Wikipedia:Featured article review/Watchmen/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 15:00, 25 October 2008.

Watchmen

 * Notified: Tombseye, Erik, WP Comics, WP Alternate History (did not notify DCAnderson; has not edited for a long time)

A lot of the article is unreferenced, including "Structure", second half of "Themes", and all of "Allusions to iconography, art, and history". This article will certainly get a lot more attention once the film based on this book is released in March 2009. Gary King ( talk ) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember User:Erik was working on a rewrite of the article a while back. I know he had concern over some of the sources used (very few of the available academic and mainstream press references available were used). I suggest notifying him. I'm willing to help out. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay done Gary King ( talk ) 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did plan to work on it a while ago, but it was one of those projects that I couldn't get around to. You can see my resource breakdown at User:Erik/Watchmen as well as my revision at User:Erik/Watchmen/Revision. This article has never been in that good shape, and I had hoped to improve. I'm busy with school these days, but feel free to utilize any resource in my user pages. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I just hash out a better version of the article using your user pages? WesleyDodds (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. :) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, everyone, I'll be using Erik's temp page at User:Erik/Watchmen/Revision to work on the article. All changes to the article should be made there. We'll copy and paste when everyone is satisfied. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "structure" section is straightforward enough to use the primary source for. The only slightly dodgy part is the symmetry as theme claim, which should actually probably be removed (with, ideally, a reference to the one really obvious structural symmetry bit, the Fearful Symmetry issue, which can be primary sourced.) The latter section could use some cleanup, however. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I started some work in the temp page, and I hope to get into the full swing of it sometime this week. Does anyone own the Absolute Edition of the book, and if so, is there any useful source material in it? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise there was a temp version, so I attacked Watchmen itself. Symmetry is definitely a noted 'theme,' as stated by Moore, Gibbons and Bhob Stewart. (Although 'theme' may not be the best term.) Rorschach's mask, the Rum Runner logo, #5. Stretching the definition of 'symmetry' slightly, the 'mirroring' of events in the plot and the Freighter, the mirroring of the micro- and macrocosm generally, the foreshadowing and shadows evoking other images and happenings... symmetry, mirroring an images as a whole are definitely integral to the whole.
 * Incidentally, as well as Absolute (which basically reprints Graphitti), Dave Gibbons' new book will shortly become THE best source for this article. ntnon (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Move your edits to the temp page, since when this wraps up it'll be a simple matter of cutting and pasting. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find the Comics Journal articles used as references online. They are both from The Comics Journal #116, published in July 1987. Would anyone happen to have a copy of these? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I now see that Ntnon added those cites. That makes things much easier. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly irrelevant comment Do any of the characters deserve their own articles? I think all of their real-world significance can be captured in this article itself... indopug (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that too. Aside from maybe Rorsharch and Dr. Manhattan, I'd say no. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. I've attempted a plot summary. It's damn hard though. I can do a one paragraph precis in five minutes, but it took me nearly three hours to crank it to four, it's trying to establish the main characters I found hardest.  I think it is descriptive, I've tried to avoid anything too outlandish or getting bogged down in too much detail.  I think it covers the main thrust of the storyline without duplicating other areas of plot summation within the article. It's hardest avoiding OR.  Arguably the last sentence is, but... it reads better than which sees them confronting both each other and their own principles or something like. There's a good paper somewhere that argues that we as the reader watch the watchmen and that the work operates on a meta-textual level. Has that been used in the article? Hiding T 10:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't overly wikified the plot summary deliberately. I think a lot of the stuff is self-explanatory, we don;t really need links to Mars and teleport, do we? And of teh stuff that I'd like to wikify, I'm unsure that that isn;t better presented in the article.  For instance, linking Ozymandias seems redundant to a paragraph later in the article which discusses the allusion.  Likewise the link I have added to the Doomsday Clock, I'm not sure that is making itself redundant?  Re-reading Watchmen you get staggered at the depth of it.  Veidt, in his moment of victory standing before a picture of Alexander the Great having just cut the Gordian Knot. Ah well.  They say there is a film on the way too. Hiding T 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, four paragraphs. That's pretty impressive. I think that it's definitely allowed to be a bit longer. I copyedited it a bit. It was really good, but still read like a "story" in some parts, where it seems to foreshadow something, when in fact it should just tell the events like it is. Overall it's pretty good and it surprisingly summarizes such a complex story pretty well. The only thing I'd like to see is the end of the plot should mention how the story ends (I don't actually have my copy of Watchmen with me right now and I'd rather not want to draw it from memory!) Right now, the end of the plot section reads very speculative and much like the end of a film; it should just tell the end like it is. Gary King ( talk ) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll read the specific summary (and maybe comment on it) later, but I mildly disagree. The ending should not be revealed unless absolutely necessary - and it is not absolutely necessary to reveal it.
 * N.B. On character articles, I think their major benefit is lightening the load of the main page somewhat. It's lengthy, but mostly rightly so. There's a wealth of information which really ought to be made available, so sectioning off even a small couple of parts helps ease the burden (as it were). ntnon (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We aren't here to censor information. The ending is part of the plot. Please have a look at existing FA articles for films, video games, etc. with plot sections. Gary King ( talk ) 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, quite. But precis isn't censorship. ;o) Hiding's severe pruning of the plot summary isn't censorship (although having now read it through, I think it's a condesation too far, myself), and the ending I was thinkinf of was the precise method of Veidt's destruction of New York. That's not necessary. 'He executes his plan' would do... maybe.
 * However, I do think that Hiding's current plot summary is too extremely short (sorry, Hiding) at the moment. The current 'summary' at Watchmen is overly lengthy, true. But then I feel that the Black Freighter sections are now better (well, I would!), but they clearly shouldn't dwarf the plot summary! (Even if that's not a true comparative exercise, since the Freighter/alt-EC bits would be analogous to themes & background, too. But on the face of it, it would look odd if the plot summary weren't around twice the length of the current temporary version.) Plus, that will give a little more scope for understanding and breathing space - particularly with all the "Juspeczyk"s! Is it completely anti-guidelines to call refer to Veidt, Manhattan, Rorschach, Dan and Laurie, or must they all be surnames..? Because Manhattan and Rorschach would be very confusing if standardized either way, but Juspeczyk is very awkward. Even doubled from the temporary version, the summary would be 2/3 or less than it is at the moment. ntnon (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about something like "Veidt's plan was to cause chaos and confusion in the world by destroying half of New York City."? Gary King ( talk ) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a little bit more to the plot summary. That should take care of most of the story. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with ntnon that we don't have to reveal the story; much of it is revealed later in the article and just because we aren't censored doesn't mean we add profanity everywhere. It's about finding a balance.  I tend to agree with Wesley that the Black Freighter stuff is superfluous to the plot; that's actually more essential to the structure than the plot, a point I think Moore has also acknowledged.  When you look at the plot you can see the truth in his statement that it is only really enough for six issues.  I'd contend it may not even have stretched that far. Amazing to think the depth the work has was achieved through padding. How do you summarise the Black Frieghter stuff.  "Meanwhile, a boy reads a comic book whose story parallels some aspects of the central plot...? Hard to do. I think the plot summary in the temp version now isn't half bad, to be honest. Hiding T 10:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Progress The plot summary is more or less set (could always use some tweaking) and Nton has be loading some essential reference material from Comics Journal articles and the like into the temp page. Once Ntnon is done, I'll be doing (from my estimate) a week's worth of rewriting using the raw material provided. We'll most likely be able to keep this article featured; however, the final result will look drastically different from the version currently in the main article today. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds great – it's starting to look better than the actual article already! And there's no better time for the article to get a major overhaul, what with the upcoming film and all. The article will definitely get a lot of edits once that comes out. Gary King ( talk ) 14:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think the plot summary is too brief, but... we'll see. :o) Frankly, I'm still not convinced that it needed a ground-up rewrite, but depending on the how it looks "drastically different," I'll comment again then. I'll try and streamline my edits now, to give the Sandman a headstart. Also - is it possible to layer the entireity of the revision edits over the top of the current article, so that the FULL edit history would remain intact..? ntnon (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The two pages can be merged together. Gary King ( talk ) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just going to cut and paste. That's what I did when I was working to make Joy Division a Featured Article. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cut and paste is a common practice; that's fine. Gary King</b> ( talk ) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a history merge is more compliant with the GFDL personally. Hiding T 09:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Plot summary

I've made some changes to the additions to the plot summary made by Ntnon. I've removed a fair bit so I've broken this into a separate section to detail the what and why. I appreciate this is probably going to be disputed, but I think there are issues with interpreting primary source here. I also made a few style changes, for example an em dash per WP:DASH and also the using of last names per WP:BIO, which you could argue doesn't apply but I will argue it does in order to maintain a consistent style across Wikipedia. I also broke up a few instances of run on sentences.

''...police are investigating the probable murder of Edward Blake, who has fallen to his death. After the police find no leads, further investigation falls to costumed vigilante Rorschach, who decides to probe further after discovering a bloodstained smiley face badge in the gutter. Revealing Blake to be the face behind the Comedian, a costumed hero employed by the United States government, Rorschach believes that his murder indicates a plot to eliminate costumed adventurers. He therefore sets about warning four of his erstwhile colleagues, forced into early retirement (or compliance) by a repressive Government.''


 * It's either a probable murder or a murder, and Blake either fell to his death or was thrown. In the second sentence we describe it as a probable murder, but in the next sentence we indicate it is a murder. I think this is conflicting, repetitive and redundant. This is a plot summary and needs to be as brief as possible, not getting bogged down in too much detail.  We need to work out what the important plot points are here, and for me the important things are the murder and the discovery of Blake as the Comedian.  That is what initiates the plot.  Also, Rorschach did not decide to probe further after discovering the badge. The first page shows him walking through the blood, and his motivation for investigation is never clarified, although on page 11 issue 1 he states he had "investigated a routine homicide."

...emotionally detached super-powered Doctor Manhattan.'


 * I just think that's too many adjectives, and that if you read it out loud it doesn't work as well as super-powered and emotionally detached.

...once the mentally superior hero Ozymandias and now the world's richest man.


 * I removed the mentally superior because the sentence makes it seem he was once mentally superior but no longer is.

''...don their costumes in an attempt to rekindle a love of adventure..."


 * The text indicates but isn't explicit enough on the reasons for donning costumes, but Dreiberg states he just wanted to "blow away the cobwebs", due to building anxiety and see if taking the ship out would "get myself straight". Page 20, issue 7. Not really to rekindle a love of adventure.

Realizing there is no escape, Rorschach tells Mahattan to kill him...


 * This is interpretive. The reason why Rorschach tells Manhattan to kill him isn't explicit in the text.  Moore has made it clear elsewhere that it was because he realised Rorschach would not compromise. There are many interpretations open to the reader here, so I don't think we can enforce one in the summary. We don't know that Rorscach realizes there is no escape.  We only know he confronts Manhattan and tells him to do it.  Manhattan at this point has a choice too.  We aren't saying that Manhattan, realizing there is no escape (alternative), kills Rorschach. Maybe we should say that Manhattan, seeking to protect Veidt's plan, kills Rorschach.  It's a very layered situation, with Manhattan's final "Rorschach..." and Rorschach's retort of "Do it!" leaving many readings possible.

''Veidt asks Manhattan for closure, confident yet doubting that everything worked out "in the end." Manhattan, standing within Veidt's orrery, replies simply "Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends," and leaves Earth for good. In the more open and multi-cultural society that has been created, Dreiberg and Juspeczyk attempt to live a more normal, but adventurous life, even as cracks begin to appear in the now-'perfect' world.''


 * I think this is just too much detail and there are too many quotes. I don't think Veidt is looking for closure, either, he's actually looking for Manhattan to approve his method rather than the result when he asks "I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end." I think he's looking for reassurance and approval from the one being he respects and sees as a peer. Manhattan chooses to pick him up on the fact that Veidt believes it has ended. I'm also unsure how well established it is that the world post-Veidt is more open, or that cracks begin to appear. I'd also be wary of stating Manhattan leaves Earth for good. That's beyond the bounds of the story. What is curious is that Manhattan says he understands Veidt's plan "without condoning or condemning", which seems to contradict his killing of Rorschach, an act which appears to condone. See what I mean about speculation. :)

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my thinking behind all the changes I made, I'm certainly open to reaching a consensus on a finished form. I'd point out it was at Wesley's request that the summary be shortened to three to five paragraphs, and I tend to agree with what I believe is Wesley's underlying point that less is more. I don;t think we need too much detail to understand the main thrust of the plot, which when you look at it is pretty insubstantial. The depth is something that is hard for us to comment on without breaching WP:OR, sadly. Hiding T 09:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely approve. There's one problem I haven't quite figure out how to address: how do we work in the final scene into the plot summary? The scene (especially the final panel of the series) primarily works on implication. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should. It's not a main plot point, and it is already made in Manhattan's line "Nothing ever ends". I mean, you'd have to introduce Rorschach's journal, the crank newspaper, and the mailing of and then describe the fact that "in the final panel, seeking filler material for the latest issue, the office junior's hand hovered over the newspaper's crank file, a pile in which Rorschach's journal was placed almost to the top." It's meaningless, trivial and best left to a reading of the work itself, since it is so open to speculation. It's left to the reader to decide whether the journal is published, and if so whether the conspiracy theory is believed, and so whether the utopia will crumble, and we already have Moore's opinion, in Manhattan's words. And to be honest, it paints a certain picture of Rorschach, doesn't it, that his principles are in the hands of... but again that's Moore's biggest point. We watch the watchmen. Even ginger haired over-weight juvenile people of limited ability have to take responsibility. I think the final page, if it is discussed anywhere, needs secondary sourcing.  Here:


 * When it

appears that Rorschach’s journal will be published by the New Frontiersman in the end, dramatic irony occurs as the reader knows that the contents of the journal may unravel the new world peace, or the journal may be seen as the ravings of a lunatic when it contains the real truth of the situation. The question left at the end is whether or not the journal will be published, and whether or not Rorschach gets to have the last word, ending the lie that has ended the Cold War. This narrative ambiguity is a definite change from the clear-cut superhero comic ending, where the reader knows definitively who is evil and who is good, and which side has won. At the end of Watchmen, the reader is left feeling unsure of the morality of the superheroes, and whether good has prevailed.


 * and

Holman believes that Watchmen boils down to a call to action, that Moore is calling the reader to participate in politics and watch the watchman. For Holman, Watchmen is all about existential personal responsibility. Indeed, the ambiguity of the ending, and the closing statement, “I leave it entirely in your hands,” demands the readers’ participation in deciding the message of Watchmen, as well as extending this personal responsibility to the rest of their lives. The fact that Watchmen contains a call to individual responsibility removes it from the realm of mere entertainment, and to the realm of texts with themes and complexity, known as literature.
 * , it's a pdf so that's a link to the marker file. Can you get hold of Holman, Curtis Lehner. Reinventing the Wheel: A Multi-perspective Analysis of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Graphic Novel Watchmen. MA thesis. U of Georgia, 1989. through your library, might be of use as well.  Hiding T 12:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No sub-headings at FAR please, see the instructions. Lengthy commentary can be moved to the talk page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments, considering that this is one of the ten longest FAs, I question if summary style has been effectively used, (Crit 4), and I also question crit. 2(b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. I also saw an external jump, pull quotes that need to be addressed per WP:MOS and lots of problems in the citation formatting. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, we're working at User:Erik/Watchmen/Revision, which I believe resolves all of those concerns. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm currently working on trimming it down to size. Most of the excess size comes from unnecessarily-detailed quotes and long sections of original research and synthesis which need to be discarded anyway. The user page with the revision is currently around 83 kb, and will get shorter as time goes on. And references are being standarized as I go. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Down to 68kb. Plot synopsis and background section are mostly done. Working on publication and critical reception next. Trying to get the hard facts stuff taken care of before tackling structure/themes/motifs. The goal is to be done with the draft by a week from now.WesleyDodds (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I worry that this is too extreme - and the merchandising needs to return in some form: it was the badges that caused many of the problems between Moore and DC. I have some more sources, though, so I'll be able to assist with various references. I'm found something that talks about it being one of the first tpbs, since you took out that information under source-issues, because that's integral to the contract/agreement troubles.
 * (Incidentally, why were the page numbers of the TCJ edited out..? And the editor? Groth is often cited as being rather hands-on with his editing duties, so it seems odd to take that out. Not as odd as the page numbers, though..)
 * Minor query - why is there a "[sic]" after "best of breed"..? It's a reasonably well-known phrase, I would have thought.
 * It's useful to note "The eleventh printing onwards have been published in the US by DC Comics' parent company's printing arm, Warner Books, under the more familiar bloodied badge cover." and, if the citation I put there isn't good enough, cite the book itself...
 * Grid layout is important (maybe also lack of thought balloons/sound effects).
 * The piecemeal 'script feeding' is as important to the creation as the grid layout, and explains the delays effectively.
 * Nuclear holocaust is surely a subset of "apocalypicism".
 * The million-copy printrun is important.
 * The s/prequel is important.
 * (again) The badges are VITAL. The Mayfair Games things are extremely notable - the only non-DCU thing released under the DC Heroes line; Moore-approved elements, universe-expanding text, etc.
 * The smiley face (currently in "miscellaneous") clearly needs to be in "symbols and allusions" (good title), particularly when set against the TCJ #116 cover.
 * I'll stick some sources in the footer later on, or something. ntnon (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wary of keeping anything in the article that is not attributed to a reliable source. As this is a Feature Article, it shoudl only utilize the best sources. According to the New York Times article I found last night, the reason Moore left DC was because they kept Watchmen in print. As for the magazine references, all that's really needed when citing an article are the author, article title, publication, and date; it's the standard way I cite articles when working with music topics. The million-copy print run is mentioned in the "Film" section. Badges have been moved to "Publication" since they were intended as promotion; sequel info is there now too. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wes, I've just added a lot of material to your talk page for want of somewhere else to put it. I don't mind taking a pass or two if that's okay with you. Amongst them you'll note two more reasons for why Moore left DC.  It appears to change.  I should be able to source the merchandising claim too at some point. Have you got either of Sabin's books? They both sit here on my shelf along with Gravett's one on the graphic novel. Hiding T 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What books are you referring to? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sabin's Adult Comics and Comics, Comix and Graphic Novels, and Gravett's Graphic Novels. Hiding T 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have Comics, Comix and Graphic Novels at my library; i didn't relaly find anything usable in it. Anything useful from the other books, put it in the Miscellaneous section in the temp page. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Publishing and reception" section is about 80 percent done. I need cites for those Eisner and Kirby Award wins. A Google Book search turned up a Comics Journal issue that listed some awards the series won, but it wouldn't let me see the entire page. Anyway, any help with that would be great. Going to tackle the characters section next; hopefully we can make the individual articles for each main character completely pointless (which they probably already are, given that they primarily consist of plot info). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What TCJ issue is it, I may have it but my run is patchy pre 230 or so. Hiding T 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Google Books says it's issue 123, from 1988. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, got kind of delayed by a recent discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past day, but I decided to skip ahead to the composition and structure. I'll most likely be folding the section about symbols into it. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing my projection for completion to Wednesday. Background and Reception are done aside for minor details; Art and Composition is about 75 percent done; I still need to insert more information in the characters section for Veidt and Silk Spectre; Alientraveller may or may not get around to sprucing up the Film section. Themes is the last section I really haven't done major work with yet; that one requires me to read some adacemic essays I haven't gone through yet. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If not obvious, I'm leaving this up in review until you're all ready. Marskell (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am almost done. I need to finish up the Themes section, revise the lead, add a little more info on Veidt and Silk Spectre, and work in the stray bits of info I have placed at the bottom of the draft page. I'm waiting to hear back on a few editors in regards to some source material and whether or not I should go ahead and revise the film section myself. At this point I'd like other editors to give the draft a look and a copy-edit. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Update I've copied the draft version to the main article space. There's a few things I still need to add, and the lead needs expansion, but it's more or less done now. So what does everyone think? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, bravo! The article looks in great order.  Just a couple of nitpicks -- does the "Film adaptation" section need to be so long?  I mean, we have a whole article for it... why not just have the first paragraph of the film article's lead section, minus its last sentence?  It seems succinct enough.  Secondly, is there a plan for the critical analysis I mentioned a while ago?  I think that its content would flesh out "Themes" even further.  I will have to take a closer look at the content, but from what I saw developing on the subpage, a lot of good changes were made.  This article is probably in the best shape of its lifetime, better than its revision at the time of the FAC process. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 01:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We can probably trim the film sections a bit more, but I think the information currently provided (due to the work of Alientraveller, I should mention) is sufficient summary-style for a section that that links to a separate article. I have one more book sources I need to work into the "Themes" sections, so there'll be a bit more to add there. Aside from that, I want everyone to take a stab at the lead, which I think still needs work. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, how's the lead now? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe at this point the article will easily pass FARC. Alientraveller (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I wrote something here yesterday... must have been eaten oh well. I think it's a little bitty; very dense (needs more sections and images); and yet still overly brief in part. The Mayfair Games RPG modules flesh out the history of the W Universe; were the only non-DCU ones released under "DC Heroes"; and the first was written before the series finished - apparently unprecedented. The marketing of the buttons/badges/pins were crucial in Moore's disillusionment with DC; as was the rating system. The latter may not need to be mentioned here (although it's skewed to suggest it's perpetual-printings alone, and seems tautological to have so many similar quotes one after the other. Fair play, they're quotes I dug up, but..! ;o)) but the former ought to be, even if it's "citation required" for the time being.
 * We do want to keep the article concise yet informative in order to fulfill the "well-written" requirements of the Featured Article criteria. The Mayfair Games things isn't that important to the greater subject, especially given we've only got one reliable source that discusses it in-depth. The badges thing being responsible for Moore leaving DC was only sourced by an reliable site. as for the rating thing, it's not necessary since we're talking about the comi here primarily, not Moore's reason for leaving. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was being merged, rather than copied, to preserve the edit history...? Clearly Wesley deserves much of the praise for the rewrite (although I think there's polishing and expansion still to do), but I still thought that Hiding and I had asked for some kind of merger for historical-preservation purposes and "GFDL".
 * You can still see the original version. Also, others said it was fine. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I add in some of the [bottom of the page, etc.] quotes and comments I dug out, or would Wesley prefer to carry on on that front..?
 * Keep adding stuff to the temp page, since there's allways more work that can be done. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As and when there's movement on the "critical analysis" front, I'm more than happy to re-mine all my books, as well as van Hise's Critics Choice commentary on #1-4 (essentially an on-the-spot, printed source from a high-profile comics/pulps/pop-culture afficianado that serves well as a sourcable version of the unsourcable online annotations. But just for the first four issues, sadly.) ntnon (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I worked critical analysis throughout the article where relevant. i don't think much more would be needed. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair points, although I presume I could edit Watchmen as well as the temporary version now, too...? The RPG elements do underscore the series' notability and add depth to the world, but.. we'll see. Plus there's a newsarama/cbr interview with the creators, as well as Gateways #4.
 * I focused on the real-world elements of the RPG game, which is why it ultimately got summarized to a single sentence. It is important to note that adds to the backstory a bit (which the article does), but it's not necessary to indicate in detail how it does it. And yes, you can make edits to the main space version now, but if you are providing a large chunk of info, it's probably best to post it on the temp page so we can comb through it and cut it down to fit in the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that the ratings is not to do with W (although I think W was not rated, although others were starting to be, which may be telling), but I worry that as written it's misleading. I'll see if I can work on it at some point. Likewise, the badges were part of the bigger picture, so I'll keep searching for the source to add that in (since I assume it's source holding back rather than pertinence..?).
 * I think I wrote that disagreements over royalties was one of the reasons Moore left DC; if I didn't, we can change it to say so and that should solve that problem pretty succinctly. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If Erik thinks more critical analysis would work/is needed, perhaps he can re-suggest his suggestion..?! ntnon (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, very nice effort by all. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks a lot better now Gary King  ( talk ) 16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The "Themes" section does not seem to use any of these:
 * I've looked at the Hughes, Dittmer, and Wolf-Meyer resources, and I think that they would add even more substance about this topic from very academic sources. I think that this article is better than it has ever been before, but I think that there is opportunity here to be more comprehensive on the themes.  The articles go more in-depth, I believe, than the current coverage about deconstruction. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is that it is now FA standard again. Of course it could still be improved, but its present state more than meets the comprehensive requirment. Work can continue, of copurse. Ceoil  sláinte 20:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm not sure if I'm sold on. Being "comprehensive" means "it neglects no major facts or details".  Since this is a defining literary work, "Themes" should be a major component of this article, and I think it neglects the content in the resources above.  I don't know if it's a fair comparison, but looking at To Kill a Mockingbird, this literary work has very substantial coverage on "Themes" as a Featured Article.  Seems like Watchmen should do the same.  I really am more for keeping than demoting, but I don't believe this article is yet true exhaustive with its themes. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still working on adding details obviously, but for now, I focused on incorporating the essential notable sources, ie. the books, since they have more authoritative weight. Also, a lot of these authors have repeated the same points, so it's become a matter of quoting one over the other, and I tend to favor the books. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To Kill a Mockingbird is indeed a great article, and I admit I hadn't heard of "Watchmen" before this FAR. Wesley, do as Erik says and keep working; this is shaping up to be one of your best pages. Ceoil  sláinte 17:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
 * I've looked at the Hughes, Dittmer, and Wolf-Meyer resources, and I think that they would add even more substance about this topic from very academic sources. I think that this article is better than it has ever been before, but I think that there is opportunity here to be more comprehensive on the themes.  The articles go more in-depth, I believe, than the current coverage about deconstruction. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is that it is now FA standard again. Of course it could still be improved, but its present state more than meets the comprehensive requirment. Work can continue, of copurse. Ceoil  sláinte 20:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm not sure if I'm sold on. Being "comprehensive" means "it neglects no major facts or details".  Since this is a defining literary work, "Themes" should be a major component of this article, and I think it neglects the content in the resources above.  I don't know if it's a fair comparison, but looking at To Kill a Mockingbird, this literary work has very substantial coverage on "Themes" as a Featured Article.  Seems like Watchmen should do the same.  I really am more for keeping than demoting, but I don't believe this article is yet true exhaustive with its themes. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still working on adding details obviously, but for now, I focused on incorporating the essential notable sources, ie. the books, since they have more authoritative weight. Also, a lot of these authors have repeated the same points, so it's become a matter of quoting one over the other, and I tend to favor the books. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To Kill a Mockingbird is indeed a great article, and I admit I hadn't heard of "Watchmen" before this FAR. Wesley, do as Erik says and keep working; this is shaping up to be one of your best pages. Ceoil  sláinte 17:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
 * I've looked at the Hughes, Dittmer, and Wolf-Meyer resources, and I think that they would add even more substance about this topic from very academic sources. I think that this article is better than it has ever been before, but I think that there is opportunity here to be more comprehensive on the themes.  The articles go more in-depth, I believe, than the current coverage about deconstruction. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is that it is now FA standard again. Of course it could still be improved, but its present state more than meets the comprehensive requirment. Work can continue, of copurse. Ceoil  sláinte 20:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm not sure if I'm sold on. Being "comprehensive" means "it neglects no major facts or details".  Since this is a defining literary work, "Themes" should be a major component of this article, and I think it neglects the content in the resources above.  I don't know if it's a fair comparison, but looking at To Kill a Mockingbird, this literary work has very substantial coverage on "Themes" as a Featured Article.  Seems like Watchmen should do the same.  I really am more for keeping than demoting, but I don't believe this article is yet true exhaustive with its themes. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still working on adding details obviously, but for now, I focused on incorporating the essential notable sources, ie. the books, since they have more authoritative weight. Also, a lot of these authors have repeated the same points, so it's become a matter of quoting one over the other, and I tend to favor the books. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To Kill a Mockingbird is indeed a great article, and I admit I hadn't heard of "Watchmen" before this FAR. Wesley, do as Erik says and keep working; this is shaping up to be one of your best pages. Ceoil  sláinte 17:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.