Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alan Moore/archive2

Alan Moore edit

Since this article went the FA nomination process the first time, all the objections have been addressed (see objections here). Also since that time it has been the subject of the 'comics collaboration of the month'.

I have been a minor contributor to this article. ike9898 15:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Images need fair use rationale, lead image needs better licensing tag, insufficient inline citations. Pagra shtak 15:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the lead image, it seems that the book cover images are clear cut cases of fair use, and tagged as such. Is more detailed rationale really needed? ike9898 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the licensing tag is not enough. Take a look at the first comic book image. The licensing tag says at the bottom: To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use.... There's no such thing as a "fair use image"; fair use can only be claimed on an article-by-article basis. Because of this, image pages claiming fair use must contain rationale explaining why the image is believed to be covered by fair use in each specific article. Take a look at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for more information. Pagra shtak 22:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently attempting to confirm that the lead image is a true publicity photo, which would allow the use of a better image tag. ike9898 17:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I'm a comics fan, but not a fan of Moore's work. The lead did a good job of explaining to me why I should be interested in Moore and his work. However, the way the lead captured my interest was by saying, without a source, that he's "renowned for bringing more mature, literary sensibilities to a medium often dismissed as juvenile and trivial." The article only has four footnotes, and none of them seem to be about critical reaction to the comics --- they all seem to be about relatively straightforward factual points. There are an awful lot of statements, like "He felt that his influence on comics had in many ways been detrimental," that don't have any verifiable source.--Bcrowell 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Object. Over dependent on fair use images, and lead image has lacking copyright information. --Gmaxwell 23:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks like a fine article.--Kross ^Talk 06:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for a number of reasons

Too many fair use covers serving as decoration, making an article look nice in not a FUC. Any cover in this article needs a fair use rationale stating why it is fair use in the article.
There are quote and references to opinions that really should have a source cited inline, an example "Both Mark Waid and Alex Ross, the creators of Kingdom Come, have admitted that they had read the Twilight proposal before starting work on their series, but claim that any similarities are both minor and unintended."
The prose section is too short to really be viable, can it be merged somewhere, I'd suggest merging prose, film and music and performance art into a single section called Other media or something similar.
Awards and recognition seems oddly placed, should probably be a level 2 heading later in the article.
In the major works section, Swamp Thing and From Hell are disproportionately long. The section on Watchmen (arguably his most famous work) is poorly written and underdeveloped. Promethea could also be added to this section, as -interestingly- it is a comic about the authors mystical ideas, and one of the few comics with an interesting female protagonist.
The biography aspect of the article is almost non existent, it tells me a little about before he was a comic book artist and then nothing. Where has he lived, is he married etc. One gets the impression that all he does is write comics, the same is true of his religious beliefs which get a brief mention in the lead and nothing more.
Terra Obsucra should be in the list of Americans Best Comics releases
Current work is underdeveloped and Albion is out, what is he currently working on? Does he appear at cons?
The list of works might be more informative in chronological order
The lead does not summarise the article, there is a long spiel about his influences (who says these are his influences - another things that needs a source) which would be better in the introduction of the major works section of the article. See WP:LEAD.

--nixie 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, needs far more citations. Moore is such a colorful character that a lot of the lines, i.e. "Moore is a practising magician, and claims to worship a Roman snake-deity named Glykon." look bizarre without some kind of explanation or a verifiable citation. --DDG 17:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not many sources and tons of fair use images that don't perform needed functions (we don't need that many examples of his work if they aren't truly notable in some way). Also, the V for Vendetta cover is used twice. Staxringold 01:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]