Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lazarus (comics)/archive2


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2018.

Lazarus (comics)

 * Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a dystopian comic book series with heavy political and economic themes. It began in 2012 and is still being published. It will probably continue for another 5-7 years and a television adaptation is in the works. The article is up-to-date with recent plot developments and series announcements. I believe it is as thorough and complete as it can be at this time. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * If you are going to include information about the television show in the lead, then I would include information from the role-playing subsection as well.
 * I would include information from the “Political themes” subsection in the lead as well.
 * For this sentence (Image provided David Brothers to serve as the series' editor.), I think it should either be “An image” or “Images” depending on the context. Starting the sentence with just “Image” does not seem correct to me.
 * I have also been told to keep usage of non-free media to a minimal. In that respect, why do you think the promotional artwork in the “Production” subsection is absolutely needed to further illustrate a point to the reader beyond text? I do not readily see how it ties into critical commentary, and it appears to be there for more aesthetic reasons than informative ones. If you are going to use a non-free media, then it may be more helpful to include an image from the comic that is being discussed in the prose of the subsection.
 * I included the promotional image for two reasons. First, it is promotional artwork that shows how the design developed. More importantly, it was colored by an American colorist. The prose discusses Lark's interest in a European color style, and this image helps show the difference to readers unfamiliar with how the styles are different.
 * This needs to be clearer than in the article and the image caption. As an unfamiliar reader, I did not see the image as being used in this way in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I expanded the caption.


 * Specify that The Fifth Element is a film and include the year in which it was released.
 * Something about the first paragraph in the “Production” subsection reads a little strange to me. It bounces around a lot between different ideas (i.e. influences from the Occupy movement and politics, creation of the character, and the planned ending for the story). I would try to make these ideas transition more organically either by reworking the paragraph or repositioning the information in other parts of the same subsection.
 * I have reworked the paragraph.
 * Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would change this sentence (When Lark received the first script, he was disappointed.) to (Lark was disappointed by the first script) for more concise language.
 * I admit that I have not check either of the sources provided, but I do not really understand this part (and based the opening scene on the birth sequence in The Fifth Element.). I do not remember a birth scene in that film at all.
 * I've only seen snippets of the film, so I can't help much here. That phrase came from Lark in an interview.
 * I looked at the interview, and I assuming you pulled that sentence from this part (I'd gone through a couple of different drafts of that particular scene and I just happened to be watching TV late at night and The Fifth Element was on. And I thought about the scene where she was being birthed in that and I thought to myself that Forever is kind of being born again here, and it's going to be yucky and painful.). He references the scene as a "birth", but your paraphrase does not make sense as it is never referenced as a "birth" to the best of my knowledge in the context of the film or by critics afterwards. The movie frames it more as a "reconstruction" sequence. See this part from the "Plot" section of the Wikipedia article on the film for further reference (The Mondoshawans' spacecraft is destroyed, and the only "survivor" is a severed hand in a metal glove from the Fifth Element's sarcophagus that still contains some living cells. Scientists take it to a New York City laboratory and use it to reconstruct a powerful humanoid woman who takes the name Leeloo.). I still think that this section needs to be better phrased to more accurately reflect the film as it is rather misleading. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed "birth" to "reconstruction" to match the film's article.


 * Specify that Necromancer is a novel and include the year in which it was released.
 * I have a question about this sentence (Lark questions Rucka about characterization and the direction of the story, resulting in rewrites and a better final product.). Who is saying this part “a better final product”? I was a little lost as without attribution, it reads more like the writer of the Wikipedia article is saying this.
 * I am not certain about the use of small paragraphs in the article, specifically “Lark will return when Lazarus resumes in April 2018 with issue #27.” in the “Publication” subsection as it destroys the flow of the article in my opinion.
 * Change the link for “2016 Presidential Election" to the article on the US presidential election and specify you mean the United States election in the prose.
 * This sentence (Collections of the X+66miniseries and the sourcebooks have been announced, but not yet released.) needs a citation.
 * I removed that part. I'll add the date of release to the table once they're published.
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Does the “Synopsis” subsection need to be completely sourced?
 * It can be. Some of it is taken from commentary about the series, and some of it is from the story itself. Right now, I've only sourced the commentary. I can cite the other plot elements to specific issues if you'd like.
 * I think that it is better to cite back to the specific issues if possible. I have never worked on a comic book article so I am unclear on how sourcing in summary/plot sections work. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My preference varies depending on the comic. I cite plot elements in articles like Infinity Gauntlet, which had important developments take place in a tie-in or crossover issue. In a case like The Fade Out, which is entirely self-contained, I treat it as single entity and do not cite plot elements to individual issues. I'm flexible though, and have added them before when asked. It may take me a day or two to research them and make sure I'm citing the right issue at the right place.
 * I understand. I think it is fine as it currently stands, and I will leave this up for future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not certain about the usage of the battle image in the “Critical reception” section. The caption does not make it clear how it illustrates a point to the reader beyond its aesthetic value.
 * This excerpt is from the choreographed battle discussed in Production. It is also the only image on the page colored by Arcas, which is commented on a few times throughout.
 * Then, I do not understand its placement in the "Critical reception" section. If the choreography is discussed in the "Production" section, it should be there. Also, the caption for the image does not make it clear how the reader, particularly an uninformed reader like myself, should approach this image and understand it in the larger context of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the caption. I put that image in the reception section so it would be closer to the critic's comments on the coloring and so the images would be better spaced through the article. If you don't think that would be an issue, I'll relocate it. I was also thinking of adding images of Rucka and Lark to the article, but I think they'd fit best near the top as well.


 * Could you expand on this point (Since the series debut, the pace has been a frequent point of criticism.)? What is the common complaint about the pace? Too fast? Too slow?
 * I clarified that it is described as slow. Unfortunately, reviewers haven't elaborated on that in a meaningful way.
 * Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * For this part (Rucka specifically addressed fan-drawn parallels to Game of Thrones,), specify that Game of Thrones is a television show.
 * I would include information about the negative criticism in the lead. The article seems a little tilted towards the positive reception of this, and could be objective by including that in the lead and expanding on the critique of the pace.
 * Any more news on the development of the role-playing campaign. You say that it had been delayed until January 2018 so has there been any follow-up since then?
 * Amazon is showing a release date of May 2018 now, but I've been unable to locate any reliable confirmation of that.
 * Then, I would wait to add anything further. Just wanted to ask to clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What makes comicbook.com a reliable source?
 * I'll have to get back to you on this one. It's a news site with editorial oversight, but a content filter on my workstation prevents me from verifying that at the moment.
 * No worries. If it has editorial oversight, then it would seem fine by me. I was just curious about it. I will leave this up to a much more experienced editor who does the source review for this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this article. I will support this for promotion once my comments are complete. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate your help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've addressed most of your points. Others I've responded to in red. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber
Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am unhappy with 1-2 sentence paras (3rd para in lead). Not sure how it could be rearranged - maybe most of the out-of-universe and in-universe paras could be swapped and this then tacked onto the out-of-universe material in the lead.


 * Identifying who/what people are helps give context, hence something like. "American writer Greg Rucka and artist Michael Lark had previously collaborated..." - ditto putting Santi's nationality at his first mention.


 *  ... by the Hock family, a Carlisle rival and rulers of Eastern North America.. - a misprint for "Carlyle",right?


 *  Many critics compared and contrasted Lazarus with other genre works - are both verbs necessary here?


 *  Bezner warned that the political elements of Lazarus will not be for everyone - past to present looks odd here, I'd go with "Bezner warned that the political elements of Lazarus would not be for everyone"

NB: I made these changes, let me know if they are ok. Overall I think it reads pretty well and seems comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe this edit addresses your concerns. I added an additional sentence to the short one in the lead instead of combining it with another. Please let me know if that is not satisfactory. Thanks for looking this over. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think it looks ok from a prose and comprehensiveness POV. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * The license of this image does not match what the source field says: FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed Rucka's photo.
 * It can be kept, you just need to put in another licence, PD self if that exists or a similar one, as seems to have been the original one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The original uploader is still active on occasion. I've left a message on his talk page to see if he'd like to do it himself. If there's no response, I'll take the initiative. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I revised this. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the promotional poster falls under fair use here. Its caption mainly discusses the colouring of the actual comic book, not the poster, and it isn't really discussed itself, only mentioned.
 * I revised the caption to relate more to the promotional artwork. While the it is not discussed in detail, I think its inclusion is important to give readers a baseline for comparison when Arcas' work is discussed. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Freikorp
That's all I found. Hope this helps. Freikorp (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "ongoing dystopian science fiction comic book" - four wikilinks in a row is a bit of an eyesore in my opinion. I'd unwikilink 'comic book' since it's a pretty common term, but up to you
 * You should wikilink nature versus nurture in the lead, and also Worldbuilding
 * 'and "waste"' - I can guess that 'waste' refers to everyone else, but maybe convey this to the reader somehow?
 * "to grow old without suffering the consequences of age" - so just clarifying, does this make them immortal? Or just look and feel younger? Some more detail would be good here
 * At one point the Lift arc is referred to in inverted commas ("Lift") and in another just in regular single commas ('Lift'). Should this be consistent?
 * I've addressed everything except the consequences of age point. I'll have to give that one some additional thought. At the time of the story, they're all definitely showing signs of extreme longevity. I think Malcolm is supposed to be ~120, his kids are ~80, and they all appear half their ages. They're definitely not immortal, but story hasn't stated how long their lifespan is expected to be. I'm not sure how to say all that succinctly. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, I understand the issue hasn't been made clear to the reader yet. Happy to support this now. Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my current Wikicup featured nomination if you've got the time. Freikorp (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources review
This looks to be long overdue. Ideally, someone with a better knowledge than mine of the comics publishing world should review these sources, but in the apparent absence of such an expert, I'll do my best. It will take me a little while but I'll get it done this weekend. That might encourage the nomination towards promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'll do a source review if you want me to. JOE BRO  64  19:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead – if you've got the subject expertise it will be a better review than I could do. Ping me if you need help. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good from a glance. First comments: More to come. JOE BRO  64  20:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style/Titles, "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized".
 * I believe I fixed all of these.
 * Reference 56: what makes Pop Mythology, Comic Bastards, and Comic Book Herald high quality reliable sources?
 * I removed these - they were redundant refs for the point being made. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference 57: what makes Graphic Policy and Comic Crusaders high quality reliable sources? Both are volunteer-contributed ("Are you a fan of independent comic books? Do you read comics other than Marvel and DC? Have you ever wanted to be a comic book reviewer and write news articles about your favorite titles and issues? Now is YOUR opportunity! Comic Crusaders is looking for new reporters to write articles and get published" and "the site is open to anyone to contribute. We want to provide a safe place for people to add their voice to the comics community and a platform to do so".)
 * I removed both of these - they were redundant references for the point being made. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference 60: what makes Behind the Panels a high-quality reliable source?
 * I removed this source and the opinion cited. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference 62: what makes Comics Grinder a reliable source? It's powered by WordPress, which usually means it's user-generated.
 * I removed this, and the opinion connected to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A few more: That's it. A few questionable references and some formatting nitpicks, but nothing oppose-worthy. Once my questions have been cleared up I will support promotion. JOE BRO  64  12:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a general note, but some websites are linked to their respective articles, but others are not. I'd be consistent in linking them.
 * I'm not sure which ones you're referring to here. Could you be specific? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * References 13 and 15: just a nitpick, but you refer to the site as ComicBook.com and Comicbook.com, respectively. I'd pick one or the other.
 * The site stylizes it with a capital B, so I have as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference 27: what makes TMStash a high-quality reliable source?
 * I've replaced this with a citation to ComicBook.com and Comichron.org. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference 65: what makes The Book Smugglers a high-quality reliable source?
 * I removed this source and the opinion cited. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed all of your points except for the general note under "a few more". I need some clarification on that one. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just meant that some citations link to the source's Wikipedia article (such as IGN and The A.V. Club), while others (like Image Comics and Green Ronin Publishing) don't. That's all. Other than that, you've addressed all my points here so I'm going to give a support. Well done! JOE BRO  64  20:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking back at it, that's obviously what you meant. For some reason I read that as some of the references not linking to the cited article...
 * Thanks for the support! Argento Surfer (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I find the red links among the citations a bit distracting and would suggest only linking to sites that do have WP articles; won't hold up promotion over it though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.