Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Cerebus the Aardvark

Cerebus the Aardvark
The article is needing a B-level criteria review, and I figured a full-blown peer review would be a good idea as well. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hornoir
The following corrections to the article need to be made, in my opinion:


 * 1) Noted as "award-winning" but no awards section is provided to substantiate this claim.
 * 2) Tighten language; most areas are too drawn out and/or awkward, using "excessive information" or "poetic prose" to prove a point.  In example:"Now complete, it marks the longest-running originally English-language comic book series ever by a single creative team; Sim refers to it as the 'longest sustained narrative in human history.'[2][3] Sim began the series in December 1977, running for 300 issues and 6,000 pages, through March 2004."could just as easily be written as:"Cerebus began publication in December 1977 and sustained a regular release schedule until March 2004. At completion, the series numbered 300 issues in length, or approximately 6,000 pages, making it the longest-running English-language comic book series by a single creative team."And while I think that is even more than needs to be said on the subject (page count especially), I find the the quote from Sim about the work to be unnecessary in this instance.  If there is a reliable citation from someone other than Sim concerning the quoted matter, then that would alter this concern.
 * 3) Move Title character section to be with Supporting characters, subsections of a Characters section.
 * 4) Story arcs and plot summaries should provide separate subsections for each story arc.  Throttle the TOC so that it doesn't become unmanageable if you do this.
 * 5) Split parodies and appearances into two lists.
 * 6) Expand the "Cerebus Syndrome" section to be more informative and/or defining of the term; though I'm not certain this term is notable enough for inclusion.
 * 7) References:
 * 8) There are a lot of uncited statements that should be marked with the    (or citation needed) template.
 * 9) There exist instances of the  (or citation needed) template which need to be addressed.
 * 10) The citations should, but are not required, to use the Citation template formatting (esp.   ).  Due to the number of online references, these references should also be archived.
 * 11) A considerable lack of print citations.  Though a few are present there should be a greater number, especially considering resources like Following Cerebus and the Collected Letters editions exist.
 * 12) External links should be better organized and their descriptions more concise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornoir (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Missing:
 * 14) There is no section or subsection describing the letters, essays, and annotations Sim published with each issue as backmatter.
 * 15) There is no section or subsection describing critical reception and layperson reception of the series.
 * 16) As previously noted, there is no section or subsection detailing awards or nominations for awards received.
 * 17) There is no mention of the non-infamous forged/bootleg edition of Cerebus #1.
 * 18) There is no mention of the Cerebus #301 Christmas card that Sim and Gerhard sent out in 2004 (?), which seems worthy of inclusion.

At current, I would consider this article C-Class and not B-Class. These are my general, first impression notes. Sorry if I seem overly thorough. I'll be marking this peer review page as watched to further provide information if requested. Thank you for your time. hornoir (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)