Talk:Glory Grant

Comics: Marvel C‑class Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would 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.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Creator

Need to know who the creators are. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I've assessed the page at C level. Here are some recommendations:

Lead: The lead paragraph should be expanded, providing a brief but comprehensive summary of the character and the notability.

Infobox: Ideally, images are full body, 3/4 profile with a non-distracting background. If you can find that, or approaching that, replace the current bust image.

Publication history: Publication histories are standard for good quality articles and this is lacking. Their most important function is providing a significant section where the subject can be portrayed in an "out of universe"/real-world way, such as the character's first issue introduction, what titles the character was significantly featured in, how the character was used and/or changed and developed by writers and editors, etc. See the article Jean Grey for an example of a good publication history and how it portrays the subject "out of universe".

Fictional character biography: I think the summary is comprehensive, however, the tense fluctuates. It should be present tense where appropriate rather than past tense. Likewise, there are some peacock/non-neutral/original research/speculative terms such as "darkest hour by far" need to be weeded out. You also want to take out time-based terms such as "recently", because they won't be recent forever. Replace those with neutral, present-tense language.

Citations: The article has some language that requires citations, such as "is viewed as" (viewed by who?) or the "longest serving secretary" (says who?; where is that stated)? Likewise, citations should ideally be fully cited, not just comic issues. See the citations in Anole (comics) (link below) or in Jean Grey's publication history (link below). The template includes writer, artist, issue, title, among other details. Full citations will improve the article. Though primary sources (i.e. the comics themselves are sufficient for these statements, they will not be sufficient to make the article notable (see below).

In other media: For the first appearance, you need a citation to confirm that the character was supposed to be Grant, but was renamed, rather than just an entirely different albeit similar character. You also need citations for the media claims. Cite the episodes she first appears in, etc.

Grammar/language/detail: In general, the article has some grammar and language issues. There are some awkwardly stated sentences. Typically passive statements like "is shown to be..." are avoided and should be replaced with direct statements like "Grant becomes the..." or "Grant is the..." There is a sentence fragment in the last media appearance entry. Likewise, some of those sections have a bit too much detail and in-universe detail at that. For example, for a casual reader, is calling it "a school dance" a better concept than "fall formal"?

Notability: Like many character articles, notability is sparse or completely absent. This article leans on the latter, and that's being nice about it. If you can find legitimate third party sources to support this article, those will be crucial to improving its quality. These include writers/editors/artists discussing the creative processes behind the character. They also include any discussion or reception of the character by a legit third party, perhaps a news article discussing journalists or secretaries in comics that include this character, or black/African-American characters in comics. Without any of that, the article lacks basic notability.

Since the character seems to be largely peripheral, it doesn't look like the article will increase in priority, and it will probably be difficult to find third party sources on her. Good luck, but your work is cut out for you.

For examples of all of the above, you may want to look at Anole (comics), which is similarly low-priority, but was brought up to GA status through similar suggestions about citations and with sufficient notability through legit third party resources. Again, an example of publication history sections can be found at Jean Grey. I know I wrote those sections or articles I'm suggesting, but that is basically just because they are the ones I know to be solid, though there are others out there. Let me know if you need further advice or help.Luminum (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I've just noticed that much of this article's body is more or less lifted from the Marvel wikia. This entire body needs to be re-written to avoid copyright issues.

Thank you! With an article with this much information I didn't really expuct much higher of an rating. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]