Talk:Saga (comics)/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: WonderBoy1998 (talk · contribs) 16:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First look comments[edit]

The RECEPTION section is excessively long. So much information about its reception is not needed. I have noticed you have created different paragraphs for the reviews of every issue. That is really not needed. Sum up all the reception of the writing and the art of the series and try to write a collective review of the whole series. Plus, it would be better to separate the reception of the writing and the reception of the art with different paras.
Instead of using CAST as the section heading, use CHARACTERS as it is more approp. for Comic book articles.
Regarding the PLOT section, is the summary you've written only for the Opening story arc and the first issue or for mostly the entire series?
As you have an entire different page for the Saga Stories, include small and very brief sentences for every story that happens in the comic book and separate them. Do not write them according to single issues, but as a collective overall story arcs.
The CAST section seems to be missing colons to separate the character names and their descriptions.

I'll do the complete review after sometime. Address these issue first. I'll have to say that the style of writing in this article is quite commendable. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article, WonderBoy. :-) I will make the changes you suggested to the Character section (I didn't know that colons were standard), and to the story arcs (the first issue of the second arc just came out 11 days ago). Regarding the other issue you raised, I hope you don't mind my asking for clarification/suggestions?

Ironically, the size of the Reception section is due to the previous GA reviewer's complaint that that section, which previously detailed only the reviews for the first issue, featured no negative reviews, and his incredulity that there weren't any. I tried scouring the Web for more reviews, and figured expanding the section with material on subsequent issues would address this, but most of the comments were positive. Should I revert the section back to its earlier version? Or should I summarize what's there now? How should I go about doing that without either violating WP:SYNTH or writing something uninteresting like "it got mostly positive reviews"? (This is something I've wondered about for some time.) Nightscream (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I have absolutely no problems if you ask me for clarifications. Feel free to message me even :) Plus, I'd like to tell you beforehand that I use kinda a very "friendly" language while reviewing, not really technical.

Second, colons are not really standard, but that's what they basically use when separating the Names and descriptions. Don't forget to type the names in BOLD.

Third, I think the problem with your previous reception section was that the neutrality was disputed IN SOME SENSE. Don't take this as the normal neutrality issue Wikipedia usually refers to. What I mean to say is that the way you had written it before was TOO MUCH positive. Don't restore it to this version as it is only referring to the first issue's reception. Keep MILD aspects from these reviews- more composed and calm one-liners from these sections as overly gaga one-liners sound like you're trying to promote the reader into buying the comic in the sense that you're conveying "It's soo soo good buy it". What basically leads to this is that you've taken very glorious bits and pieces from different review sites that they collectively sound like the comic is perfect. Try to make the para milder IN DEGREE without changing the entire review of the sites. It'll be tough but this might help.

Fourth, about the WP:SYNTH- don't really summarize the entire reviews into one thing. Try to find out lines in the review pages which refer to the SERIES IN WHOLE. For example (I'm not saying that you'll find this exact same thing)- "Saga is a new and rewarding experience."; this would refer to the series in whole but not if the review says- "Saga #1 is a new and rewarding experience." They generally include such lines in reviews.

Fifth, which is a pointer or advise- try to find out good, featured or A Class articles of comic book series on Wikipedia and observe their approach on the RECEPTION section or the entire page on whole. This will give you valuable guidance.

I'd find such articles and mention them here but I'm really busy with trying to get the Wonder Woman article to become a good article. I've listed it for peer review, perhaps you'll be nice enough to give some pointers ;) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to approach the reception summarization in the way you suggest. I thought my wording was fairly neutral as it was, since I tried to include what I saw as the most significant comments from each review, including negative ones.

As for outlines of the entire series, the reviews don't contain them. They focus on individual issues. I'm a bit lost here. Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly neutral in the previous version or the current version?

Why not use lines like this-

"Make no mistake, "Saga" is not for everyone, but there is something for everyone in "Saga." Readers are in for an enjoyable and disturbingly memorable comic book experience."- (from http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=user_review&id=4750)
"Each new issue adds an additional wrinkle that changes our assumption of where we think the series is going, and that’s exactly what keeps us coming back for more." and "“Saga” Once Again Proves That It's The Best Comic Book Series You’re Not Reading" (from http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/06/comic-book-reviews-saga-batman-bprd)
"Series like Saga are the bane of a comic reviewer’s existence. It’s hard to find new ways to say “this book is great” each and every month. Saga is a great book that should be read by each and every comic reader. Much like Y: the Last Man, this book has the makings of greatness. It might not live up to Y, but it’s going to try it’s hardest." (from http://www.comicbooktherapy.com/saga-6-review-46641)

If you're uncomfortable with these, then try to do it each issue individually, but try keep it not too large; if not short entirely. But the problem with this approach is that the series will keep on producing more issues. Let's say it produces 15 or 20 issues, and you'll obviously create a very very large section as you will have to keep on updating. If you won't, they'll say the article isn't updated to recent issues, as readers will obviously notice- "Hey! They've included reviews of 7 issues! Why'd they miss out on the next 8!?"

I'll keep thinking for more ideas. I really want you to succeed in passing this nomination rightfully. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for going the distance on this. I really appreciate it. I see now what you mean by "outline"-type comments. Since most of the paragraphs on each issue is composed of reviews from several different reviewers, I'll have to look through them to see if they each have something like that. Do you think I should not include specific elements of the issue that each reviewer cites as good or bad? Nightscream (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got an idea- Me thinks it's best that you just include the reception for the first issue. But make sure you include POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE both, if not in equal proportion since that's not possible as the series is very well liked. I think that it's okay for a RECEPTION SECTION of an ONGOING SERIES to include only the first issue review. If it were a limited series or a mini series, reviews for every issue would be okay. I think you should also include the series' achievements and listings- such as Saga being included in IGN's The Comics We're Thankful For This Year list. You'll have to work out to find more :| --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this review? No comments in a month. Wizardman 04:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been swamped with other things. Summarizing the reviews is going to take some work, so I haven't gotten to it yet. But I intend to. Nightscream (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, originally was going to try to retain some details of each issue's review in the summary, but I think that would just be repetitious, so I just summarized it in a single sentence, but included the sources in one cite, and added the IGN piece that Wizardman mentioned above. There wasn't much in the way of negative reviews, however. The closest I could find was Alex Zalben of MTV Geek saying that issue #2 left him wanting more because the double-sized issue #1 spoiled him for it. If you want, we could go back to the outline quote idea. Let me know what you think, WonderBoy. And Happy New Year. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream, WonderBoy1998 has been blocked for sockpuppetry until January 18. (The block began on January 4.) I have no idea whether he'll be back when the block expires—you could try his talk page, which will be the only place he won't be blocked—but don't expect any action here before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that extra piece should work. After that everything should be alright, though personally I'm not a fan of the structure as is. The plot at the end and the reception section being halfway through the article is odd to me. Wizardman 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? Nightscream (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd go History/Plot/Characters/Reception. Wizardman 05:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. As such I'll pass the article. Wizardman 05:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]