Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Storm (comics)/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Storm (comics)
Self-nomination. Hi fellow Wikipedians, the article on Storm (comics) is already a GA, and after requesting peer review and adding many valuable proposed amendments, I have decided to go for the FAC. I tried to make the page look like Batman, one of the few other FAs of comparable comic book characters (i.e. North American superheroes). After reading the FA criteria, I think FAC can be proposed. Happy reading! —Onomatopoeia 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The image Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg has an incorrect license, GNL wouldn't apply here, it would fall under fair use, no source is provided either. Also try have a reference for each paragraph. M3tal H3ad 08:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed pic. For referencing each paragraph, I'll reread and try to find out the gaps. —Onomatopoeia 10:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The way the article is currently written the "Fictional character biography" section seems superficial. All the information here is already covered in greater detail further up in the "Publication history" sections. I don't think a summary in the middle of the article is very useful. I suggest moving some stuff from "Publication" to "Fictional", alternativly moving "Fictional" above " Publication" Fornadan (t) 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, a fic bio was proposed per peer review, and a fictional bio is also part of the FA Batman, after which I modelled this article on. The thing is that retroactive continuity (i.e. rewriting history) is quite common (e.g. in Wolverine or Superman), so often pub history != fictional bio. But if you FA reviewers think differently, ok, I am not strict on that. —Onomatopoeia 08:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose excessive fair use media; most images claimed as fair use are too large.--Peta 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - What do you expect of a character who is copyrighted? I removed a couple though, but I support this well written and out-of-universe article. Wiki-newbie 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment These images need to be thumbnailed -- some of them are print quality, and need fixing. If you can click through to a larger filesize from the image description page, that's a good indicator we're using too much of the image.  Jkelly 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rescaled the images and tagged them with furd, though the previous versions will need to be deleted by an admin in a week. By the way, the Halle Berry picture needs a licensing tag.  ShadowHalo 10:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment IMHO, Storm should have following pics: a pic of herself with her storm power; Giant-Size X-Men 1; punk look; marriage to Black Panther; everything else in other media. Callisto, Forge and the variant Black Panther #18 (2006 African look) are debatable. I see Peta's point, but are there some, well, more content-based comments? —Onomatopoeia 11:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is certainly better than the average comic character article on Wikipedia, but not up to Featured standard yet. It needs a thorough copyedit, but before that it needs some underlying issues fixed:
 * Level of detail. In general the "Publication history" section does a good job of boiling all the convoluted plots down to a reasonable length, but the 80s subsection has some unneeded detail.  I don't think we need quite so much information about why Rogue is wanted by the government in Uncanny #185, or why exactly Storm has to fight Callisto.
 * Character and plot insight. The "Publication history" section needs to explain the character development more fully. For example, the knife fight with Callisto is explained simply as "further establish[ing] Storm's character strength".  But that misses the point; the surprise in that scene is that Storm is now willing to kill.  (We know that because other characters comment on it -- Claremont never hesitates to tell you what to think.)  Again, "Storm's outlook on life darkens after her struggles with the Brood" is a bland description that doesn't really explain what is going on and why.  We're told that she was influenced by Yukio, but not what kind of influence it was.  And so on.
 * Insufficient out-of-universe analysis. There are a few places where the article explains the reasons why things were done, which is good, but doesn't go far enough.  For example, early on the article mentions that Storm was one of a new, international team brought in to replace the all-white, all-American original X-Men.  That's a dramatic move -- whose idea was this, and why did they do it?  Claremont and Lobdell must have given interviews at some point; what did they say about Storm?  Also, the article needs more information about responses to the character.  Was she popular at her introduction?  How did fans respond to major changes like her "punk look" or the wedding?  Is there any evidence to show whether or not Storm appeals to a nontraditional audience for superhero comics (African American girls, or girls in general)?  What have reviewers said about her?  Have her character or her character arcs influenced other comics?  The article doesn't necessarily have to have every one of these things, but it does need substantially more analysis to go with the plot descriptions.
 * 1990s section. The repeated references to Lobdell ("Lobdell waited.... Lobdell continued.... Lobdell let....") are awkward. If there's information available about why he wrote what he wrote, by all means add it.  Otherwise, repeated use of his name doesn't help.
 * Historical significance. It's odd to summarize a single pop-culture critic's view of Storm as a stereotype and then add, "However, in 2006, Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Joe Quesada called Storm 'one of the greatest female characters ever and certainly the greatest African character ever conceived'."  A bit like saying "The District Attorney charged him with 37 counts of bestiality and mail fraud, but his mother thinks he's great."  The section should examine a variety of views from people who aren't Marvel Comics executives.
 * Film. Another example of missing analysis: I know Halle Berry was a controversial choice to play Storm, and that she was reported (inaccurately?) as complaining about the idea of playing a comic book character. Please tell me about that.  Also, what did reviewers think?  The films brought the character to a much wider audience, so I think a longer treatment is justified.
 * A small point: the image described as the cover of Uncanny #225 is an interior panel from #226. I changed the caption, but the fair use rationale needs to be changed too if the image winds up being kept. &mdash;Cel  ithemis  11:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Object. There are some unreferenced paragraphs (parts of the article are excellent in terms of reference coverage, but parts are not). Also, I find it puzzling the article doesn't link to bad girl art?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.