Transgender comments

[edit]

Byrne's Superman was not the fist comic ever to feature a variant cover, so that statement needs to be amended. See the following: https://www.progressiveruin.com/2022/04/25/there-are-no-biopsies-of-jokes-only-autopsies/


Transgender comments

[edit]

Since there's already a Controversies section, do people think that Byrne's comments about transgender people rate a mention? This would be the primary source, unless it gets coverage somewhere more notable: http://www.themarysue.com/john-byrne-is-asshat-about-trans-people/

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Byrne (comics)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 03:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review this. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). A few sources are comments on forums by John Byrne about his own life, which is not problematic per WP:ABOUTSELF.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Spotchecks

[edit]
@Aintabli Source for the first issue was added. --FlairTale (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli Sources added. --FlairTale (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli I couldn't find a source for the exact number of years of the marriage, so that part was removed. I copied the CBR source to the end as well, because it confirms the issue number and date. I'm not sure what you mean by the "same marriage" though. Dwyer is not Byrne's biological son. --FlairTale (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I misread that part. I read it as if it said "Byrne's son from a previous marriage". ("Byrne" was actually "Braun".) Even then, it should have been "Byrne's stepson". I totally mixed it up, so you're good. Aintabli (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]
I believe that Byrne's nationality is referenced because back in 2005, Byrne had deleted content on the page several times and accused Wikipedia of spreading lies and libel about him. He seemed to particularly take issue with being called things like "Canadian-American" and "British-American", as he only classifies himself as American now. Even Jimbo Wales got involved to help address Byrne's concerns. With all that said, do you still think the reference should be removed? --FlairTale (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I did not know that this article had such a peculiar history. Given it is a disputed matter by the subject himself, it may be better to leave the reference in the lead. After all, it wouldn't disqualify the article from being a GA. By the way, thank you for your recent edits to the article. Aintabli (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 21:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by FlairTale (talk). Self-nominated at 00:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Byrne (comics); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ––FormalDude (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Are there any preferences between the main hook and ALT3, in terms of which is more interesting or better written? FlairTale (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slight preference to ALT3 for being potentially more interesting, I'd be fine with either though. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]