Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revival (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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2017.

Revival (comics)

 * Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the comic book Revival, published by Image Comics between 2012 and 2017. It passed GA in June 2017. The previous FA failed due to concerns over sources. Some of them have been replaced since then. Rationales showing why I think the other questioned sources are high quality can be found here. Since the previous FA nom, I tried to work with the opposer, but did not receive a response. I have also added a second image in the body of the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging editors from previous nomination:

Support from Aoba47
I still support this article based on the prose as all of my concerns and comments were addressed during the first FAC. I do have some concerns about the "Merchandise" section though as it is rather short, and would be curious if the information could be moved into a different section (such as a part about the comic's release). Otherwise, great work with this and good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've mixed the merchandise into the release. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

From Slightlymad
Nothing else is bothersome to me... except the Reviews section; it's the usual A said B structure that has been retooled around many articles that has a Reception section. Have a look at this essay—Copyediting reception sections—as it gives a couple of interesting points to make this section a fine read. Is it standard to report on Comic Book Roundup aggregate scores on comic articles? If so, then just find a way not to remove them right after you've copyedited the section (In the essay, the True Detective example had the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate score removed as a result of the copyedit, even though it's pretty standard for film/TV articles to keep them intact.) Otherwise, I believe this passes FA. SLIGHTLY mad   05:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the essay link. I have revised the review section with your suggestions. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support SLIGHTLY  mad   13:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: This has been open now for over six weeks, and despite two supports has attracted little commentary, no new comments for over a month, and no discussion of whether it meets the FA criteria. Therefore, with no consensus to support, I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.