Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Newshounds/archive2

Newshounds edit

This is a self-nomination and also a re-nomination. As I stated previously, I believe that this article should be featured, as it is very stable, contains relevant images, and is referenced. It also has already been given the status of good article. Since, it was last turned down for nomination, I submitted it for a peer review. It mentioned a few ways to improve the article, which I have done, such as having made the article being less of a list. I also followed the adivce given by the previous nomination, however there is very little in the way of other reviews of the webcomic. There does not really appear to be much a source that reviews webcomics. However I did include a section about controversy. ISD 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the external jumps need converting into footnotes.Rlevse 17:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the extermal jumps and how do I convert them? ISD 20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external jumps look like [1] and you put them in standard footnote, preferable cite php, format.Rlevse 22:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've now corrected them. ISD 08:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Lack of any sort of reaction or response from sources not originating from the comic itself (or its creator). The bulk of the article describes information found only within the world of the strip. Every single reference given is to a strip from the comic, or to an interview with its creator. There are no reviews from newspapers or from major comic websites; that no such reviews exist makes it hard to get a handle on how signifcant or well-known the strip is. This sort of thing is necessary for completeness and perspective; otherwise, it is as if the article's subject exists in a vacuum. Andrew Levine 20:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]