Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The New 52 publications/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 User:Hahc21 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC).

List of The New 52 publications

 * ''Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC) and Takuy (bother me)

I am nominating this to become a featured list. I have worked over the past few weeks to clean up some loose ends on an already good list (made so significantly by myself and Takuy) to make it ready for nomination. Thank you in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I would just like to make any reviewers aware that I will be on wikibreak from 12/30 - 1/10, and will not be able to address anything during that time. Myself and Takuy have addressed all of Darkwarriorblake's initial concerns, so if any more from him or anyone else are added 12/29 I can address them. If not, please look to Takuy during my wikibreak for any concerns brought up in the review. Thank you very much. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Prose.
 * Lead.
 * }
 * I have reworked the lead. First off, I moved and rewrote the info regarding the families and Forever Evil to underneath the "The New 52 titles" heading, so please take a look at that. I also added a new last sentence to the lead. I'm not sure about it, but would like opinions. I know you said to go wordier in the lead, but didn't think it had to be too wordy. I looked at The New 52's lead, but did not see much that could be brought here to talk about the titles. Opinions on what to possibly add there, if anything, would be appreciated. and was able to add some parts from that to this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comprehensiveness.
 * It seems fully comprehensive of the specified content and could not reasonably fit in The New 52 article.


 * Structure.
 * There is an error with Ref 13
 * Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The referencing seems mostly in order, I may be wrong but if the article author isn't named, i.e. "Staff", then just leave the first and last fields in the ref template empty.
 * Is this in regards to all the solicits from Newsarama? They all do say "Newsarama Staff" under the "by:" area of the page. If this is not appropriate, I will remove them, so it will just give the title, publisher, date and accesses date, when viewed on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Aesthetically it looks fairly pleasing and well coded.


 * Style.
 * (a) Visual appeal.
 * No red links, tables and colour are
 * I do not personally have this issue, but I was concerned with the colors. If it is an issue, and someone can suggest another blue color code to use, I will make the change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've altered the colors for the Batman table. Let me know if its better or worse. &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 03:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tako. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (b) Media files.
 * Article has only one image what has a suitable Fair Use rationale. I'm not sure if it's basic shape could allow it to be replaced by a fair use alternative or if such an image can be copyrighted, I'm not an expert on that so I will leave it for a more informed reviewer.


 * Stability.
 * Article is stable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comments Dark. I will make any notes/comments I have based on what you said, below each item. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of my issues have been dealt with, the colour change seems to be an improvement. I am just waiting on some feedback regarding the use of "Newsarama Staff" from that template's discussion page, as I am not clear what the situation should be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, where there is no credited author, the field should use the code
 * author Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced all mentions of Newsarama Staff with the comment - we'd be lying if we said there was no by-line on those pages. Would this type of comment apply to all references without an author, or just those that are in journal/article format? Currently, the article uses a lot of pages from DC Comics's site, which are just single-book solicitations]. I do plan to change these out (where ever I can) in the future, but currently would all of these require a "no by-line" comment? &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The code is for the sake of bots, not people. I'm just going off this (fifth indent down) - "If the cited source does not credit an author, as is common with newswire reports, press releases or company websites use:

author This HTML comment alerts both fact-checking and citation-fixing editors and bots that the cited source specifically did not name an author and therefore an author credit wasn't accidentally omitted from the citation. Without this entry editors and bots would waste time researching cited sources in an attempt to improve existing citations only to find that there is no author to credit." Though personally I would only be using it to replace the Newsarama Staff stuff. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to Support, the first/last thing doesn't seem at the moment to have a definitive answer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments by ChrisTheDude
 * Two initial points based on a quick drive-by:
 * "The following is a list of..." - list articles should not start like this. We wouldn't expect to see a non-list article starting "The following is an article about.....".  Check some recently promoted FLs for examples of good openings.
 * Would this apply to just the lead, or to each sub-section as well? I count three instances where this occurs in the article, it's easy enough to rephrase though. &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO the tables within tables using small fonts and background colours look horrible and are almost certainly a massive WP:ACCESS failure. Do the colours actually serve any purpose other than making the article "prettier".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the table colors are essential at this point, they very much help to differentiate between the family tables; I can look into color contrasting, if that would help. The collapsible tables-in-tables was something that was a discussion on, which lead to a compromise and consensus on. Do you have any suggestions on how to style it better? &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the colours are needed, many existing FLs have six or seven different tables and they aren't colour coded. IMO the colours just make the article look garish.  Why not just have, for example, "Justice League" as a regular level 3 heading and then start a normal table below that?  As for the access issues, you also need rows and scopes in the tables.  Ignore my comment about small font size, I thought that was an access issue but I was wrong..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Chris. I thought that I added rows and scopes in this edit here. Did I not do enough or it incorrectly? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The "shell" tables don't have rows and scopes. Maybe they don't need them, I'm not sure.  I still don't think those tables are even needed, personally...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not worked much with rows and scopes, so if they did need them, I do not know where they would go. Also, I do think it is useful to have, say, the current, discontinued (and possibly upcoming) Justice League tables all under one collapsable table. That is instead of having the two (or three) still visible if collapsed. But if this presents and ACCESS issue, they can be removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any other outstanding issues with the list? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, but I still think the coloured tables look horrible..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it help if they were a different shade of their color? I know you said you just thought they were there to make them "prettier" but how, in essence, are they any different then colored episode tables for a TV series List of episodes page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In a TV list like List of Moonlighting episodes, only the headings at the top of each section are coloured. The colour does not "enclose" the entire section.  I just don't see why it neesd to do that, but maybe that's just me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What if it was changed to something like this? It removes some of the color from areas that don't really need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be better IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will ping the other nominators and commenters below just to get additional comments on this. Thank you for the feedback. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support by TriiipleThreat
 * The article is well organized, referenced and presented. The only thing I would add is better explanation of the "Waves": some over arching description of the durations and some background information would be nice. Also there are a few uses of industry jargon (i.e. solicits vs. solicitations). Overall good job by all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Triiiple. I believe I've addressed your issue with the "Wave" explanation, if you'd like to take a look. And I wasn't clear if you meant that only "solicits" was jargon (or both), so I padded the wording a bit to hopefully make it clear (and made all uses consistent). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted further opinions on a commenter's suggestion. ChrisTheDude has likened and suggested that some of the color from the tables be removed, to this. I am just requesting the other commenter's and nominator's opinions, to see their thoughts. If need be, we can take it to the article's talk page for more. The reason I am doing it for this requested change, is it a bit "bigger" than some of the requests by Darkwarriorblake and TriiipleThreat. I personally will support either choice made. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by Favre1fan93 (nominator)
 * So what is the difference? Is it the white box inside the coloured box? I think that works well, it makes the tables seem less cramped and helps separate the "current", "upcoming", and "discontinued" sections in each one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I removed the color that existed from below the section heading and description that filled the area where the "Current", "Upcoming", and "Discontinued" sections exist. So the Justice League, for example, got less "yellow-y". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I think it looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Just to be clear, that is with the color change (I'm assuming)? It appears the other editors are fine with this change, and I will be changing over the page to reflect that. Thanks once again for your comments. Now to try and get this closed.... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right, sorry if my comment was a bit confusing.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just wasn't sure because I had not made the edit yet, so I wasn't sure if you had a change of opinion. But regardless, done now. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Great quality page, but still a few small recommendations: (1) Extremely small paragraphs in the lede, these should be merged to just one paragraph. (2) Per WP:LEAD, lede intro sect should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire page's contents. Perhaps the lede intro sect could be expanded upon a bit more. (3) Nice responses, above, by and  to suggestions by, , and , I see the page has undergone significant improvement since the nomination at DIFF. (4) Could use some actual hyperlinks in the External links sect, at present the sect is almost empty. (5) Other than that, nice work, I'm just surprised at the sheer amount of new user and IP participation in the article's edit history, not sure what's bringing them all here. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Done. (may change after working on #2)
 * 2) Will work on expanding some more. Done. Added one sentence about the anniversary events. Not much else to really add that would help summarize the article.
 * 3) Thanks.
 * 4) What do you suggest can go here? It is kind of hard, as there is no "home page" for these titles. All DC titles can be viewed here:, so would that be acceptable? That covers all items on the page. Done
 * 5) Yes. A lot of IPs come to the page. I'm not sure why either. At a time, they were mostly updating the Collected editions, but that has seemed to wan once we added citations for all the content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a good idea for an external link. Thanks for being so responsive to my suggestions, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS
 * I still make no claim to be an expert, but I have some experience working with disabled visitors. Nevertheless the internal tables generally will be navigable by screen-readers; the row and column scopes are sensible and helpful. Personally, I see no point at all in enclosing tables in an outer table. The level 3 heading itself should be sufficient to demark each set, and the days of using tables just to provide layout went out 10 years ago. I should say that using collapsed/hidden tables can pose accessibility issues - for instance for users who have difficulty in fine motor control of a mouse. I'd only use them in article space if I had a very pressing need to hide content - that I don't see here.
 * Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem in my humble opinion is the colours. Using too many unharmonised colours leads us to what an erstwhile colleague of mine called "Skittlepedia". The actual use of colours tends to be tolerated as a personal taste, but I don't favour them because I think it makes the page look amateurish and because it leads the editor to think that they can use any combination of colours without realising the effect on the readability of the page. There are a set of guidelines produced by WCAG that help us ensure that as many people as possible can read a webpage. There are standards for brightness and colour difference as well as contrast ratio between text colour and its background. You can check whether the colours used meet these standards by using Snook's Colour Contrast Check. I checked the background colour used in "The Dark" (#747170) against black text and it fails the test for colour, brightness and contrast - although it would just about be acceptable at 18pt size - which it's not. I should add that the smaller the text, the harder it is for readers to cope with poor contrast between text and background. There's really no need for  text that I can see and it only makes it harder for some readers. I'd recommend that at the very least, the background colours should be checked and brought up to compliance with WCAG - I'm not prepared to fight about the text size and the presence of colours, although I think that normalising them would improve accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Text size Done. All colors were checked too and all passed. You had tested the wrong color for "The Dark" as that was the border color. The background color was #969392, but that was adjusted slightly to get passing on all. Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work here. I do have to correct you on one point though: the clearly had #747170 as the background colour for the level 3 heading "The Dark" (which is 17pt). That was far too dark, but you fixed that when you removed the outer tables anyway. I'm glad you've been able to check the other colours now and tweaked those that were borderline. Well done! --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes I see. I did not realize that you might have looked at a version that still had the outer tables. I hope you will formally support it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've worked hard to resolve all of the issues that have been brought to your attention. I hope that you have found it a useful (if stressful) experience and I'm more than happy to support this nomination. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes I see. I did not realize that you might have looked at a version that still had the outer tables. I hope you will formally support it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've worked hard to resolve all of the issues that have been brought to your attention. I hope that you have found it a useful (if stressful) experience and I'm more than happy to support this nomination. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've worked hard to resolve all of the issues that have been brought to your attention. I hope that you have found it a useful (if stressful) experience and I'm more than happy to support this nomination. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you SchroCat. Thanks to for helping get the page where it was to nominate it, and thanks to, , , , , and  for taking the time to comment on the review and provide comments to make the article better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome,, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.