Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joker (comics)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2015 [1].

Joker (comics)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fictional supervillain the Joker, arguably one of the most famous characters in the western world, and definitely among the top comic characters and villains of all time. Over the course of several years I've slowly helped expand the article from just before my earliest edit here to what it is today. It paradoxically isn't the easiest thing to find sources for a lot of information about a character that is 75 years old, but I finally think that the article is as complete as it can be at this point and that it is ready to stand among our best articles. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoyGoldsmith

[edit]

I think you should add more quotes to your inline citations, especially those which cannot be checked except at a library.

For example, you end the first paragraph of the lead with the assertion that the Joker is "the archenemy" of Batman. I think many people (although surely a minority) would disagree with that. Do you have any reliable sources?

The body of the article (in the second 'graph of the Golden Age section, the only place where it mentions archenemy again) gives the reference "Manning 2001, p. 24, 27" for the entire paragraph. If you agree that this assertion needs a source, you could add an incite to the sentence with a quote. For example (hypothetically), "Manning 2001, p. 24 "Most authors ascribe the superlative of Batman's archenemy to the Joker." This would make it clear, even to readers who don't have Manning's book, that the editors found sources, rather than illegal systhesis.

I don't say that this "archenemy" statement particularly needs more sources. But when you consider all the citations that are just "Book, page number" you'll realize that the article cannot be cross-checked by anyone who has less than your resources. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 1"4:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Think that's doable, give me a day or two. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

I'm not a comics person, but I do have a moderate familiarity with Batman. Looks like a very interesting article.

  • First, I'm not sure I agree with Roy above about heavy use of quotes in the references- references merely to book and page are pretty standard, surely?
  • "The antithesis of Batman in personality and appearance, the Joker is considered by critics to be his perfect adversary." This feels a little non-neutral.
  • The last paragraph of the lead needs to be reworked- it's a tricky read.
  • "Elements of the character's roots" What does this mean?
  • "and Robinson cited his 1940 sketch as the source of the Joker's design" What sketch? And, presumably, you mean the first complete design, not so much the "source2 of the design?
  • "Although Kane adamantly refused to share credit for many of his characters (and refused to credit Robinson until Kane's death)" ??
  • "because Finger credited Robinson historians generally accept the latter's version of events." I don't really follow- also, does your source say that historians generally accept that, or is the source one example of someone accepting that? If the latter, then the claim is not really supported
  • The last paragraph of "Creation" is mostly written in Wikipedia's neutral voice; it's not clear that you're telling a disputed story
  • "as Batman's first villain" This doesn't read well. Are you using "Batman" to refer to the character or to the universe?
  • "During this period, the first changes in the Joker began to appear; when he kidnaps Robin the ransom is paid by check, and he cannot cash it without being arrested" I can't see the significance in the check?
  • "Around the same time, DC Comics found it easier to market its stories to children without the characters' more mature elements" Do you mean they removed the darker elements in order to market the stories to children? That's not what it says right now.
  • The third paragraph of "Golden Age" (those titles are a little odd to my eyes as a non-comics person, by the way) feels like just two facts bashed together
  • "which introduced the concept of him formerly being the criminal Red Hood," I'm not sure that's a concept
  • "stripping Batman of his menace and transforming the Joker into a goofy, thieving trickster without his original homicidal tendencies" This feels non-neutral. Also "despised" and "risked" are slightly hyperbolic/rhetorical. And "campy" isn't even in the OED.
  • "The campy show's popularity (including Romero's Joker)" Grammatically odd- Romero's Joker isn't part of the popularity, he is an aspect of the show that was popular
  • I'm struggling with the information about the '60s. He was mostly absent for "the decade" after 1964, but in 1966 onwards he was appearing a lot in conjunction with the TV show? What's going on there?
  • "after a four-year disappearance" Rhetorical
  • Be aware of MOS:LQ
  • "O'Neil's 1973 run introduced the Joker's legal insanity, the reason he was sent to Arkham Asylum (then Arkham Hospital) after its creation in 1974 instead of to prison" There's a muddling of real-world and comics-world information, here
  • "changing his more average figure" Odd
  • "a hotbed of experimentation" Rhetorical
  • "and in 1975 the character became the first villain to star in a comic book series, The Joker" That's nonstandard comma use, and presumably you mean the first villain to be the title character of a comic book? Surely, he (and many other villains) have "starred" in comic books.
  • " Following the character's interactions with other supervillains, the series' first issue was written by O'Neil." Unclear
  • "character's villainy prevailed over equivalent rivals" What do you mean by "equivalent" here?
  • "The series never found an audience" Rhetorical
  • "defined the Joker for decades to come" Rhetorical
  • "In "The Laughing Fish", the Joker disfigures fish by giving them a rictus grin (expecting copyright protection), killing bureaucrats who tell him that copyrighting a natural resource is legally impossible" I'm struggling with this sentence
  • "Rogers expanded on Adams' character design (adding a fedora and trench coat to the Joker's wardrobe),[39] and Englehart outlined his Joker: "He was this very crazy, scary character. I really wanted to get back to the idea of Batman fighting insane murderers at 3 a.m. under the full moon, as the clouds scuttled by."[22]" How about something like "Rogers expanded on Adams' character design, drawing the Joker with a fedora and trench coat.[39] Englehart outlined how he understood the character by saying that the Joker "was this very crazy, scary character. I really wanted to get back to the idea of Batman fighting insane murderers at 3 a.m. under the full moon, as the clouds scuttled by."[22]"
  • "Years after the end of the 1966 television series, sales of Batman continued to fall and the title was nearly canceled." Could you be more precise on when this was happening?
  • "the Joker came into his own as part of the "dark age" of comics: mature tales of death and destruction." This (as well as the "launched the era" sentence) feels non-neutral
  • "Fans never accepted Todd" This feels rhetorical- how about something like "Todd was never popular with fans"?
  • "a 28-vote plurality had the Joker" I don't understand
  • "This story altered the Batman universe: instead of killing anonymous bystanders, the Joker murdered a core character in the Batman fiction; this had a lasting effect on future stories." Difficult to follow.
  • "The novel is described as one of the greatest Joker stories ever written" By who?
  • Isn't Quinn a psychiatrist, rather than a psychologist?
  • Does your source say that the vat thing is "The most common interpretation of the character", or does it just present this interpretation?
  • "The Joker tries to poison Robin with the same Joker venom, Batman defeats him, sending him to prison" Are you missing a word, here?
  • "However, he says that this story may not be true and prefers his past to be "multiple choice"" Who does?
  • "The character's maiming of Barbara arguably turned her into a more-important character in the DC Universe" According to whom?
  • "and the character succeeds in making a member of the Bat-family break their rule against killing" Because of Grayson's temporary "killing" of him? This isn't so clear
  • Are the brief summaries of the storylines in the biography section meant to be a picture of all of the character's major appearances? I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're trying to achieve in the section
  • As a general note, there seems to be a moderate amount of repetition in the article. I'm not sure it's necessarily a problem, but perhaps it's something to think about.
  • "Renowned as Batman's greatest enemy" Source? Renowned by whom?
  • "more than any other comic book character, the Joker thrives on his mutable and irreconcilable identities" Rhetorical/non-neutral
  • "and Batman who dwells in the dark" Rhetorical
  • " Murder, theft, and terrorism, no crime is beyond the Joker" Again- that whole paragraph feels a bit off, in terms of tone

I'll stop there for now- I think there are some issues with the writing in places, but there's a lot of good stuff here- good-quality research, avoidance of minutae, and so on. I think it falls a little short of FA level right now, but it's not a million miles off. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working
[edit]
    • First, I'm not sure I agree with Roy above about heavy use of quotes in the references- references merely to book and page are pretty standard, surely?
    • "The antithesis of Batman in personality and appearance, the Joker is considered by critics to be his perfect adversary." This feels a little non-neutral.
    • The last paragraph of the lead needs to be reworked- it's a tricky read.
    • "Elements of the character's roots" What does this mean?
    • "and Robinson cited his 1940 sketch as the source of the Joker's design" What sketch? And, presumably, you mean the first complete design, not so much the "source2 of the design?
    • "Although Kane adamantly refused to share credit for many of his characters (and refused to credit Robinson until Kane's death)" ??
    • "because Finger credited Robinson historians generally accept the latter's version of events." I don't really follow- also, does your source say that historians generally accept that, or is the source one example of someone accepting that? If the latter, then the claim is not really supported
    • The last paragraph of "Creation" is mostly written in Wikipedia's neutral voice; it's not clear that you're telling a disputed story
    • "as Batman's first villain" This doesn't read well. Are you using "Batman" to refer to the character or to the universe?
    • "During this period, the first changes in the Joker began to appear; when he kidnaps Robin the ransom is paid by check, and he cannot cash it without being arrested" I can't see the significance in the check?
    • "Around the same time, DC Comics found it easier to market its stories to children without the characters' more mature elements" Do you mean they removed the darker elements in order to market the stories to children? That's not what it says right now.
    • The third paragraph of "Golden Age" (those titles are a little odd to my eyes as a non-comics person, by the way) feels like just two facts bashed together
    • "which introduced the concept of him formerly being the criminal Red Hood," I'm not sure that's a concept
      • I changed it to "characteristic"?
    • "stripping Batman of his menace and transforming the Joker into a goofy, thieving trickster without his original homicidal tendencies" This feels non-neutral. Also "despised" and "risked" are slightly hyperbolic/rhetorical. And "campy" isn't even in the OED.
    • "The campy show's popularity (including Romero's Joker)" Grammatically odd- Romero's Joker isn't part of the popularity, he is an aspect of the show that was popular
    • I'm struggling with the information about the '60s. He was mostly absent for "the decade" after 1964, but in 1966 onwards he was appearing a lot in conjunction with the TV show? What's going on there?
    • "after a four-year disappearance" Rhetorical
    • Be aware of MOS:LQ
    • "O'Neil's 1973 run introduced the Joker's legal insanity, the reason he was sent to Arkham Asylum (then Arkham Hospital) after its creation in 1974 instead of to prison" There's a muddling of real-world and comics-world information, here
    • "changing his more average figure" Odd
    • "a hotbed of experimentation" Rhetorical
    • "and in 1975 the character became the first villain to star in a comic book series, The Joker" That's nonstandard comma use, and presumably you mean the first villain to be the title character of a comic book? Surely, he (and many other villains) have "starred" in comic books.
    • " Following the character's interactions with other supervillains, the series' first issue was written by O'Neil." Unclear
    • "character's villainy prevailed over equivalent rivals" What do you mean by "equivalent" here?
    • "The series never found an audience" Rhetorical
    • "defined the Joker for decades to come" Rhetorical
    • "In "The Laughing Fish", the Joker disfigures fish by giving them a rictus grin (expecting copyright protection), killing bureaucrats who tell him that copyrighting a natural resource is legally impossible" I'm struggling with this sentence
      • Any better? - "In "The Laughing Fish", the Joker disfigures fish with a rictus grin resembling his own (expecting copyright protection), and is unable to understand that copyrighting a natural resource is legally impossible."
    • "Rogers expanded on Adams' character design (adding a fedora and trench coat to the Joker's wardrobe),[39] and Englehart outlined his Joker: "He was this very crazy, scary character. I really wanted to get back to the idea of Batman fighting insane murderers at 3 a.m. under the full moon, as the clouds scuttled by."[22]" How about something like "Rogers expanded on Adams' character design, drawing the Joker with a fedora and trench coat.[39] Englehart outlined how he understood the character by saying that the Joker "was this very crazy, scary character. I really wanted to get back to the idea of Batman fighting insane murderers at 3 a.m. under the full moon, as the clouds scuttled by."[22]"
    • "Years after the end of the 1966 television series, sales of Batman continued to fall and the title was nearly canceled." Could you be more precise on when this was happening?
    • "the Joker came into his own as part of the "dark age" of comics: mature tales of death and destruction." This (as well as the "launched the era" sentence) feels non-neutral
    • "Fans never accepted Todd" This feels rhetorical- how about something like "Todd was never popular with fans"?
    • "a 28-vote plurality had the Joker" I don't understand
    • "This story altered the Batman universe: instead of killing anonymous bystanders, the Joker murdered a core character in the Batman fiction; this had a lasting effect on future stories." Difficult to follow.
    • "The novel is described as one of the greatest Joker stories ever written" By who?
    • Isn't Quinn a psychiatrist, rather than a psychologist?
    • Does your source say that the vat thing is "The most common interpretation of the character", or does it just present this interpretation?
    • "The Joker tries to poison Robin with the same Joker venom, Batman defeats him, sending him to prison" Are you missing a word, here?
    • "However, he says that this story may not be true and prefers his past to be "multiple choice"" Who does?
    • "The character's maiming of Barbara arguably turned her into a more-important character in the DC Universe" According to whom?
    • "and the character succeeds in making a member of the Bat-family break their rule against killing" Because of Grayson's temporary "killing" of him? This isn't so clear
    • Are the brief summaries of the storylines in the biography section meant to be a picture of all of the character's major appearances? I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're trying to achieve in the section
      • A collection of the major storylines that have involved the character and defined elements of the character such as origin, killing/maiming of major characters, impact on Batman's characterization, changes in the character, etc.
    • As a general note, there seems to be a moderate amount of repetition in the article. I'm not sure it's necessarily a problem, but perhaps it's something to think about.
    • "Renowned as Batman's greatest enemy" Source? Renowned by whom?
    • "more than any other comic book character, the Joker thrives on his mutable and irreconcilable identities" Rhetorical/non-neutral
    • "and Batman who dwells in the dark" Rhetorical
    • " Murder, theft, and terrorism, no crime is beyond the Joker" Again- that whole paragraph feels a bit off, in terms of tone

OPPOSE by Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • Oppose: obviously a lot of quality work has gone into the article, but there are issues that a copyedit alone won't fix. The biggest issue is focus: is this article about the character "Joker", or about the character's appearances in comics? Given there is no Joker (character) article, that suggests this should be the base article on the character, and portions of the article bear out that this is intended to be the base article: such lines as "The Joker is considered one of, if not, the most-recognizable and iconic fictional characters in popular culture" and "TV Guide included Caesar Romero's Joker on its 2013 list of "60 Nastiest Villains of All Time", and he was the 45th villain on the American Film Institute's 100 Heroes and Villains list", for instance. On the other hand, almost the entire article is about the character's appearances in comics, with only bare mention of his extensive and prominent appearances in other media (especially TV and film) for which the cahrracter is best known to the masses. The article needs to be renamed to "Joker (character)" or "Joker in comics", and reworked to conform to the new focus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are separate articles for media appearances, it's not feasible to fit them all into one. The comics are the source material so it focuses on the original, not the derivatives. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing unfeasible about it, and the claim cannot be made when the no effort has been put into solving the problem (in fact, has been steadfastly resisted). Regardless, such an excuse that would not fly for a character in any other medium: see Tarzan, Mario, or countless others. Privileging the character's original appearance is a violation of NPOV. WP:COMICS does not get a free pass on these things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean I'm not asking for a pass, all media incarnations are based on the core product, the comics character. Animations, story arcs, designs, supplementary characters and relationships, these are all sourced from the comic character and so I have deliberately focused on making the article cover the comic character extensively. It's a character that has 75 years of history JUST in comics. It isn't Mario who has no story or character development beyond being a plumber, or Tarzan who is a less complex and popular character. The Joker article as it stands is 8779 words, so literally by the guidelines of Wikipedia it isn't possible to go into extensive detail about media interpretations of which there have been many each with their own receptions. That's what the Joker in other media article is for, it's sole purpose is to be dedicated to these popular interpretations of the core character.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, you're only interested in the comics aspect of the character—fine, rename it Joker in comics and move the rest of the stuff to the core Joker (character) article. The rest of what you've written here is totally irrelevant to the very real issue I've brought up—this article is either about the character, or the character's appearances in comics. Work it out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok. Well I'm going to leave you to it Curly because the Joker (character) would only ever be centralised around the character with 75 years of history that birthed everything else when there are separate individual film/television/video game articles to focus on adaptations and an "In media" article that centralises these adaptations as in line with FA Anarky, FA Batman, and GA Spider-Man. I'll leave you to your Oppose as I'm not able to completely change the article for you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think Curly's criticism has merit. You're taking for granted that there is "the character with 75 years of history" and "everything else"- at least part of Curly's objection, if I understand it correctly, is that this is an artificial split. You're dictating what is a part of "the character" and what is part of "everything else"; on what grounds are you doing this? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't understand this logic. There is a character that was created in a comic book, the article is about that character. What he does in a film is not an aspect of this character and so it is covered in Batman (1989 film) which also appears and gives more central focus to the character on Joker in other media. It's like complaining that the Eminem article doesn't give major focus to his film biopic, or Ellen Ripley where the article talks about the character with links off to media articles that discuss the subject in greater detail. This argument might fly on Harley Quinn where she was created in television. You'll have to excuse me but this is the most bizarre offshoot to a fictional character article I've ever seen and is not the case in the other comic character Featured Articles on which this article is based. Unless Josh you are talking about story elements that are included from the comics and which are included here and which aren't?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's a leap from "there is a character that was created in a comic book" (which no one is disputing) to "what he does in a film is not an aspect of this character" (which I believe Curly is disputing, and which I'm concerned about). The mere fact that he started as a comics character does not mean that he remains solely a comics character. Why are his film appearances not an aspect of his character? (And, I wonder, would you say that about James Bond?) Is it a different character in the films/TV shows/video games/whatever? If so, you're going to need to explain that, and if not, on what grounds are you not covering those other aspects? As an outsider (by which I mean someone who is not a comics person), it comes across as somewhat snobbish- a kind of "he's a comics character, and when he's not appearing in comics, it's not worth talking about" attitude. To repeat what Curly said, if this is an article about the Joker in comics, it should be called that- if it's an article about the character, you're going to have to cover all aspects of the character (and/or explain to us which putative aspects are not actually a part of the character). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have to defend Darkwarriorblake here. The title of the article is "Joker (comics)" and the first sentence is "The Joker is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics.". I think its clear that the article is supposed to be about comics. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's not Darkwarriorblake's argument, LittleJerry—he's saying the article is about the character, and that the article about the character should privilege his comicbook appearances because that's where the character originated. Besides, if the article is really about the character's comicbook appearances, then parts of it will have to be rewritten to conform to that. The article is confused in focus and fundamentally POV—these are valid, serious, actionable objections, and my oppose stands. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This seems needlessly pedantic, it's about the character, my interpretation was the comic character was the character whereas you seem to be arguing that all incarnations ever are the character. The article is about the Joker who is the comic character, if it helps it is therefore about the comic character. This is completely in line with other FA comic related articles.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This is completely in line with other FA comic related articles.: I don't know where you get this, as the only comics FA that is in any way comparable is Batman, which was promoted in 2004, when FA standards were nothing like they are now, and which without a doubt would be demoted if brought to FAR today (as I noted on the article's talk page long ago). The fact remains that this privileging of the medium the character originally appeared in would not stand a chance with a character who appeared in any other medium—WP:COMICS cannot get a free pass on this. You have a choce: focus on the character or on the character in the comics medium. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When, may I ask, did you become an arbiter of what constitutes a character? The focus is on the comic character, that IS the character, there is a separate article for the character in other media. An article about Darth Vader talks about Darth Vader the character. You mention Mario but the article talks entirely about his appearances in games with appearances outside of them given a footnote. You link Tarzan, it talks about books, there's a messy section about other media and then reception. They're not different, your point whatever it may be has been clouded by your completely poor communication, there is no difference between these articles. You've failed to make any genuinely useful points or clarify your position at all beyond broadly saying that by somehow being about the character, the article is not about the character. You've claimed it is unfocused when it focuses entirely on the character and establishes external articles for detailed information about related but not directly appropriate content such as media incarnations. And somehow it's POV. Your objection is unfair and unhelpful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The focus is on the comic character, that IS the character: There's the POV—totally unacceptable in an FA. You don't get to choose what the character is based on your favourite incarnation of it—that's the very definition of POV. The rest of your rebuttle is little more than a collection of ad hominems like "When, may I ask, did you become an arbiter of what constitutes a character?" and "your completely poor communication". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When, may I ask, did you become an arbiter of what constitutes a character?" That does strike me as a bit rich, Darkwarriorblake. You are the one splitting the Joker's appearances into the ones that are part of "the character" and the ones that fall into "other media". I'm mystified as to why you're struggling to understand this worry. Personally, I'm still on the fence, but your apparent failure to even understand Curly's objection certainly isn't convincing me that you've got the balance right. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Curly's objection isn't balanced and does not make sense. The character articles he presented are exactly the same format as this, discussing the character at the source and deviating off for external adaptations. I linked Batman and Anarky which are the exact same format. I agree that Batman wouldn't make FA now, but that is because of the overuse of Non-Free Content, the poor writing, the unsourced additions and original research, not the fact that it talks about the Batman character that is in the comic and allows other articles to talk about the character in films, television and games. How is the comic character being the character POV? It's insane, that is the character, that's what was created, that is what all other interpretations are based upon, there is no 1989 film if there is no comic character or The Dark Knight Returns, and there is a separate article that covers the film's interpretation of the character. And even when I state "it is about the comic character" this still isn't sufficient for Curly and he wants it moving to Joker in Comics. Well no, it's already set to "Joker (comics)" and is the primary topic. Every single comic article is set up in this exact same format, comic character, Other media at the bottom or broken into another article where necessary. I discuss throughout the article external media where appropriate such as "Englehart and Rogers' work on the series influenced the 1989 film Batman, and was adapted for 1992's Batman: The Animated Series.[38][47]". To accomplish what it appears Curly wants, I am duplicating information that is present in other articles. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is the comic character being the character POV? Because the comics character is one incarnation of the character, and the character's appearances in other media are from from obscure—millions more people are familiar with Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Joker than of any comicbook appearance. If this is to be the base article, then it has to be arranged that way. If it's to be the article about Joker's comics appearance, then it has to be arranged that way. So—is this the base article for the character, or the subarticle on the character's appearances in comics? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That seems like original research that the Joker is effectively only famous in terms of Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson, as if either thing would exist if the character itself did not exist or was not known enough on its own to support the media. All those accolades in the cultural impact section are about this character being the most famous/greatest comic book villain and fictional character, etc, etc Roller coasters that feature the comic artwork, clothing, toys. It seems somewhat bias that you perhaps know the Joker more for some film incarnation and so that is the main character to you, when my first introduction would've been the 1989 film and then maybe the TV series, but I still accept that all of those versions take their information/characterisation from the source comic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • the Joker is effectively only famous in terms of Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson: I said that? Talk about original research! You're obviously making no effort to understand the point, so I'll just leave my oppose as it is, and you can hope that you can find enough reviewers dense enough to support and that the closer won't notice that actionable issues haven't been addressed—in fact, that you've refused to address them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's a separate article for the external appearances, you've ignored this at every possible turn and I've reiterated multiple times it is about the comic character and despite your complaint that it is focused as such, you feel it is unfocused. I've not refused to address anything, you've been deliberately obtuse. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Two other featured articles that focus solely on their original incarnations and deviate for external adaptations - Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, both outside of the comic realm. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible argument, and may point out flaws in those FAs, but anyways: (a) both those characters are known overwhelmingly through the TV show, which is far from the case with Joker (though this wasn't even my point); (b) your "the comics character is the character" mantra demonstrates you don't understand the point, and you don't appear to be trying. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Why are these other FA character articles being held to a different standard? You cannot claim that the Joker is overwhelmingly known through other means based on your own interpretations. The films do (and this is sourced) significantly better than other Batman films when the Joker is in them. This is despite him being sourced from the comics and there being only two films with the Joker in them. The 1960s show used a completely different version of the Joker as well to the tone of the film versions, and all of these versions are based on elements of the comic character. Your complaint, as I understand it, is that the comic character isn't the main version and so it should cover his film and tv versions and other stuff. Well it does, it has a section at the bottom called "In other media" that highlights every single voice and appearance he has made, and it links to a main article where these are covered in greater detail.
                      • I have made an effort to understand your point, I just fundamentally disagree with you, this article covers the entirety of the character, it's just that due to word and size limits, some elements are covered in a separate article. It covers conception, creation, major story actions which have inspired other elements and been covered in external sources, it covers characterisation, major characteristics, it covers relationships that are brought up in other media, it covers impact, it covers analysis and it covers the character in other media. Nothing has been excluded, nothing has been omitted, it is the result of years of work to collate every possible detail about the character down to Larry Storch voicing him in an obscure cartoon. It is all encompassing, it is the primary topic, it is what people are searching for, it is the Joker article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, goodness, you're not seriously going to play this silly numbers game, are you? You don't seriously think the readership of even the best-selling comic book ever could possibly stack up to the veiwership of even the least popular of the movies? Come now, don't embarrass yourself like this.
What you're not understanding is semantics. Use the IS-A test: let's try it with, say Bill Ward. Bill Ward (musician) works because this Bill Ward IS-A musician. Bill Ward (actor) works because this Bill Ward IS-A actor. Bill Ward (cartoonist) works because this Bill Ward IS-A cartoonist. Joker (comics) doesn't work because "Joker IS-A comics" (?!?) is ridiculous. On the other hand, Joker (character) works fine because Joker IS-A character. Joker in comics works fine as well. Joker (comics) would only work if we were talking about a series, graphic novel, story, etc titled "Joker"—which is not the case in this article. SMcCandlish made this very argument at the RfC that ultimately did away with WP:COMICS' invalid automatically preferencing of (comics) over (character), and which was upheld at two consecutive move requests at Wolverine (character): this is why we use the standard of "Mike Smith (physicist)", not "Mike Smith (physics)". Please understand the semantics—I'm confident it's not over your head. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What complicates this further is the lead: "The Joker is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics". Okay, so what are the essential and defining characteristics of Joker? He's fictional—hopefully that will be eternally true. He's a supervillain—yep. He appears "in American comic books published by DC Comics" ... uh, except when he appears in film, TV, video games, novels, non-American comics, graphic novels, toys, etc etc etc ... whoops! That last bit is not definitional—appearing in comic books (American or otherwise) is not essential to the character. He continues to be a fictional supervillain in whatever medium he appears, but the medium is up for grabs (and there sure ain't any lack of Joker appearances in other media!)
So broken-recording again: is this about the character, or the character's appearances in comics? Figure it out, and fix it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A move discussion was held to move Joker to Joke (character) per I assume that discussion but failed. I'm happy to try and get it moved again Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should be moved. The Joker is famous to more people because of TV and film, almost certainly, than from actually reading comics. I wouldn't oppose an FAC on this basis, though. FA is about content, not the title.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that my objection went beyond merely the dab (an issue that would be solved with a RM). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at these comments in a week but it seems to me that this has become a battleground between Curly Turkey and Darkwarriorblake. As I understand it, CT is in favor of splitting up the article into sub-articles while DWB want to push on with a view toward featuring the current article with the same structure, more or less .
Curly Turkey: I note that the article has already received GA status. In that process, wouldn't the article have passed the "not complete according to its title" criticisms? Wikipedia will never be perfect and, I suspect, the article was judged on its fitness at the current state of editing "The Joker", whatever its subdivisions.
Darkwarriorblake: I note that "Joker (character)" is a redirect to "Joker (comics)". Why not make Joker (character) the main article (possibly a stub article) and Joker (comics) a sub-article? Then you could still propose Joker (comics) as a candidate for FA.
To do this: Copy the entire article to "Joker (character)", getting rid of the redirect. Then vastly trim down the lead and the current, "comic" sections, squeezing them into a top section named "Joker in Comics", and add sections on "Joker in films", "Joker in TV", etc. with plenty of "Main articles" to direct the readers to sub-articles, like Main article: Batman (TV series). Then eliminate any substantive mention of other than comics in "Joker (comics)".
You would wind up with a hierarchy of articles, something like:
Main/top level: Joker (character)
Sub-level: Joker (comics), Joker (films), Joker (TV), etc.
Sub-sub-level: Joker (Golden age) [not written yet, under Joker (comics)]; Batman (1989 film), The Dark Knight (film); etc.
Your current Joker (comics) would remain as your FAC. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three comments in response to Roy: First, I'm not sure this is so much a "battleground", but a disagreement between two editors on which other editors have weighed in to offer views. Second, I don't think "no one caught this at GAC" is a particularly good response to a criticism. If there's a problem, there's a problem. Third, I think your suggestion to Darkwarriorblade is (in broad strokes) a very good one, but, as Curly said above, it would probably be better if the articles were titled as "Joker (comics character)" and "Joker (television character)" or something. I note that we already have The Joker (The Dark Knight). Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, you're talking about splitting an article into like 6 articles for interpretations which are virtually the same. Joker Films, Joker TV, Batman 1989, The Dark Knight, all of these are covered under Joker in Other Media, all are mentioned in the existing FA candidate and linked appropriately. Or you're talking about the already existing Joker. There is no reason to split this content into so many articles or sections. Even if the article were renamed Joker (character) it would still be as it is now, because it covers everything about the character in all media from comics to toys to games and movies, and breaks off into other articles where limits require. Renaming it is doable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't suggested splitting the article into numerous articles—we only split articles when there is sufficient material to warrant a split. This article is 54kb of readable prose, which is an awfully long article according to WP:SIZE. The Joker in other media is about 26kb—which may be too long, too short, or just right. Its current length alone would not justify its splitting (although I'm sure a motivated editor could find source material enough for the various film or TV articles if they wanted to).
The extreme amount of detail in this article is almost entirely about the comics—move it all into a Joker in comics article and it would still be quite the long article, but it would leave a base article that gets to the point about the character (which I imagine would still be fairly lengthy), and then direct the reader to more detailed articles on the character in particular media. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that DWB is in no way responsible for any of the articles he hasn't nominated, only for this one, for which he has to choose a focus: etiher it's about the character, or it's about the character who appears in American comic books published by DC Comics (as the current lead states). Either requires restructuring and refocusing of some sort. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your request isn't reasonable, there is no article to be nominated if I move the comic information, the lead explains the article contents, it is about the comic character and it is covered as such, all of the detail covers the comic character, all of the detail covers what it has inspired, it features COMPREHENSIVE not extreme detail, it covers the source material, it covers all other versions of the character in or out of comics that have been based on the comic character, it is below any size limits, it is sourced and it makes no claims to be anything other than what it says it is in the lead. It doesn't switch focus between versions of the character either, it is clean, stylish, and precise. Such fundamental expectations and changes haven't been expected of any other comic or character article that has had to go through this process, and I'm not gutting the article to satisfy one editor who has given no genuine policy, guideline or reason from Wikipedia:Featured article criteria for such opposition or an extreme change in the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there is no article to be nominated if I move the comic information: so renominate it after you fix it.
it is about the comic character: while confusedly acting at times as if it's about the character. If you want to focus on the comics (a good idea, I think), then move the page and refocus appropriately
it covers all other versions of the character in or out of comics that have been based on the comic character: yes, you continue to assert the blatant POV that "the comics character IS the character"
You have yet to acknowledge the problem I brought up with the opening sentence—the definitional sentence which restricts the character to American comic books from DC, when clearly the character is no way restricted to comics. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TheTimesAreAChanging

[edit]
This article gives wildly undue weight to the notion that Robinson, an 18 year old assistant just out of high school, created the Joker, based solely on his drawing of a standard Joker card from a deck of cards which bares little resemblance to the character. As Kane said many times, if Robinson's account was actually true, the Joker would look like his sketch, not like Condrad Veidt. "However, because Finger credited Robinson historians generally accept Robinson's version of events". Nonsense. The source doesn't mention or speak on behalf of historians and it doesn't provide a quote from Finger—and for good reason, because no such quote exists. (That the source is nominally reliable does not change the fact that this claim is baseless; another of your sources, after all, is so eager to slander Kane that it credits Finger with creating Two-Face—a character, in the words of Les Daniels, that "everyone seems to agree was Kane's brainchild exclusively.") Now, I don't know if this source is reliable or not, but it certainly gives a more accurate overview of the facts of the case. If it can't be used, then I suggest you do more research and use some of its sources (like Kane's autobiography) to at the very least present a more balanced account.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim was based on one source I'd agree with you, but there are multiple sources both within and outside of the article that back up Robinson's events and refer to comic historians who accept that Robinson helped create the Joker and Robinson even credits Finger and Kane.
Meanwhile your source is some guys blog from 14 years ago, I'm not sure why it gives a more accurate version of events. I mean Kane's stance is represented in the section, but I need actual references if you want me to argue against the existing sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is particularly damning. http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-164-bob-kane-is-just-the-worst/ Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no actual logic behind the assertion "if Robinson's account was actually true, the Joker would look like his sketch". Just saying; I have no opinion either way on the sourcing, as I've not examined it in detail. Just don't like fallacious arguments.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson lied repeatedly about the development of the Joker in ways that clearly betrayed his lack of knowledge on the subject. Moreover, his lies often contradicted one another. For example, in a 2009 San Diego Comic Con panel (which you can watch on Youtube at about 20:00 in) Robinson states that the Joker was not originally supposed to have green hair ("He didn't have green hair. It was just the white of the face and the red lips"), perhaps implying that the green was the result of highlights added by the colorist (which would make no sense, considering that green would be a bizarre choice for lighter hair, and if the Joker had black hair—unlike the Veight character—it would have had blue highlights like every other black-haired DC character at the time). However, on page 29 of Arie Kaplan's Masters of the Comic Book Universe Revealed, Robinson claims: "[Bob and Bill] said 'What about his hair? It's green! Why is he white?' And I said, 'That's his bizarreness! Don't explain it!'" At about 20:26 into the video, Robinson asserts: "We decided deliberately not to explain it, not to write an origin story. We thought that would detract from the whole aura, the mystery of the Joker—where did he come from, how did he get that way? No, we did not explain that, quite deliberately." Think about what Robinson is saying here. Nearly all comic book villains from this period had no origin story (even Batman's origin was revealed as a two-page extra after the character had already been established), just like the villains in all of the pulp mysteries of the era, yet Robinson—shortly after The Dark Knight came out and popularized the idea of the Joker as an agent of chaos with no discernible backstory—suddenly started claiming in 2009 that adherence to this standard formula within the handful of pages allocated to the Joker's first appearance was a deliberate, intentional choice designed to enhance the symbolic power of the character. At 20:49, the interviewer asks (as if the lowly inker would even have been involved in fleshing out backstories) "So you and Bill did not drop the Joker in a vat of acid?", to which Robinson responds: "No, we did not. Our initial reaction to that was if we dropped him into that vat, he obviously would have come out deformed". Apparently, Robinson was not aware that the Joker is deformed, with the same frozen smile on his face as the Veight character. More importantly, of course, is the fact that Robinson's alleged conversations with Finger in which they resolved never to diminish the Joker with an origin almost certainly were a figment of his imagination, as it was Finger who wrote "The Man Behind the Red Hood!" If you need any more evidence to impeach Robinson's testimony, consider his claims here (at 1:20) that he created or co-created Alfred, the Penguin, and Catwoman. Kane and Finger disagreed about the Penguin, but (as with the Joker) neither credited Robinson. "The Cat" was drawn by Kane (based on his cousin Ruth Steel) and fleshed out by Finger. (Is Robinson suggesting that inking Kane's drawings counts as co-creation?) The really bizarre claim is Alfred: According to Les Daniels' Batman: The Complete History page 57: "Evidence suggests that Alfred was created by the writers of the 1943 Batman serial (Victor McLeod, Leslie Swabacker, and Harry Fraser) and that DC comics asked Don Cameron to write the first Alfred story to conform to Hollywood's version of the Wayne household. Cameron couldn't have known, however, that the forthcoming movie Alfred (William Austin) was decidedly slender. The chubby comic book version promptly went on a diet, and grew a mustache too." What role could Robinson have possibly played in Alfred's development? Oh right, he drew "The Adventures of Alfred" humorous short stories in the back pages of Batman, then decided to astronomically inflate his importance years after all the principals were dead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another pass at the section to try and increase Kane's POV, but you're synthesising information from your own research on several Youtube videos with an elderly man reciting what he did 70+ years ago, and opened your response with "Robinson lied", so you need to acknowledge that while I will try to increase Kane's coverage, your interest in this seems to be non-neutral, so you will have to accept that I won't be removing the sourced Robinson information which is backed up by credible people outside Robinson. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I promised I would take another pass at the section Times and I am, but you are editing in a clearly non-neutral manner and it is quite clear that your belief is firmly in the Robinson did nothing camp, which is fine, but you cannot edit articles based on your person beliefs and/or bias. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the section to better clarify the dispute. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is no less clear than mine, as evidenced by your suggestion that this ad hominem attack on Kane ("F**k. That. Guy. For. Ever. Seriously, when it comes to the greatest supervillain in Batman’s history, the Joker is a distant second behind Bob Kane.") is somehow a valid factual addition to this discussion, but personal belief is quite a different matter from lodging accusations of "clear bias and pov" editing against another contributor (especially when you were the one misrepresenting the Ain't it Cool News obituary). (Admittedly, it's hard not to suspect bias when faced with the amusingly worded caption you added to the Veidt photo: "Veidt's grinning visage inspired Bill Finger's Joker design"—as if Finger were the artist!) In any case, you have presented four sources in the article for the claim that "many comic historians credit Robinson with the Joker's creation and Finger with the character's development." This statement is seemingly non-offensive, but because it is a modified version of your original "historians generally accept Robinson's version of events"—not to mention your own tendency to synthesis and overreach—the sourcing is problematic. The Comic Book Resources article actually says the opposite, referring to the Kane-Finger account as the "official version" while noting that Robinson's account was the subject of "controversy". Carmine Infantino is not a historian and does not speak for historians in any way, but—while bashing Kane—he also dismisses Robinson's account as implausible. Thus, two of your four sources either refute the assertions you attributed to them or are irrelevant (Infantino may personally believe Finger fleshed out the Joker—although his suspicion, which is really all it is, is actually stronger than that—but he's no historian). The A.V. Club and The Daily Telegraph do support the first part of your sentence, although it would be just as easy to find sources (such as IGN) that do not credit Robinson. Since you have changed the wording to "many", this would seem to be a moot point, but the bigger problems remains: The only evidence that Finger credited Robinson comes from Robinson himself (even the interview with Infantino that you provided proves that Finger disputed Robinson's account). The Ain't it Cool News obituary appears to be based solely on Robinson's assertion (during the 2009 Comic Con panel I linked to above and that you subsequently provided a partial transcript of for use in the article) that "If you read the Batman historian Bridwell, he had one interview where he interviewed Bill Finger and he said no, the Joker was created by me—an acknowledgement." I can find no record that this actually occurred, and I find it outrageous that you would source such a crucial fact to Robinson himself, especially given his history of (let us be charitable) "misstatements" on this matter, in an FA candidate no less! The only quote I could find from E. Nelson Bridwell on the Joker's creation is the following: "It seems that Bill Finger got a call from Bob Kane. He had an idea for a villain that Bill could use in the comics. He was a clownish-looking man, but a killer. However, when Bill saw Bob's sketch, he decided that it looked too clownish. He happened to have a movie edition magazine of "The Man Who Laughs," with stills from the 1928 film starring Conrad Veidt. The make-up was perfect and this inspired the Joker's grinning countenance." The extent to which the comics press mindlessly parroted Robinson's claims without regard for evidence, logic, or objectivity is indeed shocking; but Wikipedia need not do the same. As another example to demonstrate the pattern of the credulity of the supine press: The claim that the Joker "Double Guns" cover "is the only image to depict the supervillain using guns" is simply a talking point Robinson (here at 13:40, for example) used to auction the cover, regurgitated by the media in such an uncritical manner and without the smallest modicum of critical thinking, even though if they had half a brain they would realize that in context Robinson was obviously only referring to his Golden Age work, and of course there are many other images of the Joker using guns. (You added the vague original research qualifier "traditional guns" to the article, as if this changes the fact that the statement is false.) Indeed, you have presented no evidence whatsoever that this cover actually is significant beyond the statements of the man who drew it, so the entire subject should be stricken until you find a valid source. (Not to be excessively critical, but I also can't help but notice your use of over-citing to defend contentious claims; why do you cite two sources on the "Double Guns" cover, for example, when only one discusses it in any capacity? This could be construed as an attempt to obstruct verification.) Similarly, if you cannot directly cite the Bridwell interview mentioned by Robinson, then that statement should be stricken per the testimony of Infantino and others, or I will have no choice but to oppose this article's promotion to FA status on the grounds that the research is insufficiently thorough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Infantino's testimony? This is not a court case and we are not dictating whether Robinson was involved or not. The sources can counter each other, that's the reason it is disputed. I accept Robinson's Bridwell statement because there are numerous sources that back up his position and undermine Kane, he is not a questionable source. You're asking me to essentially discredit Robinson entirely in this article based on your opinion and its not something I can or am able to do, especially based on inconsistencies you yourself have discovered an elderly man making in Youtube videos. I find your claim that the research is insufficient disturbing given that it is based entirely on your complete opposition to Robinson's claim and unless I can effectively disprove that he had anything to do with the Joker you are not willing to promote it. And I add additional sources to things if I find additional sources so if one becomes redundant there is a backup, I don't waste sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Comic Book Resources Article backs up everything it is being used to source. That Robinson produced a sketch, that it reminded Finger of Veidt, and that there are people who support Robinson's position.
  • [http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/08/12/he-made-batman-no-one-else-kane-had-nothing-to-do-with-it-bill-did-it-all-carmine-infantino-on-bill-finger/ The Carmine Infanitno interview is only being used to source Finger's separate story and nothing else, that his opinion runs counter to other sources doesn't invalidate those sources, it's there as a reasonable source to back up Finger's influence, it doesn't outweight not just the sources present but the numerous ones you can find in a 2 second google that support Robinson.
  • This IGN source you've added, yes it only credits Kane and Finger but it's from 2008 and that seems to be common among sources at or before this time (around the heavier Joker focus around the 2008 film). I'm assuming that Robinson started receivign more credit after this time given the Rocket Llama article. I don't know that, just assuming that one.
  • "Veidt's grinning visage inspired Bill Finger's Joker design"—as if Finger were the artist!" I'm one person processing a large amount of information, I made an error as part of rejigging an entire section, but try not to accuse me of bias over errors when you removed sourced information because you didn't agree with it.
And I didn't include the Bridwell information int eh article either so I'm not sure what your problem is with it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will you just clarify something for me, are you wanting me to prove Finger did it or Kane? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to prove anything. I am quite certain that Finger and Kane are the undisputed co-creators of the Joker, and that neither credited Robinson. One of your sources clearly shows that Finger disputed Robinson's account. If you want to believe Robinson over the undisputed co-creators based on no evidence that's fine (indeed, that POV must be included because of the sources that accept it), but you should remove the claim that Finger credited Robinson (sourced back to Robinson himself). Nominally reliable sources can be clearly wrong, or their dubious claims can be traced back to interested parties, and when they are contradicted by other sources it is reasonable to exercise a degree of editorial discretion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the bit about Finger backing it up until the resident Wiki Comic Historian can source it for me if possible. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I withdraw my oppose, although needless to say that does not constitute a support.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If i've done what you asked, why does it not constitute a support? It seems needful to say. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed every issue I raised, just the most egregious one. I have not reviewed every section of the article carefully enough to judge whether it meets FA standards, although the last time I checked some of the prose was slightly lacking.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Note: It is apparent that a consensus to promote this article is far from reach and there seems to be a reluctance to work with reviewers to achieve one. I will be closing this nomination in a few moments. I remind the nominator that a cooling-off period of fourteen days must elapse before renominating any article. In the meantime I encourage the nominator to take on board the actionable comments. Graham Beards (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Joker_(comics)/archive1&oldid=676283435"