Talk:Daredevil (Marvel Comics character)/GA1

GA review

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Wrangler1981 (talk · contribs) 21:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrangler1981, I know you've been waiting a while for a reviewer, but I also see it's been a couple weeks since you were active. Could you confirm that you're around and will have availability to respond to comments? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I will try to respond in a timely manner and work through this process. Wrangler1981 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll begin the review over the next few days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wrangler1981, before I cover other parts of the review, please take a look at the sourcing issues below. There's a few problems that will need fixed for this article to reach GA. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will begin addressing these over the weekend. Wrangler1981 (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been delayed because I just moved residencies. I will get to work on this within the next few days. I have responses to all the sourcing issues. Wrangler1981 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have written responses to the issues below, directly in the template. I hope that was the right way to do it. In most cases I have simply fixed the irregularity. Thank you for your help, Ganesha811. Wrangler1981 (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses thus far. Left some thoughts below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to respond to the issues about reliable sources. I've re-read the Wikipedia guidelines on RS. They say: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

The topic in question is a comic-book superhero. There are not prestigious academic journals dedicated to this subject. The two sources that have been called into question are the edited volume by Lindsay and the monograph by Hanefalk. It seems to me that the authors have demonstrable qualifications, although of course they do not have academic degrees in the topic of comic-book superheroes (such degrees do not exist). The contributors to the Lindsay volume are generally employed in education or work as creative writers in the science fiction or fantasy genres; Hanefalk has a science degree and works as a kind of amateur comics scholar. She has collaborated with other authors on this topic, such as the psychologist Langley who edited one of the other volumes. She's about as close to an expert on the topic as one can find, short of Paul Young who is a film scholar whose monograph was published with an academic press and won some prizes.

It seems to me that the Lindsay and Hanefalk volumes are not exactly recognized academic volumes, but they have a high degree of reliability for the topic at hand. The books include footnotes and extensive bibliographies, which I would hold in line with academic norms and standards (FWIW I have a doctorate in comparative literature and I've published peer-reviewed articles, so I have some confidence in judging these qualities). I think they are at least as reliable as the entertainment journalism commonly cited on these topics. The books might be somewhere in between scholarship and popular entertainment journalism, but they are well above the level of the usual fan discourse. These are the kinds of sources that would be expected for a pop-culture topic. Also, most of the claims that these volumes support are fairly basic primary-source description that is non-controversial. In our dialogue in the template below, you argue that there are other academic sources on this topic that I have not cited, but I am skeptical that this is true.

I believe that other articles on comic-book superheroes that have been recognized as GA by Wikipedia's editorial community also cite many sources at a similar level of status, and that this article as it currently stands compares very well with these examples (e.g. Iron Man, Thor (Marvel Comics), Black Widow (Natasha Romanova), and Captain America).

user:Ganesha811, I would like to ask your guidance on how to proceed. I would like to see this article recognized as a GA because I think it would raise the standards for comic-book topics on Wikipedia. I would like to ask you to help me choose among three options:

1) If you think that the article could pass muster for GA if I delete some or all of the citations to Hanefalk or to Lindsay, then I would try to do this. In most cases, alternative sources of higher reliability do not exist, so I would have to delete the claims they support. Then there's a question of whether the article remains sufficiently comprehensive.

2) There is a new book on Daredevil that will be published by Titan on August 5 of this year, about a month from now. I believe this would provide further research support for the article. If it's possible, perhaps we could defer the question of this article's status until August when I could use this new volume to improve the article and the publishing credentials of its sources.

3) If Wikipedia standards indicate that you need to make a decision in the more immediate future, then I guess you could decline the GA status for now, and then I could re-submit it for renewed consideration after I'm able to supplement it with the information and citations from the new Titan volume that will be published later this summer.

Thanks for your assistance and suggestions. Kind regards, Wrangler1981 (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to your perspective, but I can't agree that Lindsay and Hanefalk are reliable sources. Being "employed in education" is not sufficient to be a reliable source on Daredevil, nor is being a fan or "amateur comics scholar." Pop culture, including Daredevil, is widely covered in academia and other reliable journalistic sources. A self-published book just isn't gonna cut it. I do think that without those sources, large parts of the article will have to be rewritten. My recommendation would be for me to close the review as unsuccessful for now, and allow you time to rework, find other sources, and possibly integrate the August book when it is released. Then you can re-nominate the article, and if you ping me, I'll do my very best to give it a timely review so you don't have to wait again (or of course, you can wait for another reviewer if you prefer someone with a different perspective). I appreciate the hard work you've put in. How does that plan sound to you? —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. I agree that we can close the review for now, and I will work on improvements. I appreciate your willingness to reconsider the article when (or if) I'm able to get its reliability up to scholarly standards. Wrangler1981 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll do that. Do ping me when you've renominated the article, and if I am available then (quite likely), I'll initiate a new review. I'm sorry we weren't able to get there this time, but I have confidence that this article can reach GA with some changes. FYI, I also linked a couple of additional possible sources in the table below, and a couple tertiary sources just below this one. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some other works which may be helpful, though you'd have to check them out in detail to be sure - the Encyclopedia of American Comics, by Ron Goulart, The American Comic Book (Critical Insights), edited by Sommers, and the Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels, edited by Booker. Tertiary sources aren't usually preferred, but for an article like this I think they could be very helpful for covering basic details of the character in comics.

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.	Pass, generally structured fine, any minor issues can be handled in prose review. Pass.
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).	Can you share some background info on the Sequart 2013 book by Lindsay et al? The article heavily depends on it. What are the various' authors credentials and how was its reliability established? I think it is a reliable source. The editor is an author of independent comics and a commentator/journalist about comics. The contributors are generally educators or early-career academics; e.g. Timothy Callahan is Director of Technology for the North Adams Public Schools and the Dean of Curriculum and Instruction at Drury High School, Julian Darius has an M.A. in English and publishes science fiction stories, and so forth. Sequart is an independent publisher that produces culture-studies books about comic books. This doesn't sound as convincing as I'd hoped. I would not refer to high school teachers as "academics" - they don't usually conduct research or publish in academic journals. Lindsay is a comic-book author and independent journalist, not an academic, and this appears to be the first book he's edited. I found an interesting interview about the process of putting it together here. That notes that one of the contributors is also the publisher. Overall, it comes across as a well-put-together fan work, not an academic work. Have any of the authors published work about Daredevil or comics generally in peer-reviewed publications? —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Forest Helvie, one of the other contributors to the Lindsay book, is chair and professor of developmental English at a community college. The book is also cited in the Paul Young book. Generally speaking there are not a lot of prestigious journals that publish about comic books––although occasionally legal journals have published about Daredevil and I have cited them here––so I think Wikipedia should have standards for reliability realistic for the credibility level of the field. Wrangler1981 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comic books have been around for decades and there has been plenty of reliable academic work done on them. I'm not sure what the "credibility of the field" means, but this isn't a new area. Searches on Google Books and Scholar confirm that there's quite a bit of available academic work on Daredevil not cited here. From what you've said and found out, the Lindsay book appears to be basically a fan work. It's not journalism, it's not academia. If this wasn't a GA review, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I just don't think it meets the GA standard. I have pursued searches on Google Books and Google scholar on this topic. What academic work on Daredevil in comics have you found that is not cited here? There are some articles on the TV show version of the character that are not included because it is a different medium. Please let me know the other articles you have found so that I may cite them in this article. A few I found here, here, here. I'd also note that something doesn't have to be academic to be reliable - reliable journalism also works fine, as do books from reputable publishers by decently-credentialed authors. What I would prefer to avoid is works that come from the world of fandom. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] What is the Icv2: Guide to Graphic Novels? Is it a reliable source? It is an independent trade press journal. What is Marvel Age and is it a reliable source? Marvel Age was a promotional magazine published by Marvel Comics in the 1980s and 1990s. It is not independent, but it is a reliable part of the trade press that gives background information about the creators of various Marvel comic books. Non-independent sources have to be handled very carefully. I'll take another look at the citations to Marvel Age. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Is Newsarama a reliable source? It’s an independent web site that provides news about comic books. Could you expand on this a little? What makes it reliable? Neither the original nor the archive link for 115, Phegley, actually display the relevant article. Please check for dead links in other citations as well. The reference is unnecessary. I have deleted it; thanks for bringing to my attention. Is Comic Book Resources a reliable source? Yes; it is a widely read independent website, part of the trade press. It is cited in other Wikipedia Good Articles about comic-book superheroes. It looks as though we could consider it reliable up to 2016 or so, but its reliability has been declining since then. We should be careful with post-2016 citations to CBR. Also, the Sunu source original link is dead. Where there are dead links, first preference would be to find a working replacement, but if none is available, they can be tagged as dead using one of the parameters within the citation templates. I have simply deleted the reference and the sentence it supported, as I don’t think it was a vital or essential part of the article. Nerdist.com is probably not reliable. The original link is also dead. A redundant citation anyway. Deleted. Why are some cites to "Marvel" and others to "Marvel Entertainment"? ("Marvel Comics" is also used sometimes). Well, Marvel Entertainment Group was the parent company of Marvel Comics from 1986 to 1998, and Marvel Entertainment was the new name of the parent company from 1998 to 2023 before it was acquired by Disney. In practice these names tend to be used interchangeably as they are just questions of corporate structure. We can either be precise, and cite each one to the name the org was using at the time, or be consistent and just use "Marvel" across the board - up to you, but either way it should be adjusted. Cite 203, BBC Hawkins, is improperly formatted. I have fixed this. The quote in 205, Thomas, is a bit too long, trim it down some. Ok. Done ComicBooked.com is probably not a reliable source and the original link is dead I don’t think the sentence is really essential, so I have deleted it. #241, Cronin, is improperly formatted, and please go through and make sure there's consistency in using either "CBR" or "Comic Book Resources" The reason for the lack of consistency is a few references is that the website used to go by the common name “Common Book Resources” and then shortened its name to CBR. I believe the references are correct for the preferred name at the time of publication. Fair enough, sounds good. Ditto for #247, Bernstein Fixed. #250 is just a random blog post, not reliable. A redundant reference anyway. Deleted. #254, Elekta Dishes Out Vengeance, is missing author, date, etc Fixed. Daredevil-Movies.com is probably not reliable, the original link is dead as well. Replaced with a better reference. What exactly is the cite for #275, "Daredevil: Guardian Devil" - is this a comic book? An issue? A collection? It is a trade paperback collection of comic books. It’s a primary source reference, so I have replaced it with a better one by Wikipedia standards. Similar issue for #299, Sullivan, improperly formatted, missing ISBN, publisher, etc Fixed. Similar issue for #304, Quesada, improperly formatted Fixed. #312, IGN, improperly formatted (integrate the link) Fixed. Same issue for #315, Variety, Moreau source Fixed. Same issue again for #s 316 and 317, Dick and Erdmann, respectively. Fixed. In general the sourcing is not too bad, presuming that Sequart is reliable, but there are lots of formatting errors, dead links, etc, and some questions to answer on reliability, all of which need to be addressed. Thank you for your help. Our article describes Christine Hanefalk as a "literary scholar" but I really don't see any evidence that she is. She appears to run a well-liked Daredevil blog, but she's not an academic, she's a fan, as the title of her 2022 book makes clear. That makes our reliance on her book questionable, particularly as it appears to be self-published ("Tomp Books" simply being short for The Other Murdock Papers). This is in contrast with, for example, Paul Young's book, which was published by a reliable academic press by someone who has an academic post at well-known university. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)*[reply] Christine Hanefalk also holds a Master of Science in Engineering degree in Molecular Biotechnology from Uppsala University, which I think adds to her credentials. The book does have extensive footnotes and it follows academic standards. I guess it might be best to adjust her designation in the article because her literary publications are only about Daredevil. Wrangler1981 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] That adds to her credentials as a biologist, not as a writer about Daredevil. I don't know what exactly "follows academic standards" means. Fundamentally, a self-published fan work is not really a reliable source, unfortunately. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Citing a "dust jacket copy" (#143) crosses the line of OR, in my view. I have replaced this with a better source.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig doesn't pick up on anything, but a lot of inaccessible sources to the bot - hold for manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Question: does the 'Fictional Character Biography' cover a single iteration of Daredevil, or does it include material from multiple versions of the character?
	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.	No unresolved issues on talk, no edit wars, no major rewrites/expansions on going... pass.
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.	No issues - lots of fair use, but templated up as standard for this kind of article. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.