Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Infinity Gauntlet/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2018 [1].

The Infinity Gauntlet edit

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1991 comic book series that served as primary inspiration for this summer's massively popular Avengers film. I dug into lots of old print sources to flesh it out and I believe it's about a comprehensive as it can be. Please comment quickly, before Thanos snaps his fingers and you lose your chance. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64 edit

Uh, Argento Surfer, I don't feel so good... but I'll comment before I disappear. JOEBRO64 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First round of comments. This is just from a quick glance (don't have much time), so I'll be leaving more comments in a bit:

  • "although other writers had scripted some tie-in chapters of the First Thanos War" is uncited.
    • I added two citations, one is a third party website that mentions a different scriptor, and one is a primary source directly citing a tie-in comic. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George Pérez is a popular artist known for drawing comics that featured large casts" seems to start in the present before shifting to the past.
  • Aren't the "I" and "G" in "infinity gems" supposed to be capitalized?
    • Possibly! The comic is written in all caps so it's not immediately obvious, but it's capitalized at Infinity Gems. I capitalized them here as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If my understanding is correct, plot sections are supposed to be limited to 700 words. The "plot" section of this article in the synopsis is 791 words.

JOEBRO64 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Part two:[reply]

  • "He also did high-profile work for DC Comics, such as Batman and Cosmic Odyssey." Wouldn't linking to Batman (comic book) make a bit more sense here?
  • "...but Editor-in-Chief Tom DeFalco..." Sort of the opposite of "Infinity Gems" here: I'm don't think the "E" and "C" need to be capitalized.
  • "the start of the second act was spun off into the two-issue limited series Thanos Quest, released in Fall 1990." Watch out for WP:SEASON.
  • "but the sales of Thanos Quest were high enough to warrant another spin-off." This isn't a big deal, but I don't think "spinoff" needs a hyphen. The hyphen also isn't used later in the article, so I'd be consistent in how you use it.
  • "However, some characters, like Thor and Quasar, were wearing outdated costumes on the cover of issue 3..." Single digits should be spelled out.
  • During production, Pérez was also pencilling War of the Gods for DC Comics" You've already linked to DC before, so linking it here is overlinking.
    • removed
  • "One aspect of the promotion was sending Direct market retailers..." Why is the "D" in "direct market" capitalized?
  • You link to DC again in the tie-ins section.
    • removed

I'll be back with my final comments soon. JOEBRO64 19:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Round three:

  • Some of the characters linked in the characters section (Thanos, Warlock) were previously linked in the publication history section.
  • My only comment about the synopsis section is that it technically doesn't need references, since a creative work's plot section is assumed to be sourced to the work itself and does not require references unless it contains original research that requires verification.
    • I follow that guidance in articles on comics that take place all in one title (Archie vs. Predator or The Fade Out), but since parts of the synopsis came from Silver Surfer, Thanos Quest, Warlock and the Infinity Watch, and Doctor Strange, I felt it was worth noting the source for each plot chunk. It also alerts readers that the tie-in issues are not directly referenced. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the different styles continues to be an issue for some critics." "Issue" is considered a word to avoid.
  • "When Capital City released their top 100 best selling single issues of 1991, Infinity Gauntlet issues fell between the 42nd and 64th positions." This is just a minor suggestion, but could you add a footnote explaining where all the issues placed on the list? Some readers (including myself) might be interested in this.
    • I can add this, but it might be next week before I can dig up the sales lists. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its sequels were poorly received by fans, and Warlock and the Infinity Watch was cancelled in 1995." While it looks like the article is written in American English, "cancelled" is British English.
    • I had no idea. I just went with it because it didn't have a squiggly red line under it. I have removed the second l. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. Overall this article is very clean and well-written (indeed, I actually based a few of my articles on it!) Once these comments are addressed, I will gladly support promotion. JOEBRO64 17:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is FA-quality now. Well done! JOEBRO64 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have anything substantive to add to the FAC, but I will commend you on bringing this article into a much better shape than it was when you started working on it in February: [2] BOZ (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest that in some cases it would be worth adding citations to captions
    • I added two references to the caption in the plot section. I think everything else it BLUE, but let me know if you disagree. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Think the caption on the final image also needs citing - the accompanying article text cites more general inspiration, but not this specific image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed this image. There won't be any sources that directly compare it to the cover. I'll just trust that anyone who makes it that far into the article will be familiar with the film's imagery. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Infinity_Gauntlet_1.jpg: elaborate on purpose of use statement
  • File:Sleepwalker_number_7.png: not sure we can justify the full cover just to show the marking - a crop of the top third would be sufficient for that, and the FUR needs to be stronger
    • I originally considered cropping the image, but chose to use the full cover to give an accurate impression of the relative sizes of the triangle and the cover. If it's cropped, that frame of reference will be lost. I have expanded the purpose statement to make this clear. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not convinced by this, particularly given the number of non-free images, but interested in if any other reviewers have an opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • If no one else weighs in, I'll crop the image to be the upper right quarter. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For both File:Infinity_gauntlet_excerpt_Perez.png and File:Infinity_Gauntlet_excerpt_issue_6.png, the content currently in the "not replaceable" section of the template belongs in "purpose of use". Same with File:Thanos_Avengers_Infinity_War_promo.jpg. The FURs are particularly important to given the number of non-free images in this article - as a general rule, the more you have the harder you need to work to justify each
  • File:Infinity_Gauntlet_Toys.png: see commons:COM:TOYS. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link. I have revised the licensing based on File:Alternator smokescreen robot mode.jpg. If that doesn't work, then we can scrap this image. I think it's useful for showing the variety of toy types since most people don't know the difference between a minimate and a Diamond Select, but not 100% needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Argento Surfer, this seems to have stalled in recent weeks and will be archived soon if it does not attract some additional review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I requested input from the Comics Project and specific editors I thought might be interested on July 6. I'm hoping one or more of them will respond. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this one has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hijiri88 edit

I have very little awareness of comic books as comic books, and so only checked the page for problematic content related to the recent Avengers films, and was pleasantly surprised to see it doesn't make the problematic claim, often cited to unreliable sources that predate the film's release, that the most recent entry in that series is "an adaptation" of this work. Kudos.

My one further concern would be that Since Thanos made a cameo appearance in the 2012 film The Avengers, there has been renewed interest in The Infinity Gauntlet among fans and reporters. is not necessarily accurate, as I was aware of this renewed interest months before the film's release, having seen a video essay on The Escapist in summer of 2011 (I'm pretty sure the video itself predated the release of Iron Man 2, though, as I recall it speculating that a "Donald Blake" might cameo in that film). I can get the exact link tonight when I get home, but I don't want to use data right now. I'm pretty sure this interest goes back to a Comic Con where the Infinity Gauntlet prop was on display, and before seeing the trailer for The Avengers I fully expected Thanos to be the main antagonist of that film, based on said earlier speculation.

I know this is something of a WP:TRUE complaint, so others can take it with a grain of salt if they so wish, but the sources to which this content is attributed are less than ideal. Marvel.com is a primary source, which obviously can't be used for the claim that there has been renewed interest among fans and reporters, let alone since a specific date, while the other is late enough that it could well have "forgotten" that the interest predated the reveal of Thanos in the actual film.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Thanks for taking a look. I'm wondering if the interest you're remembering was localized, or limited to idle talk only. According to Comichron, the Infinity Gauntlet TPB didn't garner enough orders to appear on the March or April 2012 charts, but it did appear in May, June, July, and August (where I stopped looking). There was no bump corresponding to the 2011 Thor movie in May or June 2011 despite the new edition released that year. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: I dunno... I think the problem might be the wording we currently use: "fans" and "reporters" already are "local", and not only were they already speculating about the relationship between Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet and the Avengers film franchise pre-2012, but their doing so wouldn't be expected to directly cause a large increase in sales of the reprint (since they already have copies).
Would saying "the general public" not be better? The bump in sales would have been from "casual fans" like myself (except that they have more disposable income or don't know how to use the internet) who heard that the mysterious character who showed up in the last shot of the film was elaborated on in this 20-year-old comic book. But the fans and reporters had a renewed interest before that.
As I said above, though, this is a really minor nitpick, and you can take it or leave it; my interest in, and awareness of, this topic area is fairly limited.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: I rewrote the sentence to avoid specifying who became interested. I think it reads better this way, so long as you don't think it's too weaselly. Thanks for taking a look at something outside your normal purview. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree it reads better that way, and it addresses my concern too. Thanks for your effort, and good luck with the rest of the review! :) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:32, 11 July 2018 (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/The_Infinity_Gauntlet/archive1&oldid=852878141"