Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revival (comics)/archive3


 * 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2018.

Revival (comics)

 * Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an American comic book series that ran for 47 issues before ending earlier this year. The plot is a twist on the zombie genre. It became a GA in June and has been mostly stable since then. Most of the recent changes were suggestions from the previous two FACs. The first one failed because some sources were challenged. I was encouraged to work with the oppose before re-nominating. I provided detailed explanations of each challenged source here and invited the opposer to discuss. They have never responded. The second FAC did not attract enough comments to pass. Third time's the charm, right? Pinging previous commenters     Argento Surfer (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments from Aoba47
 * For the first sentence in the lead (Revival is a horror-science fiction comics series described by its creators as "a rural noir”.), I would specify who the “creators” are (i.e. Tim Seeley and Mike Norton) in order to avoid potential confusion.
 * I am not certain about the following sentence (Set in central Wisconsin, Revival follows the aftermath of one day when the dead came back to life and the ensuing intrigue.). I am not sure if that “of one day” part is absolutely necessary as the phrase could be shortened to (Revival follows the aftermath of the dead coming back to life). Also these two parts (the aftermath) and (the ensuing intrigue) seems to be talking about the same thing so it seems a little too repetitive. If these two ideas are different, then it needs to be further unpacked.
 * For this part (, but touches on religious, moral and social themes), I would change it to (, while touching on religious, moral and social themes) as I am not sure if the “but” construction is the best approach for this context.
 * Are you using the Oxford comma in this article? You do use it in this instance (with art by Mike Norton, coloring by Mark Englert, and covers by Jenny Frison) but not in this other instance (but touches on religious, moral and social themes).
 * For this sentence (Although the conclusion was determined from the beginning, the exact length of the series was determined by sales.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “determined”.
 * This is more of a nitpick, but I would change the ALT text for the main infobox image. I think it would be more valuable to provide a brief physical description of the character rather than just say the character’s name. If a reader has not read this before, then just saying “Em” may not be that helpful in the end.
 * This is more of a clarification question. For this sentence (Everyone who died within a few miles of Wausau, Wisconsin, on January 1 returns to life on January 2.), does the comic provide a year for these dates?
 * I am a little confused by this part (It is led by Detective Dana Cypress). First, you identified Dana as a police officer in the lead. Second, I am not sure if “Detective” needs to be capitalized or not.
 * I am not sure about this sentence (The revivers are now immortal and heal from all wounds.). Something about the “now” reads a little weird to me, and I am not sure if it is needed.
 * I would introduce the concept of “Revival Day” in the first sentence just to make it clear what it means.
 * Do you think it would be more helpful to move the image in the “Plot summary” section to the top so it would be closer to the part in which the “creeps”/“glowing men” are first introduced.
 * In this section, you refer to some characters by their first names “Dana” and “Em” and others by their last names “Majak” and “Holt”. It is not a major issue for me, but I wanted to point it out to you.
 * Should Revival Day be in quotation marks? There are a few instances where it is in quotation marks, and a few instances where it is not in quotation marks.
 * I was a little confused by this sentence (He also considered using her in Hack/Slash, but that version eventually became Acid Angel.), particularly this section (but that version eventually became Acid Angel). Could you possibly explain what you mean by this?
 * Please link White Noise in the following sentence ( They were inspired by Don DeLillo's novel White Noise, which follows people trying to escape an approaching cloud but no one knows what it actually is.).
 * “The Walking Dead” is linked multiple times in the article.
 * I have made the requested changes. I prefer to refer to characters by last name, but used "Dana" and "Em" in this case because they share a last name. If you find this distracting, I do not oppose using first names for everyone. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my comments. As for the point on names, I understand what you mean now and I think that it makes the most sense. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I support this for promotion, and good luck this time around with this article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC? Either way, have a great day and I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Refs 3, 19, 25: What makes "Bleeding Cool" a high quality, reliable source?
 * Ref 18: The link seems to go to the wrong page – I can't locate the source title there.
 * Ref 35: What makes "SKTCHD" a high quality, reliable source?
 * Ref 47: Ditto "Comic Crusaders" – it advertises itself as "by fans for fans"
 * Ref 63: Why the italics (see 4, 46, 55)? Also, the retrieval date format should be consistent with all the others.

Note: questioning a source's reliability does not mean I'm assuming it's unreliable. I just need more information. Subject to the above queries, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bleeding Cool has been referenced by reliable sources like Comics Beat, Newsarama, Multiversity, and The Week (magazine).
 * That's...bizarre. CBR seems to have deleted it. I have replaced it with a new link to Multiversity.
 * SKTCHD writer David Harper is regularly referenced by other reliable sources.
 * Comic Crusaders is a review site with editorial oversight. The reference is paired with another from Newsarama to show that multiple reviewers felt it stood out among other zombie comics at the time. I'm ok with removing it if need be.
 * Two of the italic references were due to templates. I have corrected them. The last one is italic because it's actually a print source, not a website like all the others. I can change it too, if you think that would be best. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept what you say re Bleeding Cool and SKTCHD. On Comic Crusaders it might be wise to remove it, since the relevant text is covered, but I'll leave that to you. All other matters OK Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed Comic Crusaders. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed Comic Crusaders. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments from Moise
Hi Argento, just working my way through the article.

Production:
 * “Although Frison was planned to create the covers from the beginning, Norton provided the design for the cover of the first issue”: Here “was planned to” feels a little awkward to me. Is there another way to word this? Moisejp (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Does "Although the team planned for Frison to create the covers from the beginning..." work better? I have already made the edit. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks great, thanks.

Lead:
 * "In late 2012, Seeley and Norton were approached by more than one major network to develop Revival into a television series. The deal fell through when ABC Studios announced they were moving forward with a different property that dealt with similar themes." This doesn't seem precise. The deal with ABC fell through at this time, but presumably discussions with NBC did not result in anything due to other circumstances.
 * I have rewritten this to be more precise. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary:
 * "Meanwhile, various townspeople begin to see glowing ghost-like figures in the surrounding woods (referred to as "creeps" in writer Tim Seeley’s scripts)." I wasn't sure why you mentioned about them being referred to as creeps in scripts, when elsewhere in the article they are always called glowing men.
 * I kept the phrase in the first instance and in the image caption, but updated later references to "creeps" Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Production:
 * It says that in 2015 they were planning 48 issues, but elsewhere we learn they stopped at 47. Is there information available about why they stopped one short?
 * There is not. I assume the extra issue wasn't needed when Seeley actually wrote out the scripts, but I haven't been able to find a source that addresses the discrepancy. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviews:
 * The section is mostly very good, but the second paragraph seems a bit repetitive, and could use more variety in sentence structure.
 * I have tweaked this paragraph. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Those may be all my comments. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks good. I really enjoyed reading this. Moisejp (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review
Beginning the image review. I'm trying to follow User:Nikkimaria/Passing an image review and am working my way through all the components. To begin:
 * File:Creep meets Em.png is currently set at 250px but apparently hardcoding the size is not good, and using upright= is better. On my computer upright=1.4 seems to be about the same size as what it is currently.
 * The infobox image has alt text, but File:Creep meets Em.png currently does not seem to.
 * File:Creep meets Em.png is near the beginning of the article, but are there any other free images you can find that are relevant that would help break up the text and create visual interest? I randomly clicked on the link for Craig Thompson and think the images of him could be possible candidates, although I don't know if there are better ones out there. Moisejp (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The sizing issue was corrected by User:Curly Turkey (Thanks buddy!)
 * I added alt text to the creep image per Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images.
 * I added images of the writer and artist (from their articles) to the early inspiration section and an image of the minimate toy to the end of the publication section. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Argento. I'm not an expert image reviewer, but I wonder whether the third non-free image that you have uploaded (File:Em Cypress Minimate.png) is warranted. When I do music-related articles, the only non-free image I ever use is the album/single cover, but I can understand for comic-related articles, using maybe one non-free image to show the style of art makes sense. But is it common among recently(-ish) promoted comic-related articles to have as many as three non-free images? The image of the minimate seems possibly superfluous, and not crucial to the reader's understanding of the comic as a whole. But I'm happy to be convinced if you make a good argument for why it's valid or there is a strong precedent for doing such. If in doubt, would it be better to replace the minimate with another free-image artist such as Craig Thompson (I'm not fixated on him, by the way—it's just his name falls in a pretty good place in the article where an image could go)?

Also, if you do keep the minimate image, there is a notice on the page that says "This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version"—you would need to fix that. Additionally, I'm a little confused that at the bottom of the Non-free rationale for the image, it says "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license..." Is this correct? It sounds possibly contradictory, unless the meaning is actually completely different. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done two previous comic FA articles. Archie vs. Predator is ~20k and has one non-free image, The Fade Out is ~28k and has two. This one is ~38k. I'd be fine with removing it - I only added it because I thought you were asking for more images.
 * I chose it because it seemed like a good place for another image (pretty close to Craig Thompson), and because I thought it would be a good visual aid for readers who aren't familiar with what a minimate is. The rationale was one of the options when I was uploading. This is the first time I've worked with this type of image, so it's quite possible it was done incorrectly.
 * I think good alternatives would be Craig Thompson's alternate cover or an interior image of Dana and Ramin. I've been looking for one, but haven't found a suitable one yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, your point that readers may well not know what a minimate is, and thus is a good visual aid, is convincing (I didn't know what it was). Since there are no exact specifications for how many non-free images are allowed, only general ones, I think three is not pushing the limit too much more than two. Let's leave it in for now and see if any other editors jump in and disagree. Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see User:Theo's Little Bot reduced the size of the image, so that problem is solved. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to the Purpose of use description to hopefully make the non-free image rationale stronger. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I did a couple more minor tweaks and am now satisfied the images are all in order. Moisejp (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment for coordinators
This has been up for a while now but still isn't getting much attention. As I'd prefer to not have to relist it a fourth time, is there anything that can be done to help move this along? I have added it to the WikiCup/Reviews Needed template, although it's actually ineligible for the contest. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can provide some comments later today.  ceran  thor 15:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor
Overall, prose seems comprehensive and engaging. Some comments to start here.  ceran  thor 02:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "described by creators Tim Seeley and Mike Norton as "a rural noir"." - This needs a citation as a direct quote; also, it's a bit odd to end the first sentence this way
 * "Writer Seeley and artist Norton worked with colorist Mark Englert and cover artist Jenny Frison to produce the series," - Seems kind of mechanical writing - "writer S and artist N worked with ..."; a little more natural flow would help
 * "It has since been collected into both paperback and hardcover editions." - what do you mean by "collected into?"
 * I switched the verb to "reprinted" and clarified the PBs and HCs contain 6-12 issues each.
 * "The story is centered on detective Dana Cypress and her revived sister Em, while touching on religious, moral and social themes." - why is the "while" necessary?
 * "The mystery of Em's murder and the cause of "Revival Day" are closely linked." - what's revival day? this sentence is vague
 * "Some of them begin to take physical risks or be otherwise careless because they do not fear harm." - "be otherwise careless" is clunky
 * "As a result, Dana and Ramin investigate several murders in the weeks following Revival Day." - it's not clear from this, but does this mean the revivers can kill people and those people will remain dead permanently?
 * Yes. Only people who died January 1st are revivers. I tried to make this clear in the first paragraph, but am happy to take suggestions for improvement.
 * "Some CDC researchers discover high levels of heavy water" - heavy water?
 * "Edmund Holt, a local man paranoid about government overreach, organizes a group to resist what he believes are unlawful actions." - presumably you mean that he wants to resist the seizures, but you don't say that clearly enough
 * That's one example, but there were several subplots I cut for length.
 * "Em's reviver status is discovered and she is confined to the dairy farm." - how?
 * The end result of another subplot. I added a bit of detail, but a full explanation would require another 150+ words. I don't mind to add it, but some commenters have indicated the plot summary is already pushing its word limit.
 * "As tensions mount between the military and the people of Wausau, a riot is started at a picket line" - why the passive voice "is started" instead of "a riot starts"?
 * Another subplot - it was intentionally started by a drug dealer who used it as a cover for his own plans.
 * "The revivers and the creeps escape the dairy farm and begin to attack the military." - why "begin to attack" instead of just "attack?"
 * "The imbalance is still affecting the river, and will grow to threaten all life on Earth." - how?
 * The legend involved a magical realm that was vague in-story and more of a Deus ex machine than a vital detail.
 * "Seeley was interested setting a story" - missing an "in" after interested
 * "predominately Christian" - do you mean predominantly?
 * "subtley because it's "easy to do it way overdone".[7]" - typo; subtlety
 * "Both Seeley and Norton are writers as well as artists, so each contributed to character designs and plot ideas" - this seems to contradict other parts of the article that declare one as the writer and the other the artist
 * They are credited as W & A individually on this book, but each has played both roles on other works. For this collaboration, they discussed the plot before Seeley wrote the script by himself. Seeley provided some design ideas for the art, but the artwork in the comic is only Norton's.
 * "According to Dave Carter, a writer for Comics Beat, this is a typical sales pattern for a modern comic.[32]" - watch your tense; you switch to present tense amid a paragraph of past tense
 * "The series' specific focus on non-whites" - might be better as "non-white people"
 * I made changes per most of your suggestions. Some items I responded to but have not acted on. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All fine by me. My last suggestion would be to bump the image of the Em Cypress minimate up within the section a bit. Otherwise, support.  ceran  thor 16:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've bumped the image up a paragraph. Thanks for taking the time to leave your comments! Argento Surfer (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.