Wikipedia:Peer review/Monster in My Pocket/archive1
Monster in My Pocket edit
This was one of the first articles I have contributed to, and I would like to know how I can make it better, short of information about aspects of the line that are not known to me nor any other serious fan I have met online. I would like to bring it to feature article calibre. --Scottandrewhutchins 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't read it, but at a glance there's an enormous list with no extra content; I'd add little descriptions for each toy. Otherwise, it's discouraged in a list consisting mainly of prose, and I think they would even like a little more detail for Wikipedia:Featured lists. Also, both WP:GA and WP:FA would expect footnotes; there's also a non-existant category, and when it mentions Wikipedia articles (just before the list), that's a WP:SELF. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I've got some footnotes and references, and done some heavy revision. The nature of the line was that it featured characters from myth and legend, so it makes most sense to link them to the entries for the figures of myth and legend, since the comic was too short-lived to deleop most of the characters. Aside from the fact that Winged Panther, Jabalius, and Catarenha appear to be made up (unless they've been renamed like Maahes-->Karnak). Should I simply delete the reference to Wikipedia? I'm actually pretty surprised that Toys of the 1990s would be a non-existant category. I changed it rather than deleting that when an editor later revealed to be a sock puppet insisted it belonged in "Toys of the 1980" despite the fact that it was introduced in the Fall of 1990. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- It would be better to get rid of the lists entirely. Adding a description for each of the 183 or more of them would create a monstrous article indeed! NatusRoma | Talk 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, the list is now a seperate article. --Scottandrewhutchins 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- It would be better to get rid of the lists entirely. Adding a description for each of the 183 or more of them would create a monstrous article indeed! NatusRoma | Talk 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I've got some footnotes and references, and done some heavy revision. The nature of the line was that it featured characters from myth and legend, so it makes most sense to link them to the entries for the figures of myth and legend, since the comic was too short-lived to deleop most of the characters. Aside from the fact that Winged Panther, Jabalius, and Catarenha appear to be made up (unless they've been renamed like Maahes-->Karnak). Should I simply delete the reference to Wikipedia? I'm actually pretty surprised that Toys of the 1990s would be a non-existant category. I changed it rather than deleting that when an editor later revealed to be a sock puppet insisted it belonged in "Toys of the 1980" despite the fact that it was introduced in the Fall of 1990. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just on a glance, the article should be broken up into sub-sections. Then summarize the whole thing in the lead. See WP:LEAD for what I'm talking about. — BrianSmithson 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do I need to take out Dwayne McDuffie's opinion of the David Bay column? The only source I can find for this is a brief e-mail from him to me a number of years ago where he said "I downloaded it to show my friends how 'influential' I am." --Scottandrewhutchins 16:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)