Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Comics / Webcomics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by Webcomics work group.
 
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2008-07-10


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
This project covers a type of webpage. Please see related discussions on websites at:
Wikipedia talk:Websites
Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging


Seeking review of Lore Olympus[edit]

I've had a go at improving the quality of Lore Olympus. Would someone be willing to review the article for quality? I think it's at least a C-class now, and could be a B if the plot and characters section is brought under control.

I used to send assessment requests to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment but it seems to have been dead for some time. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I really like where this article is going! I think it still needs some work to reach B-class, though.
  • The simplest improvement is a fair-use image or two. I'm happy to add one myself if you want me to, though I haven't actually read this webcomic, so I might not be able to add the best possible image.
  • The list of characters is an eyesore to me. Personally I'd cut out the "Minor characters" section completely and would try to trim the "Major characters" list to less than ten characters. Leave the full list of characters to Wikia.
  • The Reception section could use some more perspectives. Right now you have wo paragraphs each representing one review, and a paragraph representing fan reaction (which is difficult to do, and I'm not sure if Critical Darlings is a reliable source). It would be really nice if you could cite at least one more review here, perhaps in the same paragraph as the The Beat review.
  • You could possible combine "Format", "Artstyle", and perhaps "Influences", into one big section, like "Development".
@HenryCrun15:I really like the way you did the plot section and the Reception section (though that one can use expanding). It's a really nice article, good work! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the review and edit! I've added an image, removed the minor characters section, and played around with the layout of the rest. I'm not sure what you mean by the reviews though; the Dail Dot review and the Beat review are different. I'm tempted to cut the "fan" paragraph - it was written by someone else who was citing personal Tumblr pages.I removed the unreliable sources but instead of removing the material, marked it as citation needed. Not sure that was right.HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@HenryCrun15: Yes, this is looking good! For the reception section, I'd suggest trying to find more reviews. Just two is a fairly low number. Removing the badly sourced fandom reception is definitely a good idea. I understand why it's there, but it's hard to decide on what is worthy of inclusion. Rather leave that decision to the reliable sources we cite. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: Right. I've added one more review and expanded some more out of a review that was already in there, and deleted review material that was unsourced (or previously sourced from personal Tumblr pages. This makes it some straightforward stats, two reviews from reliable sources, and two reviews that might or might not be reliable. There are other reviews you could add - Sequential Planet may be a more reliable source? - but I couldn't find negative reviews on plausibly-reliable platforms so there's not much point adding more of the same view. Within these was also more description of the story so I replaced "cite by linking to the main page of the comic" with these. I think I'll leave it here now. If you think the extra changes bring it to B quality, or if you think you can add any more, please do. In any case I'm pleased with the improvements we've made. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
You definitely did great work here. The reliable sources are indeed a bit difficult to figure out. Sequential Planet does look more reliable than Love in Panels!, even just because I can find the founder on LinkedIn. First-name only is not the best sign for determining a reliable source. As for negative reviews, you very rarely find those for webcomics, as there isn't much of a point to doing so. Webcomics tend to be free and are reviewed more as hobbyist projects. I think it's fairly close to B-class; I'd be alright with it being promoted :) 2A02:A455:4D78:1:CCB4:F7A4:6D22:77F (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Annual membership survey[edit]

About this time last year I looked into which editors in this work group are actually active, and decided to do so the same again.

Methodology[edit]

I defined the following groups:

  • Active participant: Both:
    • Listed on the group's participant page or with the infobox on their username (and if they had the infobox I added them to the page), and
    • Edited Wikipedia in the last three years.
  • Inactive participant: Listed on the page, not an active participant, and either:
    • Edited Wikipedia in the last five years, or
    • Has the infobox on their userpage.
  • Not a participant: Any editor not meeting the above two definitions (even if they were listed on the page).

I also defined a subgroup of active participant, power user, defined as an active participant who has edited a webcomics article within the last 12 months.

Results[edit]

We have 33 active participants. Along with another 24 inactive participants, there are a total of 57 participants according to my definition.

Within this, we have 4 power users:

(I also found another four active participants that had edited a comic article, but not a webcomic article.)

So we are a small group, smaller than our old long list of editors would have suggested. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: What's the definition of a power user? Nevermind, I read it.MJLTalk 00:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Notably, from what I've seen, I think Webcomics Work Group members do often have a particular interest in webcomics over other subjects (like comics), so despite the small group of active members/power users, we do still form a distinct community/grouping. The fact that numbers are low doesn't surprise me, but I am curious about how statistics compare to last year, or to five years ago. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)