Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Batgirl/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:54, 28 June 2008 [1].

Batgirl edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... the article passed GA without need for modification. Considering the limited critical analysis of the character, I believe the article is as comprehensive as possible. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments:
  • Hi, Bookkeeper. You have a dead link. Check the sources at the link at the top of this page.
COMMENT/QUESTION FOR ALL REVIEWERS: That particular link had detailed information I couldn't find anywhere else (especially for the Batwoman article, which will now probably suffer heavily) is there any policy on keeping the information even if the web article has been deleted? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
resolved. the link is archived. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give what seems to be a fairly detailed publication history, but what about a character description? Aren't there character traits or a back story that is consistent throughout the series? I know that Batman is a vigilante and a dark hero that is ambiguous about doing good sometimes. What about Batgirl? Similarly, what does each of her incarnations do? What relationships do they have with villains and with Batman himself?
Comment: Well, the original Bat-Girl was the side-kick to Batwoman, she only appeared in literally 3 or 4 comic books before DC got rid of her. Barbra Gordon is the primary Batgirl as she was given the role for 22 years, and later became Casandra Cain's mentor. Although both were associated with Batman, neither filled the "side-kick" role- they both operated independently in Gotham. Barbara had her own back stories, while Cassandra had her own series. Those statements could be worked into a prose. Is that the description you were looking for? Obviously I would expand on that. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's necessary to bold the names of all the characters in the lead.
DONE fixed by another editor. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a pretty bold claim that Batgirl is considered to be symbolic of the women's empowerment movement of the 1960s. First, I think the sentence needs to include Person X claims that..., and it would be more significant if that was backed up by someone in the field of feminism. I think Batgirl's examples of being "uninspiring" also warrant expansion.
  • Make sure you have publisher information for all the citations.
  • Interesting article, but I feel that it's missing part of the picture about Batgirl. Good luck --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation to return. I checked on the progress for my requests, and I just don't think what is needed has been done. Plus, you need a copy edit of the Character attributes section (Robin should be capitalized, and the sentence structure is a bit odd). Has Batgirl not been analyzed by comic book scholars? Do you have access to the writings of comic book scholars that could be indicated in the article as "Comic book scholar X characterized Batgirl as a 'vigilante' and the mechanism for overcoming the stigma of homosexuality attached in the book Seduction of the Innocent". Because the way the section is now, it's you who is doing the analyzing. When doing character descriptions or thematic studies in works of literature (and graphic literature), a scholar/author/historian/etc name should be attached to the claim made in the article. By the way, was she effective in overcoming that stigma? (I wonder...) As well, I have to reiterate that I think you need names to back up the claims about feminism and the character being uninspiring. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I've never seen a scholarly analysis of Batgirl, comic or otherwise. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 10 "Variations on a Theme" is lacking a publisher. Also author. And it seems to be a blog, why is it a reliable source? (Right now it is sourcing "The plot which lead to Gordon's paralysis subsequently became a point of controversy among critics and commentators.")
    The publisher Newsarama is a reliable source. The article itself is indeed a blog, however the Comic Project deemed it appropriate because it involves two commentaries written by comic book professionals- Valerie D'Orazio, a former editor at Acclaim Comics and Laura Hudson, Senior editor of Comic Foundry Magazine. Further details of the discussion are in the main article Barbara Gordon under Batman: The Killing Joke. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally blogs aren't that reliable. Leaving this one unstruck so other reviewers can decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostof your references are in last name then first name order for the authors, but current ref 3 Fred Grandinetti isn't. Probably should make that consistent.
Still needs to be last name first to be consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 17 the title "Nature or Nuture" is in all caps, which is an MOS issue. Same for current ref 21 "Reflections"
  • Current ref 20 Batgirl #73 is lacking all bibliographic data
  • Current ref 28 "The Batman/Superman Hour" is lacking publisher and any other relevant bibliographical data. Also, what makes IMDb reliable for this data?
  • Current ref 34 "Comisc in Context #67" is lacking publisher information.
  • Current ref 35 is just a title and last access date. Lackign publisher, etc.
  • Same for current ref 36 Schiff, Laura "Interview with Yvonne".
  • You list a series of books in the References section, but only seem to use one above? Also they should be in alphabetical order.
  • Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF 2 Daniels, Les. Batman: The Complete History. Chronicle Books, 2004. ISBN 0811842320
Current ref 2 is Batman #139 though, not this book. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hand to adjust a few sentences. This is now REF 1 The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF 6 Arant, Wendi. Benefiel, Candace. The Image and Role of the Librarian. Haworth Press, 2002. ISBN 0789020998
  • REF 13 Brooker, Will. Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a Cultural Icon. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001. ISBN 0826413439
  • REF 36 Flood, Michael. International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Routledge, 2007. ISBN 9780415333436. The other two I can either delete or move to "further reading" which ever is more appropriate. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - you should alphabetize the references. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Moni3 - while the detail on the publication history and critical reception is great, the article feels like it's missing a section on the character and attributes of the fictional character of Batgirl - what was the character like; was this consistent, or did it vary between the different Batgirls? Adacore (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE fixed by another editor. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments

    All issues resolved — Bellhalla (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of boldface in the lead needs to comply with WP:LEAD (i.e. no boldface links, bold only in lead sentence)
    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use the "upright" tag for portrait orientation images for better sizing (see MOS:IMAGES)
      • I fixed that. The images, even after adjustment, are "sandwiching" text (see MOS:IMAGES) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't place images immediately below headings, as is the case with the "Barbara Gordon" and "Cassandra Cain" sections (see MOS:IMAGES)
    • Check for typos: "Comissioner Gordon" in section "Barbara Gordon", for example
    DONE The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make sure the links go to where expected. The above referenced "Comissioner Gordon" link goes to a dab page.
    DONE The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency of tense. Section "Cassandra Cain" switches between the present and past tenses
    • For a character having a "dramatic impact on popular culture" the "Cultural impact" sections is awfully thin.
    comment:I toned down the wording. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Footnotes" sections normally precede "Reference" sections
    comment: I've been wondering, is this mandatory? For whatever reason I prefer to have the references first, but I can change it if thats the consensus. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)
    — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments An excellent summary of the character, though at times it reads a little like a well-expanded disambiguation page. I'm not ready to support this yet, but with some improvements, I might.

    • My major concern is comprehensiveness, 1b. You go into excellent detail of the several Batgirls of the primary DC universe continuity, but either ignore or skim over others. I wonder whether you can flesh out additional details of "Batgirl" from outside a comics standpoint. For non-comics readers, Batgirl's appearances in films and television are just a notable as in the comics. (Unless you want to rename this to Batgirl (DC comics).)
      • Batgirl in film? She appeared in Batman & Robin (film) (which you mention), but there's no information about her, who played her, etc.
      • Nor do you say who voiced her or anything about her characterization in the several animated outings. You might be able to convey some of this in a table, if it doesn't make sense to do it in prose.
      • What about other significant Batgirls? Any significant elseworlds
    • comment: One of problems with all of these points is that the only Batgirl to be featured in Animation, film and out-of-continuity DC publications is Barbara Gordon. Hence why the article links to alternate versions of Barbara Gordon and Media adaptations of Barbara Gordon. I thought the "adaptations in other media" section should be kept minimal here, since further elaboration is given in all three of Barbara's articles. I'm not against adding this information back into this article of course, I'm just giving background information on why its not present here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Connections between batgirl and batwoman. Why are some "women" and other "girl"? (You have a "See also" to Batwoman, but that just cries out for elaboration.)
    • comment:The first Bat-female was Batwoman. Bat-Girl was invented her niece/side-kick and as a love interest for robin, but only appeared in 3-4 comic books and was dumped. Batwoman was also given the boot. When DC introduced Barbara Gordon/Batgirl- she became the sole Bat-female. No elaboration was ever given as to why DC chose to use the "Batgirl" name over "Batwoman". Batgirl was the name given to all Bat-females until 2006 when DC decided to reinvent Batwoman as an LGBT character. The two characters have always been distinct from one another. The "new" Batwoman is a literal reinvention of the original character, while the current Batgirl remains Cassandra Cain- though the two have no connection to each other other than being associated with Batman). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "described as one of the most high profile characters to be published during the Silver Age of Comic Books" - citation needed
    • "only Barbara Gordon's incarnation of the character has had an impact on popular culture" - citation needed
    • You mention "Seduction of the Innocent", and cite it indirectly through "Batman: The Complete History". Can you cite this directly from this source? (Obviously, you still need to use the source you did to describe the controversy that book caused.)
    • "These characters, with the exception of Robin, were abandoned in 1964 when new Batman editor Julius Schwartz concluded these characters were inappropriate" - one fewer "these characters"?
    • "Mary Elizabeth "Bette" Kane, was introduced as the superheroine Flamebird, who continues to appear in DC Comics publications" - citation needed?
    • "Cassandra Cain's character history is deeply complex and highly unique compared to other Batman supporting characters." - reword?
    • "the character has been given a supporting role in the comic book series Batman and the Outsiders." - citation needed?
    • You "see also" Gotham Girls without context. Can you put this link in the prose someplace?
    • Can you move the links to Alternate versions of Barbara Gordon and Media adaptations of Barbara Gordon either up to her section or leave them out? I think you should have a link to Media adaptations of Batgirl, if such an article exists. (Or that can be a redirect.)

    Though this seems like a lot of comments, I think this is a nearly complete FA article. You do a particularly good job of keeping it out of universe and making it readable to a non-fan and that's difficult with comics articles. Good work. JRP (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note; the excess markup here makes this FAC hard to read. Can we please avoid excess bolding, per WP:TALK guidelines? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is an editorial retirement? GrahamColmTalk 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This occurs when the head editors at DC Comic (i.e. the Editor in Chief, Executive Vice President, or someone like Julius Schwartz, editor of all Batman related comic books) decides on the official direction of how they want a character to go and instruct the writing staff on how they want to see the character written out of publication. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I'm not the biggest fan of the article's current layout. Are all the images currently being used in the article really necessary? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Oppose Cr 3 and 1a.

    • Non-free content: Tell me how your use of five NF images meets the requirement of minimal usage in the NFCC? I'm most unconvinced by the justifications (BTW, "freely-licensed" is not hyphenated; read MOS). Take the Cain one: if there were some specific point about Scott's design that needed to be illustrated, maybe; but there's nothing in the main text about it, and nothing in the caption. This should be removed. I'd say one or two NF images might be acceptable; you can't just use them willy-nilly to illustrate different incarnations, unless there's a cogent and central reason to do so. NFCC 8 says that the reader's understanding must be significantly less without the content. I don't see that.

    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • MOS breach: read up on hyphens and en dashes (first para. and more).

    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Schwartz had asserted that these characters needed to be removed"—"should be"

    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Batman related"—where's the hyphen? MOS.

    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The prose generally needs a spruce-up. TONY (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'Disappointed that you didn't notice my clincher, just above here, balancing on the word "generally". It's not badly written, but needs polishing. Someone else would be much better, since you're too close to it. Not a long job, but an important one. I looked through two more paras:

    • Now, did you read MOS on dashes? You've got en dashes now instead of hyphens–as interruptors–which is half the battle; now they need to be spaced – like this – to adhere to professional practice. Or use unspaced em dashes—like this—to do the job. All consistent, please.
    Done. Unless I missed some, there is currently only one sentence that uses em dash. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not a jot of copy-editing after the third para after the lead.
    • Why is "doctorate" linked? Isn't it normal English? Same for "homosexuality" ... um, we know what it is. And there are repeat links; are you worried the reader didn't hit the first link? Ration them to the high-value ones, and the reader is more likely to follow up the bright-blue splashes.
    Done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Barbara Gordon is described as the original Batgirl, considering the character ...". Oh, no, it's not Batgirl who's considering the character; we read on and have to disambiguate in reverse: "Barbara Gordon is described as the original Batgirl, considering the character histories of Bat-Girl and Batwoman had been erased....".
    removed sentence. The same thing is mentioned in the previous section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "lead" is an element, grey in colour, not the past tense of a common verb. Not like "read, read".
    fixed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After reclaiming her identity as the Huntress, Bertinelli would later join Oracle's Birds of Prey, thus giving the group two former Batgirls." Don't like that conditional future ("would"), which is pretty informal, and after "after", a bit awkward. "Giving"—is that the right word? TONY (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    reworded. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did notice your clincher. It's just a fact I'm not good at copy-editing my own work. I've tried to get a few people to help out with copy-editing, but at the same time I don't want to nag as many people as possible. It's really unfortunate the League of Copy-editors is inactive. I'll address your further comments, but I'm sure the article is not going to pass FAC this time around. There is still the whole bit over which In other media should be the main text, because if i expand that section as suggested, I could just copy and paste it into Barbara Gordon and Barbara Gordon in other media, which i think is redundant. In addition, I have yet to run across the in depth analysis of the character everyone is so eager to see (and that after searching google scholar, proquest, google books and a number of other research engines). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When were the references in the References section used?--Rmky87 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    REF 1, 6, 13, 16, 28, 29, 36, 41, 42, 43. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you ask Deckiller for a few names, then? And research edit summaries at edit history pages of similar (well-written) articles to identify the word-nerds. You need to network on WP to establish complementary teams of users for future articles: why not start now? Very hard to prepare by yourself.
    • "Lead" is still there: "LED". Twice at least. Hurrumph.
    done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just checking: Bat-girl was hyphenated at one point, yes?
    Betty Kane- yes. Barbara Gordon and all subsequent "Batgirls"- no. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking forward to polishing throughout. TONY (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose I don't feel that this meets all criteria.
      • The lead serves more as a fictional history overview rather than an overview of the entire article.
      • Publication history- the good: the article avoids 'fictional character biographies'. The bad: still has lots of material written in-universe (see WP:WAF.) Ex: "As Oracle, Barbara Gordon is written as an ally to various DC Universe superheroes, but is most notable as the founder and head of operations of the Birds of Prey organization." Also, issues with writing tense, ex. "Editor Kim Yale and author John Ostrander revive the character in Suicide Squad #23 (1989)"- it's not fiction so it should be fast tense.
    --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Batgirl/archive1&oldid=1138455446"