Wikipedia:Peer review/Fantastic Four/archive1

Fantastic Four

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to be able to get it to GA one day, and eventually to FA. I put a lot of work into it, but I understand that there are a lot of sourcing issues in some places. Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This starts off very well done and then its quality goes downhill, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are a number of comic FAs, but many of them are older and no longer seem to meet the current FA standards (see WP:WIAFA. Watchmen is a comics FA that seems to me to be quite well done and probably a good model article.
 * There are 5 non-free images in the article, which may be a problem at WP:GAN or especially at WP:FAC. There are free images of Lee and Kirby and John Byrne (and probably some of the other artists associated with the book) that could be used. See WP:NFCC
 * The lead is very nicely done as a summary of the article as it exists. The main thing missing from the article is any sort of critical reception section. The article cannot become a FA without this.
 * The Origins section is great, well written, lots of refs. Early years is slightly less well done - the entire 1970s is glossed over in a few sentences. As you read further down the article, the sections become less well written and have fewer refs, and flow less well.
 * The low point is the Dark Raign section - three very short paragraphs (all one sentence I think) written very much from an in-universe perspective (see WP:IN-U) with no attempt to give issue numbers or dates, or provide any sort of context to the reader - see WP:PCR. If this is a spinoff why isn't in that section?
 * The spinoffs and series also seem somewhat random - the FF vs the X-Men is not mentioned (only four issues, but one of my favorites)
 * The article uses cquote but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use blockquote instead.
 * Article needs more references, for example the "In other media" section has almost no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * The series is so long it has to be difficult to summarize - per WP:Summary style can be used and some sort of sub- article made (Timeline of the Fantastic Four perhaps with dates, issues, author, artist, inker, and major plot developments listed)?
 * I am not up on additional sources but Marvel has reprinted most of the first 100 issues as hardback books, which have some useful introductory material.

Scott Free comments:IMAO this is a pretty happenin' article on the FF - here are some things I'd like to see mentioned to make a good article even better:
 * Aunt Petunia
 * The Yancy Street Gang
 * 'Its Clobberin' Time!!!'
 * 'Flame On!'
 * The Fantasticar
 * 'Stretcho' aka Reed Richards

--Scott Free (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)