Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Order of the Stick/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Order of the Stick

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article for a while to improve its real-world context and add references. I'd like to get it all the way to Featured Article, primarily because there's only one webcomic FA in existence right now (Megatokyo). Right now, it's heavily referenced, partly to quell disputes between fans of the strip who didn't agree on certain statements and partly because webcomics seem to be held to a very exacting standard of notability. My request is to see what sort of information is still lacking to make this a FA candidate, and how the formatting and style can be improved. I've put this in for both a peer review and an article assessment at WikiProject: Comics and gotten no response, so I thought I would take it to the general population. Thanks in advance. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Also, to anyone reading this: I'm considering emailing Rich Burlew and asking permission to use some images. Assuming for sake of argument that he emails back and agrees, how can I indicate that in the "Usage" section of an image? Repost the email somewhere? --Ig8887 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For images issues, I recommend dropping a note at Elcobbola (talk · contribs)'s page and asking about how to do that and how to construct a fair use rationale that will pass their muster at FAC. Say you're planning on going to FAC with the article, and you'd like to iron out image issues before taking it there. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have done so. I also sent today another email to Mr. Burlew asking permission, as I found a different email for him on his site. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Efe (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • The references are not well formatted; they're inconsistent. Some accessdates are linked, while others are not. Some refs do not have publishers or work. These must be filled up. --Efe (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bardin (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I see quite a lot of material that's not supported by reliable sources. A lot of it comes across as original research. For instance, in the description of Durkon, we are told: He employs a warhammer, shield, and heavy armor in battle, but is much more effective with the divine magic granted him by his patron god, etc. There's no real evidence that he is "much more effective" with magic than weapons. The comic strips does not establish that as a fact nor is there any reliable sources that have offered that interpretation. So I suspect that's merely a case of a fan inserting his or her own interpretation of the events in the story. The entire plot synopsis is similarly devoid of any reference and comes across strongly as a fan written essay. A lot of the information in this article is devoid of significance for an encyclopedia entry. It would be appropriate for a fan website but if you want to make this a featured article on wikipedia, you're going to have to trim down a lot of these unnecessary and irrelevant information. Put yourself in the position of someone who has not read the comic strips at all. That is your primary audience. Would such an individual really want or need to know that the world of Order of the Stick is actually the second world to have existed in that universe? Would such an individual really appreciate reading all those spoilers concerning the plot? Five lengthy paragraphs do not make for a brief plot synopsis. Instead of providing such detailed information on the plot, I would suggest writing one or two paragraphs on the comic book's premise instead.
A few more specific issues:

  • In the description of the Belkar character, we are told that he joins the Order so that he may escape justice from a deadly bar fight in which he knifed 15 people, and continues largely due to Roy's belief that he must keep the violent halfling under his control. The second half of the sentence does not follow from the first half. Specifically, it does not sound like a reason for Belkar to continue with the Order of the Stick. Rather it sounds like a reason why the Order of the Stick keeps him around.
  • There's a low-resolution copy of strip #224 with a caption stating that this strip comments on the role of the paladin in the game and on the lack of rules for sleeping. Is this commentary really essential or significant to warrant a copy of a copyrighted image? I certainly did not get that impression reading that section. Both the role of the paladin and the lack of rules for sleeping are already mentioned in the text passages next to the image so why is there a need for this image to be reproduced in this article? With all the fuss about fair use, I sincerely doubt that this article would ever become a featured article with this image and its accompanying caption.
  • The lead section should be a summary of all the important points contained in the rest of the article. There should not be any need for citations in that lead section.
  • Another editor has commented on the footnotes and rightly so. All citations should be in a standard format. Information on the author and publisher should always be provided where possible. You can use this format: <ref>{{cite journal |author=Burlew, Rich |title=O-Chul's Razor |url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html |journal=The Order of the Stick |date=2008 |issue=#546 |publisher=Giantitp.com |accessmonthday=April 8 |accessyear=2008}}</ref> Try it out and I think you'll agree that it looks better. --Bardin (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: footnotes, you are both 100% correct.
  • In the exact Durkon example you give, it actually is stated in OOTS #34 that Durkon COULD be a pretty good warrior, implying that he is not currently one. However, that's not really worth debating, because that sentence is easily changed to say that he uses his magic "more frequently", as that can be verified numerically. My question, though, is at what point does something become self-evident by reading the actual work? WP:CITE says that citations are needed on material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged"--not on every single statement of fact. Which is why I'm not sure where references are specifically needed, and brings me to...
  • How can I provide a reference for the entire plot? Each of those sentences summarizes 20-30 comics, and there's no way they need that many footnotes. I know you're arguing that 5 paragraphs of plot summary aren't needed, but to be honest, I feel that they are. The only other FA on a webcomic, Megatokyo, has an 8-paragraph plot summary in it, and FA literature articles such as To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Rings, Starship Troopers all have plot summaries as long or longer than the one on this article, as do many FA movies (Blade Runner, Casino Royale (2006 film)) and TV series (Avatar: The Last Airbender). Hell, Make Way for Ducklings has three paragraphs, and that's a 68-page children's book! It seems to me that a plot summary is an important part of many FA literature and media articles, so I strongly disagree that this article would be better off without one. Further, several of those FA articles have absolutely no citations for their plot summary; I presume this is because it is undisputed what occurs in the work. Why should a webcomic be held to a different standard? Are the events of the plot likely to be challenged? If you have a specific sentence that you think is not undeniably what happens, I will be happy to edit it (as I am with the Durkon line). I can also delete the word "Brief" from the title, if that will help.
  • I also believe that yes, primary audience members MAY have need for such spoilers because OOTS is an ongoing story. It is helpful to some readers to be able to come to a Wikipedia article and "catch up" on the plot if they are just discovering the comic. Almost every article on a piece of literature has spoilers in it (including all of the FA's I listed above); see WP: SPOILER.
  • I will edit the Belkar line to eliminate the implication.
  • WP:LEAD says that "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." I would argue that the data regarding OOTS' traffic numbers constitutes current and controversial information that is likely to be challenged. I further argue that the sentence needs to be in the lead in order to establish the article's stake to notability. However, I agree that the first citation in paragraph 2 can be relocated elsewhere with no loss.
  • The strip image serves a dual purpose; it also shows what an OOTS strip looks like. Without it, readers won't know if OOTS is a 4-panel strip or a full-page strip. I strongly believe SOME image of an actual comic should exist in the article; see Megatokyo again. I'm open to suggestions on a better one to pick, though, or a better caption for this one.
Sorry if these comments seem defensive, I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas. I just don't think that the current consensus on what makes a literature or media FA article is in line with some of your comments, particularly about the plot synopsis. I will take a closer look at the language in the entire article, though, and will try to work on the footnotes. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reworded a number of sentences, including those called out, added references for some that did not have them, and reworked the lead to remove the one unnecessary citation. I will need to work on the footnotes at a later date, due the enormous number of them. --Ig8887 (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about coming across defensive. It's perfectly natural and I've been there myself when I submitted articles for peer review (two of which are still being listed). Thanks for bringing my attention to megatokyo. I wasn't aware that there's a featured article on a webcomic. I'm a bit surprised that it passed FA but I guess the standards back in 2006 are different to now. Nonetheless, I guess you can use that as a guide. My own stance on references is that nothing should be taken as a given but since you've got the megatokyo precendent on your side, you can disregard my comments regarding the plot. You're right that some image of the comic should exist in the article. The megatokyo example is used to demonstrate the "style and several of the comic's themes" so perhaps you should position the image of the comic strip earlier in the article so that someone can have an idea of its style, perhaps in the plot synopsis. I noticed you have trimmed down the lead section but that wasn't something I suggested. An article of that length should have something along three paragraphs in the lead and what you had before was good. As for the citations, you can pretty much repeat the same point. Write the same stuff (or reword it slightly) in the critical reception section (perhaps change it to just reception) and add the citations there. Then you will not need to have the cites in the lead section. You are right that it is not necessary to avoid citations in the lead but there are some editors out there who are quite particular about this issue and I just think that if you want to submit this article for FA then you might want to avoid giving those editors ammunitions to oppose it. Regarding the footnotes, I suggest using copy-paste and then filling in the differences (which would just be the title, issue number and url for the strips), if you haven't already thought of that. It'll save a lot of time. --Bardin (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll ruminate on this and see what changes i can make. --Ig8887 (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've re-written the lead to be more of an overview of info from the article, and moved the traffic stats to the Critical Reaction section, which I've renamed simply "Reaction" as a result. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) -

I'd have asked these questions at FAC also, so consider this a prequel for FAC. I didn't look over the prose, just sources. 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to justify these, but I'll give it a shot:
  • The forum post is not strictly necessary; the point has been covered obliquely within the comic. However, it is a sticking point in many fan debates, and I can't see how it does any harm for the author's direct word to be cited. As you say, it's still the author speaking, not a random fan.
  • The Webcomicker does seem to be weak; I can't find anything to support it being anything other than a blog by one man.
  • Steve Jackson Games is a major role-playing game company, publisher of GURPS, and Steve Jackson himself (who wrote the referenced news post) is one of the industry's leading designers.
  • Shlock Mercenary is a webcomic of equal notability with several published books, making the author, Howard Taylor, qualified to comment on webcomics.
  • Sequential Tart is a website that covers the entire comic book industry with multiple paid contributors and an editorial staff. I don't know what else to say other than that.
  • For the Broken Frontiers and Webcomics.com articles, the author of those articles is T Campbell, the author of A History of Webcomics: The Golden Age 1993-2005 and thus a published expert on webcomics. Those are simply two of the websites he writes material for.
  • Fleen does use the word "blog" on its front page, but it is actually a multiple-contributor website covering news in the webcomics community and funded by a third party. It is not, for example, an opinion site. It doesn't do reviews. And more to the point, the article cited is an example of actual on-the-scene journalism to a particular event, and is only included to confirm that yes, one OOTS strip was in the exhibit. The article doesn't need to assert any expertise on webcomics for the purpose for which I've used it, it merely needs to state that the person was there and could read the exhibit.
  • Shlock Mercenary dead link: I don't know why it's doing that. The URL works if you type it in or cut and paste it, but for some reason, the link doesn't. Do you have any ideas? I'm still a relative novice at Wiki code.
  • Comic Buyer's Guide dead link has been fixed.
  • Ref 106: I will look into that. I don't necessarily have that information, but its probably available somewhere.
  • Re: First-party references: Those aren't really to support its notability or anything; it's just that the comic has a large and fairly contentious fanbase that tends to disagree over interpretations of stuff. If the article doesn't call out exactly where event X or reference Y happened, someone is likely to dispute it. This is especially true for the author commentaries in the four books; they offer behind-the-scenes material on why the author did stuff, and thus really can't be substituted.
So...How did I do? --Ig8887 (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll chime in here with a few quick points. I don't think you need the forum post as a reference when it's clearly indicated within the comic strip itself that Belkar is chaotic evil. If the view of Howard Taylor is significant or notable, then it should be indicated as such (eg. fellow webcomic author Howard Taylor of Shlock Mercenary has praised oots for its deep understanding of rpgs, etc.) The reason why that schlock mercenary link is dead is because you added a separator | between the link and the title inside the square brackets you use. I've fixed some of those references but you should go through the article to see whether there's any more of these unnecessary separators. --Bardin (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly asking: What makes Howard Taylor require indication in the prose when the names of other reviewers are not called out? I'm not sure I understand what makes him less reliable, and it seems weird to me to call out one of my sources by name in the prose and none of the others. I feel like it would give undue weight to Howard Taylor's personal opinion to have him named in the paragraph and everyone else be relegated to the notes. I would think it was either a reliable source (and I could include in any way that makes sense), or not (and I should remove it). --Ig8887 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I've chosen to remove this instead. It wasn't an important enough opinion to warrant being mentioned by name. And I have called out the only other webcomic creator opinion (Josh Lesnick's slam on Burlew's art) in the text. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The forum post will probably pass muster, mainly because it is by the author, but it'd be better if you could find it in the books, rather than in a post. (Yes, I'm very much an OotS fan, btw. How could anyone NOT think Belkar is CE???) If you think the webcomicker is weak, you need to remove it or source it elsewhere. I know that Steve Jackson games is a big game maker, but what makes them reliable for THAT bit of information? As for the Taylor stuff, if you're basing the fact that it's notable to include in the article on Taylor's expertise in the field, it's good enough to mention him specifically. Sequential Tart is probably okay for a review, but for news they probably don't meet RS. I don't have a problem with the first-party usage, it was more a note that folks may get contentious about it at FAC. The author commentaries are a very good source of background and it's great you used them. Just be prepared to defend your source usage to others at FAC (think of this as a prequel for FAC, since I'll do a complete source audit there too...) The sourcing looked pretty good to me, honestly. Just those few questions, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll answer these:

  • Believe me, I've looked in the books for a direct author statement on Belkar's alignment, it's not there. How can people think he's not CE? No idea, but you should try reading his official forums some time. There are all sorts of epileptic tree theories in there.
  • The Webcomicker is gone. Frankly, I think the sentence it was referencing didn't actually need the reference to be obviously true, I just added it because I figured more refs were better. I now realize that such isn't the case, so the sentence will stand on its own.
  • Re: Steve Jackson: The reference in question is to the passing of Gary Gygax. Steve Jackson knew Gygax personally, and when he had to make the announcement that he had died, he chose to reference the OOTS strip that Burlew had posted. Given that dozens of webcomics did Gygax tribute strips, by linking JUST the OOTS one, he is making a specific note of it within the context of "my colleague just died, here's someone who eulogized him well." That's all the reference is doing--showing that the gaming industry noticed and publicized Burlew's strip.
  • I've chosen to remove the Taylor praise rather than give it what I still feel is undue weight within the prose. I've replaced it with a Webcomics Examiner article, which is another multiple paid contributor website with an editorial staff, one that covered nothing but webcomics. It's in the same league as Sequential Tart, though it hasn't updated in some time. I'll keep the Taylor mention of Rich's Gygax eulogy strip on the same grounds as Steve Jackson, above: It shows that the webcomic community noted Burlew's eulogy, nothing more.
  • Sequential Tart isn't being used for news, it's being used for an interview with Rich Burlew--one that Burlew linked to on his News page when it went live, so we can presume he didn't dispute that he actually said those things.
Anything else? --Ig8887 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Order_of_the_Stick/archive1&oldid=1148264560"