Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eagle (comic)/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 Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010.

Eagle (comic)

 * Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Few Brits over the age of 50 will not have heard of Eagle, or its most celebrated character, Dan Dare. Launched in 1950 it was one of the most famous British comics of all time, selling almost a million copies each week, until the usual management indifference and corporate bollocks ensured its untimely demise in 1969. It was relaunched in the 1980s and although sources naturally focus on the first incarnation of the comic, I've attempted to fill in as much of its later history as is reasonably possible. That's why the article is very heavily skewed towards the original, but really, the relaunch is more of an addendum to the story, than anything integral. Parrot of Doom 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—In '1982–1994': "The relaunched Eagle was dropped in 1994." I'm not sure "dropped" is the right word here - "...ceased publication in 1994." perhaps? Cavie78 (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dropped is a pretty good summary of its end though, and implies publication ended because it was no longer a success. Parrot of Doom 07:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with Comments and review
 * Proofread done - a couple of wikifications made. There's a quotation box (the first that appears on the page) that reads "...hving the heroine twice bound and gagged". I haven't changed hving to having because I wasn't sure if it was a sic thing. So perhaps the editors will hve, er, have a look at that.
 * Review v FA criteria
 * 1(a) - prose style - EXCELLENT; the article rattles along at a nice pace. No clunky sentences or chiming words. I liked the use of footnotes to clarify points or expand on them without cluttering up the main text.
 * 1(b) - comprehensiveness - GOOD; personally I may have liked to have heard more about other long-running characters but there are links to some of the others aside from Dare, so can't complain too much. I also felt that the coverage of the relaunch was lacking, it lasted 12 years! That's quite a long time in the world of comics! So I'd appreciate more information on it. However, I won't oppose on that basis.
 * 1(c) - research - GOOD; has a detailed bibliography, arguably it would have been nice to see another Eagle-only book aside from the Morris/Hallwood one. The 5th paragraph of section 1950 - 1969 that begins "Eagle became immensely popular..." and that paragraph only has the one citation right at the end of it. Does that citation support everything that's in that paragraph?
 * 1(d) - neutral? - YES; doesn't cheerlead for the subject, much as I'm sure the editors of the article are fans.
 * 1(e) - stable? - YES; only appears to have one revert dating back to 2005, no sign of trouble in the history at all.
 * 2(a) - lead - - EXCELLENT, a concise yet full overview of the comic's history.
 * 2(b) - structure - EXCELLENT, takes a chronological approach which is suited to the subject.
 * 2(c) - consistent citations - NOT CHECKED
 * 3 - Images - NOT CHECKED
 * 4 - Length - VERY GOOD, I could easily have read more on the subject, particularly on the points I mention at 1(b) but I can't complain too much. I learned a lot about the comic I did not know before.
 * bodnotbod (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I corrected the spelling in the quotation, blame Chrome and its poor spellchecker for that :)  1(c) - yes the citation covers everything there.  1(b) - unfortunately there isn't much written about it.  By then it was just another comic, and not a particularly remarkable one.  If better sources become available I'll certainly update it, but for now all there is are fan pages. Parrot of Doom 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Wonderful subject, wish I had time for a proper review. On sources matters, just a few points:- Otherwise, sources look good, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 70: the source appears to be a website, so why no link? In any event the publisher should be given as "BBC News"
 * I missed the url = bit from the template, fixed. With online sources I almost always use part of the url, the reason being that BBC News encompasses a wide range of departments.
 * The publisher is BBC News, not the website name. Give both if you must, but do give the publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning however I have used this formatting on practically every single one of the 18 other FAC nominations I've worked on, and I'm going to stick to the same formatting here. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that you are required to give the publisher name, and the website name is generally not the publisher name. Occasionally they are one and the same, but not here. There are other examples, e.g. 38 and 75. The fact that your formatting was accepted for other FAs doesn't make it right.
 * I don't think there's a specific requirement to give the publisher name as you prefer it to appear. I'm quite happy using urls, its simple and obvious to anyone just who the publisher is.  I've seen people cite articles to newspapers like The Guardian, linking to their website, while not noticing that its the website that published the article, which never appeared in the newspaper.  I appreciate your comments but I'll not be changing this. Parrot of Doom 19:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bibliography: since as a general rule you are not including publisher locations, you should remove "Exeter" from the Gifford book and "London" from the Marcus Morris book.
 * I'll update as many as I'm able. I can guarantee that if I removed them all, someone would then complain that they weren't in there, so I'll leave them in for now.
 * You have to be consistent. There is no FAC requirement to give publisher locations, and no one can demand that you do. But it's an all or none thing, you can't just leave it as it is. It's easier to remove the two you have than hunt for those you don't have. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's only one book now that doesn't have a publisher location. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are in fact two: Nicholls and Tatarsky. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both now inserted, thanks. Parrot of Doom 19:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify the status of the "Related publications"? They do not appear to be cited works; in what sense do they differ from "Further reading"?
 * Its just a list of Eagle-related publications, special editions, etc. I don't yet have a full list. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At present they are listed under a third-level heading as part of the "References" section, which implies they are used as sources. In view of what you say, I have elevated the heading to level-2, which separates it from References. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me :) Parrot of Doom 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article violates the Wikipedia naming conventions by having the article title formatted in italics. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an issue that would be better discussed at Template talk:Infobox comic book title. The article title takes its formatting from that template.  I am unaware of anything in the link you provided, or Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions), which prohibits the use of italics in an article title such as this. Parrot of Doom 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that he is referring to this: "Do not apply formatting: Formatting, such as italics or bolding, is technically achievable in page titles, but is used only in special cases. An example of such an exception is to produce italics for taxonomic names of genera and species." Small issue, obviously not worth the oppose, but should be addressed nevertheless. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, the policy page implies that there are exceptions beyond species etc. Personally I don't really have any view on the matter, its irrelevant to me and also I suspect to any reader visiting the page, as the title contains no special characters.  Its one of those style things to be argued over by 30 wikipedia editors.  I've raised the issue on the Wikiproject:Comics talk page, but beyond that I'm afraid to say I'll probably not get involved. Parrot of Doom 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The featured article criteria say that an article must follow the Wikipedia style guidelines. This article does not follow them in terms of the naming convention. This "small issue" has broad implications across tens of thousands of articles. If comic book article titles are italicized, then every book, film, television show, work of art, play, and ship article title should also be italicized. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I really couldn't care less if article names are italicised or not, they make no difference to me or anyone else. I didn't choose to italicise the title, the template used (as standard for the Comics wikiproject) did.  If you have a problem with it, why not mention it on that template's talk page? Parrot of Doom 22:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think I should have to get into a fight over a Wikiproject's template that seems to clearly violate the MoS. I do sympathize with your position in that you're just using the template that you're supposed to use, and it's not really your fault that the template is causing the problem. However, I still regard this as a problem; and, therefore, I maintain my oppose until there is a resolution to the article's title formatting conflicting with Wikipedia style guidelines. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics, and the section below it also. To sum up, it appears as though the decision for species to have italicised titles was taken by the project concerned.  Other projects, asked at the time to vote on the matter, voted against their own projects using italics.  The Comics project voted of its own accord to implement italics, using a template.  In my view that makes the italicisation of this article perfectly ok.  When it comes to these decisions, there appears to be no "higher authority" than the projects themselves. Parrot of Doom 14:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is this hasn't been specifically implemented on this one page, it is a Project-wide style-implementation (through the comics title template) which is perfectly within the remit of the Project to decide and this one article can't be penalised for it. Plus this issue is back up for discussion within the Project so it may not last long. (Emperor (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Manual of Style (titles) says that we should italicize titles of comics. Dismas |(talk) 10:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This oppose is misguided, as the article title is not in italics, it is merely displayed in italics, a quite different matter. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that several days ago I asked this user to comment further, but so far he has not responded. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what further comments you're looking for from me. I've stated my position above and it hasn't really changed. I feel my oppose is valid, but if my oppose really is "misguided" or inappropriate in some way, then it is within the discretion of the FA director to ignore it. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The species wikiproject decided that they'd have italicised titles, and nobody complained. Nobody objects to their FAC articles promoted with such formatting.  Why then are you objecting to a comic's title being italicised, when exactly the same process has been followed? Parrot of Doom 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they have a specific exemption in the Wikipedia naming conventions to allow for such formatting. Now if you'd like to try to get the naming conventions changed to allow an exemption for comic book titles as well, then be my guest. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The page you quote uses that as an example. It does not say "Only italics for taxonomic names of genera and species are allowed", and is therefore irrelevant.  I ask you again, look at how this decision was made, and tell me, how does the Comics wikiproject use of italics differ? Parrot of Doom 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It also says that the formatting "is used only in special cases." Why should comic books be considered a special case? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Who considered that species articles were a special case? Because unless I'm wrong, it was that wikiproject, and only that wikiproject.  Nobody else.  Unless there's some elitist-snobbery thing going on here that I'm unaware of, that sets the precedent.  If they can make that decision, then so can other wikiprojects. Parrot of Doom 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of my concern also is that "Eagle" is a part of media (also including books, films, TV series, etc). Comics Project is the only media project to approve this, and even at that doesn't widely use it. Allowing it for the article would just promote a large inconsistency across Wikipedia IMO. Ω  pho  is  19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So discuss it in the proper place, which would be elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 19:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Media what does File:Eaglemast.jpg convey that is not present in File:Eagle_1950_issue_1_front_page.jpg? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The full colour golden eagle not present in the first few faded pressings of the comic. Parrot of Doom 11:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is File:Eagle_1950_issue_1_front_page.jpg not replaced with a later issue? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that would be a good idea. Parrot of Doom 17:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, brain on time. I'll move the image of the first issue into the infobox.  Parrot of Doom 17:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * nitpicking could File:DAN_DARE_-_geograph.org.uk_-_97560.jpg face into the text per MOS:IMAGES and be tagged with Fasach Nua (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added the trademark template. I think moving the image across would then necessitate rearranging the quotations, and then the other image, which would then look a bit odd as I've laid it out to fit the infobox position. Parrot of Doom 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I know from my own experiences with Roy of the Rovers how difficult it can be to find good sources on comics or comic book characters, so I think this article does a fine job of describing this particular comic and meets the FA criteria. On the subject of naming raised above, I'd like to point out one fact that seems to have been ignored. The MoS says that article titles ought not to be in italics, true, but this article title isn't in italics; it's merely displayed in italics, a very significant difference. Projects are at liberty to choose via their infoboxes whether or not titles are displayed in italics, and it just so happens that the comic project has opted for italics. Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Rreagan007. Yes, comic titles should be italicized within an article, but not in the article's title itself. Until this is corrected, it blatantly fails the most basic criteria. It is shocking to me that so many editors are willing to overlook this in an FAC. Ω  pho  is  18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't know if this can be fixed, but the image used is too big for the section "1982–1994". It creates a giant gap that does not look good for the article. Ω  pho  is  18:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the links I posted above? There is nothing to suggest that italicising a comic article's title would be against FAC criteria.  Italicisation of species articles was decided upon only by the wikiproject involved, and by nobody else.  The comics wikiproject have made exactly the same decision.  What makes you think that there's any difference between the two? Parrot of Doom 18:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. And I disagree with its use. Looking at the project page, it also appears that this formatting is not widely used by the project either. Ω  pho  is  18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If so you must also disagree with species article titles being italicised? Parrot of Doom 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia naming conventions, this is allowed and appears to be widely implemented. Regardless, this FAC is not for species articles. Ω  pho  is  18:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And how was that decision made? Parrot of Doom 18:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said, that formatting is widely used by those articles to the point that it is included on that page. I've checked numerous well-known comics articles, and have only found one other to use this formatting. The project appears to me to be consistently not using. Anyways, I have stated my concerns. If the FAC director or promoter disagrees with me, then he/she will promote it. Ω  pho  is  19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the infobox which makes this change. Stating that just because a few comic articles you checked don't use that infobox (and therefore don't have that formatting) is irrelevant.  The Beano, The Dandy, 2000 AD, Starlord, Crisis (Fleetway), Revolver (comics), Toxic!, all in italics.  Maybe because some stub articles don't have referencing, we should use that to justify opposing well-developed articles.  I'm obviously wasting my time here, in more ways than one. Parrot of Doom 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, most of the articles that you just referred to are start-class or stubs... none that are high-class. I can name twice as many comic-related articles that are featured or good articles and do not use the formatting. In fact, I looked at the comic FA/GA list and found only one article that did use it. Ω  pho  is  19:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've stricken my oppose because I've opened an Rfc on the use of italics. This way it can be properly settled without affecting the FAC. Ω  pho  is  00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Surely a minor discrepancy with italics does not change the quality of this article. Regardless of formatting, this article is among our best articles and should be recognized as such. I do have a small issue with the one-sentence opening paragraph of the lead, but as I said, it is not a concern for which I would oppose. Good job, PoD. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – so Template:Infobox comic book title, extraneous to the article in question, causes the title to appear in italics, and this is sufficient reason to oppose? I would suggest an explicit addition to the exceptions allowed in Wikipedia naming conventions (written, after all, by humans) or a temporary modification of the template so that scrutineers can look beyond this egregious contravention of the guiding principles of wikipedia and focus upon the content of the article. Occuli (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The two opposes over the formatting of the title (!) are baseless, and should be ignored. They are, apparently, basing their oppose on WP:Article titles, but that explicitly makes allowance for "special cases". I suppose "special cases" could include things that are normally italicized, like those listed at WP:ITALICS. That list includes "comic strips and webcomics". Naming conventions (technical restrictions) also lists uses of italictitle—taxonomy and academic journals—but it is clear there that the text is descriptive, not prescriptive ("currently its only common use is for ..."). There is nothing there that suggests editors in a given content area—like comic books—can't decide to also adopt italicization; indeed, the additional example of academic journals given on the "technical restrictions" page suggests there is precedent for that. (And, though it's a technicality, there is in fact nothing in the FA criteria that suggests featured articles should follow WP:Article titles. Featured articles should, however, follow WP:ITALICS, which is part of the MOS; this page says that comic book titles should be italicized.) Ucucha 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - A wonderful read. It's excellent, and that's what matters.  ceran  thor 20:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.