351:"Criticism of the term" is non-neutral in name and content; it drops a few quotes (most older) without giving both sides of the issues regarding the use. Should be retooled and perhaps smurged into Definition to expand into Usage. Article also almost exclusively focuses on American comics, and gives no international perspective nor does it go into non-American comics (such as manga, which are generally considered "graphic novels" by bookstores).
83:
450:
416:
402:
346:
309:
299:
257:
243:
229:
184:
170:
267:
371:
323:). It would also be good to discuss in a broad sense its reception/sales versus other book forms and comics (for bound volumes), how they are distributed (are they sold the same as comics or books or both?) any social aspects, the graphic novel industry (financials, major companies, is it standalone? separate from comics and manga? or a smurge of the different forms?), etc.
314:
Extensive history, though of questionable reliability and validity. The definition section really doesn't give an actual definition, but tries to explain why the term is disputed. If one were to read this article, you'd really come away confused. It seems from the dispute, there are several forms of
458:
When I started this review, I hoped to be able to put it on hold for fixing, however after thoroughly reviewing the article (spent 40 minutes reviewing this), there are just too many issues to deal with. I do not feel this article can really be fixed within a reasonable time (normal GAR hold is a
262:
The article contains large amounts of unsourced content, particularly in the definition and history sections. From the writing, it is clear that the article contains extensive OR, giving no source for the claims that the term is ill-defined, questioning the applicability to manga, etc. For the
189:
The article is in need of a copy edit to fix grammar and basic prose issues. It is not currently written in a professional tone, nor does it flow well. The history section reads like an unbulletted timeline, while the criticism section is a set of quote drops. The article also fails the basic
425:
images, almost all of which are a violation of
Knowledge (XXG) policy. All of the book covers need to go. None are discussed in a critical fashion and all are being used in a purely illustrative fashion here. They are only appropriate for use in their own respective articles, not here.
266:, a reliable source? #5, www.collectortimes.com, is a dead link. Source #7, to comicbookresources.com, gives a 404 error. What makes #9 and 10, both for comics.org, a reliable source? It states it is user edited, and gives no indication that its following fair-use laws. Source #14,
459:
week). The only criteria it passes is stability. I have therefore delisted this article from good article standing. I encourage editors to address the issues noted above and give the article a good overhaul, then take it through
430:
is also not being used in an appropriate fashion, with no critical discussion, nothing indicating why it is relevant to the topic. It also has no FUR validating its use here. There is not a single properly used image in this
277:
is a forum posting without clear information on the poster to confirm identity, validity of the posting, etc. Also fails RS. In the second reference section, Comicartville appears to be a self-published website of the
95:
455:
This article was never actually reviewed for good article standing against the GA criteria, it was apparently simply passed without comment the day after it was nominated.
315:
graphic novels, so perhaps this should be examined and covered more thoroughly to better show the multiple usages for the term (similar to what is done with
269:, is being misused to support a claim. #16, artbomb.net, is not a reliable source and is blocked by browsers for distributing malicious software. #24,
66:
148:
142:
62:
394:
480:
131:
47:
249:
39:
176:
106:, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
215:
87:
263:
references that are there, source 4 is unclear and appears to be two references + a note. What makes #2, CMJ blog
474:
125:
110:. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
422:
199:
384:
427:
55:
17:
91:
98:. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
468:
119:
332:
408:
191:
115:
111:
464:
460:
235:
202:. And what is with the "Quotes" section, which has one seemingly random, pointless quote?
195:
107:
270:
82:
274:
32:
114:. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
194:
of
Knowledge (XXG), with inconsistent reference formatting, a bad selection of
484:
135:
99:
90:, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
316:
264:
320:
103:
456:
74:
43:
421:This article has an insanely excessive amount of
273:, is a fansite, user edited, and not RS. #28 to
8:
393:(images are tagged and non-free images have
198:, and the headers do not really meet
7:
388:, where possible and appropriate.
86:In order to uphold the quality of
24:
448:
414:
400:
369:
344:
341:Fair representation without bias
307:
297:
255:
241:
227:
182:
168:
81:
1:
96:GA project quality task force
88:Knowledge (XXG):Good articles
449:
415:
401:
370:
345:
308:
298:
256:
242:
228:
183:
169:
463:before renominating it for
505:
485:02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
136:02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
158:reasonably well written
407:(appropriate use with
382:It is illustrated by
333:neutral point of view
287:broad in its coverage
395:fair use rationales
428:File:Blackmark.jpg
211:factually accurate
18:Talk:Graphic novel
409:suitable captions
366:No edit wars etc.
496:
471:
452:
451:
418:
417:
404:
403:
373:
372:
348:
347:
311:
310:
301:
300:
259:
258:
245:
244:
236:reliable sources
231:
230:
186:
185:
172:
171:
122:
85:
79:
70:
51:
504:
503:
499:
498:
497:
495:
494:
493:
469:
330:It follows the
294:(major aspects)
120:
94:as part of the
60:
37:
31:
29:
27:GA Reassessment
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
502:
500:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
234:(citations to
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
153:
152:
80:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
501:
486:
482:
479:
476:
472:
467:standing. --
466:
462:
457:
454:
453:
446:
443:
442:
440:
437:
429:
424:
420:
419:
412:
410:
398:
396:
390:
389:
387:
386:
381:
375:
374:
367:
364:
363:
361:
357:
350:
349:
342:
339:
338:
336:
334:
329:
322:
318:
313:
312:
305:
295:
291:
290:
288:
284:
276:
272:
268:
265:
261:
260:
253:
251:
239:
237:
225:
221:
220:
218:
217:
212:
208:
201:
197:
193:
188:
187:
180:
178:
166:
162:
161:
159:
155:
154:
151:for criteria)
150:
146:
144:
140:
139:
138:
137:
133:
130:
127:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
84:
78:
77:
73:
68:
64:
59:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
36:
35:
26:
19:
477:
470:AnmaFinotera
444:
438:
406:
392:
383:
365:
359:
340:
331:
303:
293:
286:
247:
233:
224:(references)
223:
214:
210:
174:
164:
157:
141:
128:
121:AnmaFinotera
75:
71:
57:Article talk
56:
52:
33:
30:
271:acmenovelty
92:GA criteria
44:visual edit
423:WP:NONFREE
216:verifiable
200:WP:MOSHEAD
445:Pass/Fail
304:(focused)
275:newsarama
481:contribs
431:article.
132:contribs
439:Overall
278:author.
165:(prose)
100:June 10
67:history
48:history
34:Article
385:images
360:stable
358:It is
335:policy
317:poetry
285:It is
209:It is
196:WP:ELs
192:WP:MOS
156:It is
145:review
118:. --
116:WP:GAR
112:WP:GAN
465:WP:GA
461:WP:PR
321:drama
147:(see
108:WP:GA
76:Watch
16:<
475:talk
319:and
213:and
149:here
126:talk
104:2009
63:edit
40:edit
177:MoS
483:)
447::
441::
413::
405:b
399::
391:a
368::
362:.
343::
337:.
306::
302:b
296::
292:a
289:.
254::
250:OR
246:c
240::
232:b
226::
222:a
219:.
181::
173:b
167::
163:a
160:.
143:GA
134:)
102:,
65:|
46:|
42:|
478:·
473:(
411:)
397:)
252:)
248:(
238:)
179:)
175:(
129:·
124:(
72:·
69:)
61:(
53:·
50:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
