Wikipedia:Featured article review/Batman/archive1

Batman

 * Article is still a featured article

While I love Batman, this article simply needs a serious rewrite, a peer review, and to be resubmitted to the FACs. It is filled with one paragraph sections (and generally poor formatting), lack of in-line citations, it is uncompressive and needs expansion at the same time, especially for info on the versions of the character in other media, such as the films. It also features a trivia section which in and of itself would prevent the article from reaching FA status today. The article was greenlit for FA status very very early on with only two supports out of two contributors, so it's not surprising that it has gone down hill.


 * The version at the time of FA initiation: As of December 16, 2003
 * And now: As of June 6, 2006
 * The difference: December 16, 2003 to June 6, 2006
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Filmaker (talk • contribs)


 * Keep This article is comprehensive. It does not lack references, it lacks in-line citations but this is not a reason to de-feature. The copy-editing may be a concern but it is nothing major. Also I suggest talking to the Comics Wikiproject and also to leave comments on talk page before listing for nomination per procedure.
 * Also, I believe the info on other media lacks a paragraph at most since Batman has been a comic book character for more than 60 years, and his appearances in other media do not have the importance of its 60 year comic history. Maybe a paragraph on the 4 filams and the TV series. Joelito (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my...there is a trivia section --Osbus 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've revised my rationale. The Filmaker 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, just remove the trivia section. Again that's not something for de-featuring. Joelito (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - based on your diff, it looks like there have been many improvements since it was promoted. If the Trivia section is nixed, then I've got no problems with this article. The Disco King 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * remove - this is a serious POV biased article. serious cruft piece, reads like it was written by the Comic Book Guy. 4 example, the fanboy-reviled TV show (which had much, much more exposure than any comic referenced here) is barley mentioned. --Ghetteaux 14:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, you tried to add a jokes section to it and have repeatedly vandalized the "homosexual interpretations" section. You even tried to link Ace the Bathound to McGruff the crime dog without any source whatsoever. I am fascinated with your attempts to weaken this article and your accusation of POV. --Chris Griswold 17:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur -- this vote should be called into serious question, given the user's past vandalism to the page. ~CS 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Batman is a comic book character which happened to have a TV show. It should be expected that the show not be covered extensively. But, I agree that a sentence or two is missing from the other media section. But is that a reason to defeature? A missing paragraph or two? Joelito (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I aware that we are entitled to post our concerns with the article in the talk page before we nominate for FARC, but I simply....... forgot. Still, I have to say that this article lacks in-line citations, features one sentence paragraphs, and one paragraph sections. I retract my original statement that it has "gone down hill" and admit it has actually improved, but that does not mean it is feature worthy. If it was put through the FAC today it would not last. The Filmaker 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - If anything, this article has improved since being labeled as a feature article. There might be a thing or to to change or remove, but we cand accomplish that in a day or two. --Chris Griswold 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's been improving, and while it's a touch long and I'd like to see it spun out into some daughter articles, the content is rather comprehensive. The TV show has it's own article, Ghetteaux. Trvia section is all gone now. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's been lot's of work as a result of this FARC. All this needed was a nudge to bring it up to spec. Is it normal for an article to be listed without a anything being said on it's talk page? CovenantD 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What are inline citations? Are they the things used in the article's Homosexual interpretations section? As to the article being one paragraph sections that are discussed at greater length in longer, separate articles, I take it you are familiar with WP:SS, WP:SIZE and WP:BREAK?  A lot of work was put into this article when it became too long and was suggested for farc before, although in that instance the concerns were addressed on the talk page rather than here.  Hiding Talk 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Demote. Will change my vote if the films are adequately addressed. Otherwise it looks good compared to many other articles in the comics category. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The films are discussed, in summary in the other media section, and in detail in the articles regarding the films. The article is too long to allow discussion of every aspect of the character, and has been broken up per guidelines on the matter. Hiding Talk 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing the significance of the films to Batman's perception in popular culture, that little paragraph is rather disappointing. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But wikipedia is edited by consensus and that's the way the consensus shaped the article. Perhaps you would be so kind as to help shape the article.  The difference between the last bout in response to the page size can be seen roughly, in this differential. I agree that there are better ways to split or structure this article, but unless people are willing to become involved in the debate and help see the process through, it's hard to agree on a common purpose.  There's strong feeling that the article should reflect the character's existence in comics, given that is the main source of the character's history.  I don't see that the fact that the article can'tr support all the information people desire due to article size should be a reason to remove the FA status, that seems unfair. Hiding Talk 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * that is the root of the problem. bias exists everywhere. examples: Encyclopedia = written by experts, biased towards personal views. WIkipedia batman article = written by consensus of internet-abusing batman fanboys = not neutral POV. just my $0.02. --Ghetteaux 10:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would seem to be the conclusion. And btw, @Hiding, I can vote here even if I don't edit the article. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we create a 'Cultural_impact_of_Batman' page, much like the one for Wonder Woman? Spinning off sections into secondary pages isn't a bad idea, and the Batman page will start to stagger under it's own weight of conflicting histories if we try and fit it all in one.  On that sort of page, we can address the TV shows (animated and otherwise) and movies, as well trivia 'bits' that demonstrate Bats' influence outside the comics.  This page, as it stands now, is primarily for Batman the comic book hero. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 11:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I w2as thinking the same thing after we did that for Wonder Woman. It would allow us to bring back some of the good information recently deleted and put it into a better context. --Chris Griswold 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather that stuff was on this page and that the detailed character biography and sections on all his paraphernalia were sectioned off to Batman (comics). Hiding Talk 19:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at Superman and Wonder Woman as examples, both are primarily comic characters. Yes, they have movies and TV shows, but if you're looking up Batman, it's more likely you're looking up the comic. It's more notable than the multiple TV/movie versions, and should be the focus of the page. If you're suggesting a split to pull out the comic pages, a History of Batman page would be a logical start there (obviously IMO as last time I was bold and did that it got reverted). -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Given you're discussing Wonder Woman as an example of where you just performed this sort of split, I don't think we can discuss that as a counter point here. As to what this article should do, this should be the top level article on Batman.  It should summarise every aspect of Batman to a reader, and should not seek to make value judgements on what that reader is looking for, that is a POV.  I'd appreciate how you reach the conclusion that most people are looking for information on the comic book version of Batman, can we agree that a wider audience are more familiar with the film or TV versions of the character than the comic book version, which at best has, what, 327 000 (+/- 1%) regular readers, if we assume each reader of an individual series is unique, according to April sales figures? Given the worldwide gross of the Burton Batman movie is cited here as being $413,200,000, even if we assume an average ticket price is $1000, it is greater than the comic book readership.  I think we can safely assume audience awareness of the movie version is far greater than the comics. We should avoid giving any aspect of the character undue weight in the article, per WP:NPOV. Hiding Talk 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not NPOV, it's notability (NPOV is the comics are a damn site better than the 60s TV show). Batman, as a comic, has been around since 1939. 327,000 regular readers multiplied by about 67 years of active comic publication is pretty damn remarkable. Also, in keeping with the other superhero comics, the 'main' page tends to be based on the medium which birthed the hero, which is comics for Batman. The Green Hornet, if his page was large enough to warrent is, should primarily focus on him as a radio character. Sherlock Holmes' article is primarily about him in the books by Conan Doyle, with daughter pages for Canonical deviation and non canonical.  Does that make the films, tv shows, serials, radio dramas or comics less watched? No, but it does mark them as what they are: less notable. Even if you first encounted Holmes on the silver screen, the books are world wide and more notable.  Batman is, first and foremost, a comic book superhero.  The rest are derivations. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we agree that Batman is a cultural icon and should be handled in a different manner to other articles based on superheroes. That's long been my reading of the discussions on the Batman talk page and WPT:COMICS?  I would say that Batman is, first and foremost, a cultural icon, in fact, The Guardian have gone so far as to describe the character as "the perfect cultural artifact for the 21st century". We should also agree that the article is a Featured Article and thus is to be handled in a manner different from non-featured articles. Other similar featured articles, to reference the manner in which they cover their topic, include The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Adventures of Tintin, Doctor Who, Coronation Street, Middle-earth and Starship Troopers.  Featured Article criteria require that a topic is covered in a "comprehensive" manner, noting that "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details. The topic is Batman, not Batman, the comic book version. Also note, it is your point of view as to what makes Batman notable, and also, that undue weight dictates we should not give any details undue weight in an article. Detailing Batman's recent adventures in comic books read by a handful of people to the exclusion of the impact the character has made in films and television programmes places undue weight on such details.  Hiding Talk 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No we cannot agree, see Superman for example who is a major cultural icon. The character development of Batman happened entirely in the comic books. Films are just adpatations of the comic book persona. I agree that they should be given a little more importance in the article but I disagree that we should not give undue weight to the comic book aspect. Joelito (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is a policy, and cannot be disregarded as lightly as your comment implies it can be. The article Superman is perhaps not the best example, as it does not meet the Featured Article status either, but I am refraining from nominating it per WP:POINT. The films may be adaptations of the comic book version, but their impact on the audiences understanding of the character is the sort of thing that should be analysed in an encyclopedic article, not the fact that, to quote the article, in a recent comic book "Batman and a team of superheroes, including the new Blue Beetle, destroy Brother Eye and the OMACs". This is a serious breach of the undue weight policy. Hiding Talk 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hiding, I think you;re missing the point I was trying to make. it's not NPOV to give weight to that which is, has been and should be the weightiest (i.e. comics).Now, that you're arguing that it's just my POV that the more weighty aspect of Batman is the comics is a slightly different story. I can't prove or disprove that in any way :) Batman's a cultural icon, but he became that way because the comics were popular. Does comprehensive mean we have to include every detail of every aspect of Batman? Does comprehensive mean we're not permitted to spawn off children articles to make an article easier to read? If you're saying we should trim the article in some respects and give more equal time to various other medium interpretations of Batman, then I agree. Spawn off a couple sections (trim the comic char stuff into History of Batman and keep the most important, though that's harder to say for current issues...).  If you're saying everything about Batman belongs in one article (which is what I'm hearing), then I disagree. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I missed your point, although I'll reiterate my understanding of it. You want this page to look like Wonder Woman which analyses only the comic book character, and not the character as a whole and its various representations and impact and meaning to society as a whole. I want a top level page of a cultural icon such as Batman to discuss the character in whole, its impact and differing representations and what they mean and have meant to society as a whole.  I do not mean we should have a 3000k article, rather that this is the top level article and each area should be given equal space relative to its worth.  I do not believe a top level, featured article which covers a topic comprehensively should have a one sentence pointer to a separate article on the cultural impact of a character, and yet discuss recent adventures in great depth.  That's a clear case of bias and undue weight. I'd also argue to the contrary that Batman became a cultural icon because of the comics.  It's a fact that Batman first appeared in comics, everything else is opinion. If it's hard to say what is important in recent issues, then don't include it, a reliable source is needed to cite an event as important, not your or my opinion. Hiding Talk 10:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (breaking this out cause it's getting squnched). Hiding, I've come to agree with what you're saying, for the most part. I was missunderstanding what you meant to be that you wanted to cram it all in and throw out the comics stuff (which is what I got when you sugested Batman (comics) for an article). I still disagree that giving more weight to the comics is bias -- the comic history is going to be longer, by dint of having more years to make more history -- I agree that it can be trimmed down to give more time to the movies and TV shows. The comment I made about it being hard to say what's important is a time-passage issue, and people tend to err on the side of more=better. After all, looking at the 80s right now, the biggest thing to happen in the Bat-comics was Jason Todd. At the time? We may have said other things. Bygones, moving on constructivly.  Step one should be to par down the Modern Age section into something more resonable.  I've made a sample suggestion here on my user page, so you can see what I mean. As for the 'other media' section, if we craft it out into subsections 'Movies' and 'Television' that may give us a better structure to address those instances, and summarize how Batman is different from 'main stream' Batman in them.  How's that sound? -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read the version that was originally nominated for FA. Are the standards really that low? This article is ten times the article the previous one was. This discussion essentially boils down to "here's what we need to do make the article better", not "this article should no longer be a featured article." This should have taken place on the talk page. --Chris Griswold 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's more that the standards were that low, but that they have been steadily raised as the encyclopedia has moved on. Sadly, whilst the standards have been raised, editing to reflect the raising of said standards has not been effected to articles already granted FA status by those raising the standards. Those of us not connected to the FA process have not been as aware of the issues as perhaps we should have been.  Hiding Talk 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of the requests for improvement on this page are valid -- but they should be part of the controbutions toward continuing to improve the page, and not grounds for demotion. The article, as it stands, is very good.  ~CS 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I take full responsibility for how awesome it is. --Chris Griswold 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very gracious of you. Perhaps you should read WP:OWN. Hiding Talk 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this covers Batman's history pretty well. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 10:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove unless the prose is fixed; it's not bad overall, but when I see text like the following, I wonder whether it has been copy-edited:
 * "Over the years, Batman's origin story, history and tone have undergone various revisions, both minor and major. Some elements have changed drastically; others, like the death of his parents and his pursuit of justice, have remained constant."
 * Do the first three words add anything useful?
 * What is an "origin story"?
 * Can "various" be removed? Why not "major and minor revisions"—says it all.
 * "Drastically" is too pejorative. "Dramatically" or "significantly" would be better.
 * "such as" is nicer here than "like".
 * Strong Keep Article is all right... SSJ 5 05:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)