Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book/archive1


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC).

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book

 * Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book is an award category by GLAAD that honors comic books (and occasionally comic strips or graphic novels) for their depiction of LGBT characters and themes. Originally a non-competitive category during the first two times the award was given, it finally became competetive in 1997 with four nominees. This was expanded to five in '99, and then to ten in 2017. I'm nominating this article because I think that, besides meeting the criteria, is an interesting article that could help people find interesting LGBT-themed comics to read. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the whole of the third paragraph sourced by that one ref at the end?
 * Yep.
 * Don't like the single-sentence paragraph at the end of the lead - can this be merged with an earlier paragraph?
 * Done.
 * 1995 row has "No award was given this in category" (sic)
 * Yeah. What's wrong with that? No award was given during that year or the two before.
 * Look at the exact wording - two words are clearly the wrong way round.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, son of a bitch. I'm so sorry. I didn't even notice it. Fixed. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to have a single table, not separate ones by decade
 * Yeah, the seperate table were so it'd be easier to edit. Combined them.
 * You might want to have a look at MOS:DTT. These kinds of column headers are semantically ambiguous to screen readers, and should be avoided in order to make content accessible. Splitting a table like this is recommended in WCAG 2.0. —Ringbang (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh blimey, I can never get my head around accessibility. How about one table with no subheadings (they probaby aren't really needed).....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The advantage to that approach is that all data in a column can be sorted together; this is a very nice function. On the other hand, sections allow for introductory text to explain, summarise, or add to the information in the table. This is a desirable feature that we want to allow for and encourage.Also, the unified table creates a usability problem. Without a ToC, navigation becomes about scrolling; sometimes too much scrolling. This is especially true on mobile, since neither the web app nor the mobile app supports sorting by column. The number of table rows increases every year, so the amount of scrolling required would keep increasing. Scrolling through a huge table with no visual break is not a very pleasant user experience. As much as I like the unified column sorting, I don't believe that the UX problems it creates are worth it. —Ringbang (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, where do you think you're leaning towards? Should I combine the sections, or is it better to have them seperated? Cause Ringbang does make some points I agree with. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer one combined list. We have many much bigger lists on WP and I don't see any drive to break them up into little chunks..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Think that's it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa
Support I have no strong feelings about one table vs. three (discussed above), for the record. More images would be even better, but this already meets my expectations of a WP:Featured list. TompaDompa (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from
I've made this quick copyedit—feel free to revert any part of it—and I'm now happy to support. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, the copyedit was good. It removed some of the wordiness. Thank you for the support. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

what's your reasoning for moving the image out of the infobox in this edit? I think it looks better there than on the left-hand side of the page (not the ideal place for images, particularly in the lead). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 00:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree - the image looks awful on the left -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree – it creates a problem of MOS:SANDWICHING text between the image and the infobox. TompaDompa (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, having it there looked awful. I placed it back in the infobox. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ideally I would have moved some of the lede's content into a new section, along with the thumbnail, in the same edit. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the lead image is to "illustrate the topic specifically". I didn't want to have to remove the photo completely since it's a good addition. The image in the infobox is the primary means of visual identification of the subject (in this case, the award itself or an award ceremony). Content in the infobox is also used for other purposes; especially linked data and DBpedia, which assume that the image represents the subject. This photo is relevant and we can find a place for it in the article, but William Messner-Loebs is not the subject. —Ringbang (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will say that the image quality is pretty poor. Perhaps we can do without the image entirely, at least for now. TompaDompa (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Ringbang While I do understand what you're saying, and true Messner-Loebs is not the subject of the article, I still don't see the problem with having him in the infobox. Multiple award categories out there have people who won the award in the infobox. Such as the acting categories at the Oscars. All of them show the latest recipients of the award; without any of the images have the recipients in question holding the award, or something similar. To be completely honest, I don't see what would be the point of having the infobox image be the statue itself. Every single category at the GLAAD Media Awards uses the exact same statue. Having the image of a person who's won the award seems more appropriate. Going back to what TompaDompa said about the image's quality, and comparing other award ceremonies / categories, maybe it would be better to have an image containing the creative team of World of Wakanda, as they are the latest winners. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You mentioned the all-important difference: The honorees in those other articles were photographed when they received the award. It's much easier to source a photo from the Oscars than for this one. We can use generic photos of Messner-Loebs or other recipients, but not in the infobox. The Academy Awards article contextualises generic photos by using Infobox election in the lede. It doesn't look like there's quite enough text content to do that in this article (yet), but, as I mentioned, we can offload some lead content into a new section and place a photo there.For the infobox, certainly there are more exciting images than the trophy itself; the trophy is only one suitable option. What you can do as an editor is contact recipients and ask for a photo that we can use of them at the award ceremony, or holding the award (or even a photo of the presenters of the award during the ceremony). The image policy on the English Wikipedia is not as strict as the policy for Wikimedia Commons, but if a rights holder is willing to release an image under a CC licence, even better. —Ringbang (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the image being used now better? I placed the creative team of World of Wakanda, the latest winner, and the images are all pretty high quality. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it looks great! The composite photo is specific to the subject, and the photos available work well together for this purpose. Nice job!—Ringbang (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Thanks for bringing this up Ringbang, and glad it has been resolved. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. :D I'm really glaad you like it. Sorry, couldn't resist. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed. I'm... honestly I almost want to oppose because that green and purple color combination is pretty bad, but I guess you're using the "won" template? Even changing from rh2 to rh to get rid of the purple makes it less jarring. I'm going to let it go, since no one else seems to have even mentioned it, but I encourage the use of more muted colors like at Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story. Promoted. -- Pres N  02:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.