Wikipedia:Peer review/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/archive1

G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently GA rated and I'd like to prep it for a FA nomination. I've recently revamped the article (i.e. subsequent to it receiving the GA rating) and I'd appreciate another set of eyes on it. In particular, I'm concerned about:

the quality and sufficiency of cite refs;
making sure that in-universe information is appropriate in the context of the article;
whether any sections are too thin and require expansion; and
whether any sections might be considered filler and would be better off removing entirely or merging into another section of the article

Thanks for your help!

-- Jake fuersturm (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking on this request! I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have in the course of the review. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: You are very welcome. Thanks for all your work on this interesting article. I think this needs a fair amount more work before it would have a good chance at FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

The {{Copy edit}} template at the top of the page would be a quick fail at FAC, and technically disqualifies the article from receiving a peer review (no major cleanup banners). Please make sure a copy edit is done and this banner is then removed before FAC.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on comic books, one of which is Watchmen - since that has a tie in with a movie and this has the tie in with the cartoon, it may be a useful model.
Make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see the other language versions or reprints or revival mentioned in the lead. Even more importantly, I see no mention of the cartoon and its relation to the comic book in the lead.
There is a free photo of Hama at File:LarryHama5.23.09ByLuigiNovi.jpg - given his importance to the book, it seems like it would be nice to use it here.
Per the WP:MOS, English units like 3 and 3/4 inch should have their metric equivalents given too. The {{convert}} template does this nicely.
Looking at the FA criteria, one of the most difficult for most articles to achieve is a professional level of English. I agree this needs a copyedit to reach that standard.
Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness. Looking at the GI Joe page, I see that Hasbro also discontinued the 3.75" figures in 1994. I think (if this is correct) that that fact should be mentioned here, as it seems to tie in to the book's cancellation that year.
This article also mentions the Devil's Due GI Joe comics in passing - I think there needs to be a little bit more on this book in this article (it is not even linked except in the nav box at the bottom).
Not sure if there are sources for this or not, but what was the business arrangement between Hasbro and Marvel? Did Hasbro pay Marvel to do the book (like an ad)? Did Marvel have to pay Hasbro to license the characters? How were the profits shared? If there is material touching on this, that would be good to include.
There is also almost no material on critical response to the comics - I know they were a toy commerical, but surely in 14 years some critic must have said something about them (besides Hama's comments).
Another issue that would raise real problems at FAC is a lack of references in places. For example this paragraph from the "Promotion and Reception" section: The comic was also credited with bringing in a new generation of comic readers - young boys who were drawn to the comic book through its association with the toy line, who then went on to other comics. Who credited it? Any statements that seem to be quoting someone should be sourced.
The spin offs and reprints and Cahin of command sections have no (zero) refs that I can see. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Second paragraph about the cartoon also has no refs - again, these would be quick fails at FAC. See WP:CITE and WP:V
I also am not sure if all the sources used meet WP:RS - I am not an expert on comic book sources by any means.
Watch for short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which break up the narrative flow. Wherever possible, I would either combine these with others or perhaps expand them.
Same goes for short sections - Foreign language versions is one sentence long. Could it be combined with Reprints (esp. since translations are a kind of reprint?) The Reprints section has three paragraphs which are each only 2 sentences long - not sure if they can be combined or not.
The Characters section seems a little too in-universe to me - ymmv
Avoid phrases like todate in To date, ten volumes have been published. as these can quickly get out of date. Use things like "As of March (or April) 2011" instead.
Per WP:See also, the See also section is usually for links not already in the article.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments I took a quick look at the article again and see two things that are potential concerns at FAC.

There are several places without inline citations / references. The plot is probably OK without refs (as the comic books themselves are the source of the plot). But things like Written by Michael Higgins, and again with art by Trimpe, it was set outside the continuity of both series, although the final issue did introduce the Transformers character Goldbug, who later appeared in the main The Transformers comic book series. need a ref. In general, any paragraph that does not end with a ref is going to raise questions at FAC.
Three fair use images have been added to the article. Please make sure that each image used meets all the criteria in WP:NFCC. One fair use image in the infobox is fine. In general, the more the article discusses the image and what is in it, the better the chance it meets NFCC. The least likely image to pass muster as fair use is the one from the cartoon, which just seems to be an illustration. The general question to ask is, does the image add anything to the reader's understanding that text alone would? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a small review for me. The two fair use images that is used. (The one of Baroness and the "Silent Interlude") does not have a fair use rationale for this article and also you must ask yourself if these fair use images meet WP:NFCC at all. If you want them to be you must place a commentary of them that would help make the image necessary and to say something that normal print wouldn't say and would make the image more than a illustration. And you must use a fair use rationale for them if you are going to leave them on the article. Although in my opinion the Baroness one isn't necessary if that image is also the main image of the fictional character and reader's can see that image in that article with just clicking on a link of this article. I hope I helped. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note that three references:

were not considered to be RS at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 92#G.I. Joe characters. I would think it extremely unlikely that they would not be commented on at FAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query: the scope of the RSN was limited. In your opinion, could a case possibly be made for referring to certain types of information hosted there, such as the Larry Hama interviews (which were not commented on in the aforemention RSN). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]