Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/References

New book articles
It strikes me some of the books we use could meet notability themselves so I thought I'd drop resources in as I find them - feel free to add anything you find or start the article.

Main category: Category:Books about comics

Kirby: King of Comics
Evanier, Mark. Kirby: King of Comics. Abrams, 2008. ISBN 081099447X

Reviews:
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/kirby-king-of-comics-by-mark-evanier-superheroes-by-roz-kaveney-846079.html
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/may/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview12
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/books/review/Hodgman-Comics-t.html
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032002964.html
 * http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/review?oid=oid:608423
 * Best Shots Extra: Kirby King of Comics, Newsarama
 * http://www.comicsbulletin.com/reviews/12077640206207.htm
 * http://www.mania.com/kirby-king-comics_article_112348.html

Articles:
 * Long Live The King! Evanier To Write Kirby Biography, Comic Book Resources, February 7, 2007
 * WonderCon: Kirby - King of Comics, Comic Book Resources, February 23, 2008
 * WonderCon ’08: Kirby - King of Comics Panel, Newsarama, February 24, 2008
 * WWLA: Kirby - King of Comics Panel w/ Mark Evanier, Comic Book Resources, March 17, 2008

That last one mentions a sequel.

Peter Sanderson posted a 5-part review/article on the book at Quick Stop Entertainment:
 * Comics in Context #207: Royal Retrospective
 * Comics in Context #208: Creative Differences
 * Comics in Context #219: Kirby at the Crossroads
 * Comics in Context #220: The King of the Silver Age
 * Comics in Context #221: The King in Exile

Also given the date of release I assume this will be up for awards this season so will keep an eye out (I'd assume an Eisner nomination is in the bag and there'd need to be something special out there to keep it from getting the win). (23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Yep, got nominated . (Emperor (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC))


 * And it won. I think that pretty much clinches it. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Men of Tomorrow
Jones, Gerard. Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book. Basic Books, 2004. ISBN 0-465-03656-2


 * 2005: Won "Best Comics-Related Book" Eisner Award

Reviews:
 * Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, gangsters and the birth of the comic book, by Gerard Jones, The Independent, July 15, 2005
 * http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_jewish_history/v093/93.3.romeyn.html
 * http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118727733/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
 * http://www.theage.com.au/news/reviews/men-of-tomorrow/2005/09/03/1125302782331.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/books/review/24HODGMAN.html
 * http://living.scotsman.com/books/Men-of-steel-with-feet.2638256.jp
 * http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_49/b3911021_mz005.htm
 * http://www.sfsite.com/09b/mt184.htm
 * http://www.comicworldnews.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?column=reviews&page=173

Eisner/Miller
Eisner/Miller


 * 2006:
 * Won "Best Comics-Related Book" Eisner Award
 * Won "Favourite Comics-Related Book" Eagle Award

Reading Comics
Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean or the shorter Reading Comics


 * 2008:
 * Won "Best Comics-Related Book" Eisner Award
 * Nominated for "Favourite Comics-Related Book" Eagle Award

Excelsior
Excelsior!: The Amazing Life of Stan Lee

Reviews: Excelsior!: The Amazing Life Of Stan Lee, by Stan Lee and George Mair, The Independent, July 1, 2002

I'd like to add a section
I'm finding that an awful of of Project articles contain footnotes to ComicBookMovie.com, which is an unedited site of solely user-submitted content, making it essentially a forum. It doesn't pass muster as a reliable source because of that. Other material is just copy-cat paraphrases of original reporting from elsewhere, which it appropriately links to, and the original source should be the footnote. In addition to all that, consensus discussion is against its use.

Because such disallowed ComicBookMovie.com footnoting is widespread, I'd like to add a section on specific non-RS sites we should avoid. There are probably others, but we can start with this if there are no objections. It would help save a ton of work going over those cites and replacing them, as I've been in the laborious process of doing.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Websites that qualify as a reliable source for comic book reviews
I can't find a list anywhere for this. There doesn't seem to have been any detailed debate. This should certainly be on this page, or somewhere on the Wikiproject.

Please tell why you believe each of the following should or should not be considered a reliable source. The more input the better. Add any other comic reviewing sites to the list that might be considered reliable sources please.  D r e a m Focus  14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

For

 * Has editor oversight. Doesn't just let anyone submit things. Independent and reliable third party coverage of comics.   D r e a m Focus  14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kurt Parker (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spidey 104  17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For

 *  D r e a m Focus  14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spidey 104  17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For

 * They review comics at times, and interview people involved in them.  D r e a m Focus  14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

For

 *  D r e a m Focus  14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

For

 * They get exclusive interviews with publishers and creators, and items are only posted by staff members. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  D r e a m Focus  23:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For

 * About as well-established as you get, in recent years they've moved to an online focus. I use them all the time. Professional, well-established.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Their Wikipedia article says they've been around since 1977, it list have notable industry people they have interviewed, and 14 people working there have their own Wikipedia articles, so are clearly notable.  D r e a m Focus  23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For

 * Tom Spurgeon's a well-established figure in comics reporting (former Comics Journal editor, comic strip writer, etc). Does lots of reporting and occasional interviews.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like the guy has proven himself an industry expert.  D r e a m Focus  00:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For

 * Kurt Parker (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They provide reviews for almost all comic books and video games. They are independent and reliable. Spidey  104  17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course.  D r e a m Focus  00:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For

 * Rob Allstetter runs this with a few employees. They go to comic conventions, so they are reliable for announcements by the publishers. Has a local cable show in the Detroit area. Spidey  104  17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see they have interviewed notable people in this industry on the website, so clearly notable.  D r e a m Focus  00:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Automatic Google search for reliable sources
Some other Wikiprojects have this already. Anyone know how to make one for this one? Google only looks through all the sites copied over from this reliable sources list.  D r e a m Focus  18:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

GCD
The way the guideline is written re GCD is vague: It's referring to plot details, which like movie plots can be cited directly to the primary source. It has been acceptable as a credits aggregator, however, for many years as an edited site of non-POV site of statistics and credits, with named contributors and stringent editorial standards. Because contributors have to be vetted by mentor editors for weeks or a couple of months, it is an edited site with (unpaid) freelancers. It is certifiably not a wikia anyone can edit, and claims are subject to citing and verification before they're accepted. It can sometimes take days for edits to be approved. This is as opposed to the Comic Book DataBase, a wikia which has long been acceptable only as an EL. We need the sentence here to clarify the distinction between plot details and credits. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Tenebrae Why is the Comic Book Database listed in the project as a source? It's a user-generated site (they solicit user input as shown here: http://comicbookdb.com/add.php) and thus is not a reliable source. I'm dealing with a COI editor who believes the inclusion of the Comic Book Database on teh References page means that it has been accepted as a reliable source. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Joseph Michael Linsner Meters (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)