganized it to put the two ideas closer together. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "... a new publisher started by popular artists" Why "new"? Why not just "a publisher started by popular artists"?
 * Yes, I suppose saying it was the first publication makes 'new' redundant. Removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Soon, other publishers began using the idea in a variety of sizes and formats." I don't really see how an idea can have sizes and formats.
 * Clarified Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences of Later use read very awkwardly to me.
 * Combined and simplified. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Once the practice was in place ..." "Once the practice had become established"?
 * Changed Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from John M Wolfson
This is my first time reviewing an FAC, so bear with me. Sorry if this is a bit short, or if my concerns are of limited actionability. Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) I guess I'll support now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I really feel as if this needs at least one image. Its talk of quality implies that there are visual distinctions between the originals and regular comic books from the same era, and while the text does a good enough job with elaborating on that, as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. It would also make it satisfy criterion 3 (Media), as I feel that such illustrations would be appropriate given the above. (Given the relative necessity of such images I might argue you could even use fair-use images to that effect, but don't take my word for it.)
 * There used to be some images, when the article was heavily slanted toward the specific example of Captain Marvel (DC Comics). They're still in use in the character's article, to give you an idea of what they look like. I can also get a scan of the Action Comics ashcan, which featured a witch instead of the more famous artwork seen here. Do you have a preference? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the Action Comics might be better given how historically important it is to comic books.
 * I'll get it added today. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Perhaps consider putting the montage in the lead, though I'll leave that to you.
 * Citation 8, from CGC comics, is a dead link. I have tagged it as such, hopefully the IABot will take care of it and rescue it.
 * If not, I'm sure I can find a replacement. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks.
 * I have linked an archive and added a second source for this. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the trademark clerks would be fooled that easily into thinking that such "garbage" was actually published, although that could just be my modern-day cynicism.
 * At the time, comic books were expected to be low quality material. I imagine the trademark staff paid little attention to what was coming through. And, from what I understand, the ashcans were actually printed on higher quality material than the "official" versions that were sold on newsstands. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that should be put into the article for those not familiar with the history.
 * Unfortunately, most of what I said there was synthesized from my research, not direct from a source. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and the Action Comics cover makes it look like a legitimate pulp magazine anyway.
 * "Ashcan = garbage can" needs a citation at the end of the sentence, IMO.
 * done. It had been there previously, but got shuffled when I made other changes. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick responses. I'll give this article another run-through, but pending those changes I'm likely to support.
 * Thanks for your quick responses, will be ready to support once the dead link is repaired. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dead link in ref 8 still requires attention
 * What makes Bloody Disgusting.com a high quality reliable source?
 * I added an archive link to ref 8. BD has been replaced. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from Ian
Recusing coord duties, read this purely out of interest and found precious little to do copyediting-wise -- short and sweet, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review
Appropriate fair use claimed for both images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)