This article does not meet the Good article criteria. The following are issues that need to be resolved for this article to keep its Good article status:

• There are too many paragraphs that go unreferenced, including most of the "Comics career" section
• Most of the references are not formatted per WP:CITE/ES to include at least a publisher and access date.

Once these issues have been resolved, please respond back here. Thank you. Gary King (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to walk me through this, because I can't see either as part of the good article criteria. Hiding T 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA? says "Factually accurate and verifiable". Gary King (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that. It doesn't demand inline citations though. And you have yet to explain the publisher and access date issue. I don't see where your assertions are based in the guidance page linked. There is a reference section as required, which lists the work required to verify the relevant paragraphs, and I don't see where publisher is demanded for good articles, the guidance only requires it for Featured Articles, and there's no requirement in that page to provide an access date. How do you want to go forwards from here? I'd like to work out what the issues are and work out how to fix them, if that's okay? Hiding T 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well first of all there is no policy that applies only to featured articles; technically speaking, the policies apply to all articles, but featured articles are just scrutinized more than any other article. Good article reviews and assessments are up to individual reviewers to decide whether or not articles meet the requirements; when I do reviews, I'm fairly strict, but when doing reassessments, I usually just bring it up only if it's a major issue. And the major issue here is that there is too much information that does not have a source; it cannot be assumed that the reader should take all of this as true when there are no references to back it up. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to re-read WP:CS: The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional, although publisher is generally required for featured articles. That clearly states that certain guidance only applies to Featured Articles. As to the assessments, if they are based on one person's opinion I'd suggest, with respect, they're a busted flush per WP:CONSENSUS. And the article is referenced. The works required to verify the information are listed at Alan_Moore#References. The reader is not expected to take it as true. The reader is provided with the sources. Hiding T 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the inline references for the following paragraphs:

• "After the failure"
• "In March 2006 Moore"
• "After dropping out of school,"
• "Deciding he could"
• "Of his work during this period"
• "Moore's British work "
• "Moore's run on Swamp Thing"
• "The limited series Watchmen,"
• "Alongside roughly contemporaneous "
• "In 1987 Moore submitted"
• "Moore's relations with"
• "A variety of projects "
• "After prompting by cartoonist"
• "Moore contributed two serials"
• "Lost Girls, with artist Melinda Gebbie"
• "He also wrote a graphic novel"
• "With Moore's much anticipated"
• "After several years out "
• "Tapping into the early issues"
• "The series was to have concluded"
• "Following 1963, Moore worked"
• "After working on Jim Lee's"
• "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, a team-up"
• "Tom Strong, a post-modern"
• "Top 10, a deadpan police procedural"
• "Promethea, a superheroine explicitly"
• "Tomorrow Stories was an anthology series"
• "Before publication, Lee sold Wildstorm"
• "Moore plotted the six issue mini-series"
• "The last straw came when producer"
• "This latest conflict between Moore "
• "The re-release of V for Vendetta i"
• "Moore has won numerous "
• "Moore has been nominated"
• "He received the Harvey Award f"
• "In addition, he received nominations fo"
• "He has also received th"
• "Comics publisher Top Shelf release"
• "Moore has also written short stories"
• "Moore has written one screenplay"
• "Alan Moore participated and starred "
• "Several of his books such as From Hell, "
• "He has also made brief forays into music. "
• "Moore co-wrote the song "Leopardman At C&A" w"
• "Moore is a practicing magician who worships "

Gary King (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We seem to be starting from the position that inline citation are a requirement for everything. That's not how I read the relevant policies and guidance. Hiding T 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Gary King (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So which statements in particular are you challenging. I find it odd that you'd challenge a statement such as "Also in 2006, he appeared on the BBC's The Culture Show". That's cited as is, it's verifiable to the primary source. Which particular statements are causing you issues? Hiding T 20:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with sections that have absolutely no references. I find it odd that you are continuing to contest the addition of more inline citations to this article, when it clearly needs some. If you would like to, we can bring this to WP:GAR to get a broader consensus. Gary King (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I've already demonstrated that the references are there, so maybe we can avoid the hyperbolic statement that sections have absolutely no references. You would be correct to state that there are sections containing no inline citations, something not demanded by policy, as your quotation of it shows. What I am asking you for is specific claims which you believe need citations. I do not understand why this is so unreasonable, since it is the principle upon which WP:V is based. You seem to me to be stating one of two things: that you are challenging every sentence which does not have an inline citation at the end of it; or that every sentence should have an inline citation. The first I would suggest is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and the second is incorrect per policy. I don't know any other way to interpret your actions, for which I apologise. The typical way of asking for citations is to add ((cite)) to each statement you wish to challenge. If you don't want to do that in the article, I don't see why you can't copy relevant sentences to the talk page. Look, here is an example. Up abpove you seem to require a citation for the fact that Tomorrow Stories was an anthology series. That's primary source. It's like asking for a cite on the fact that Friends is a television show. The citation is within the text itself. A reader asking himself whether Tomorrow Stories really is an anthology series can verify it by referring to an issue of the series. Look, I apologise if you are feel I am being objectionable, that isn't my intention. I want to help this article, but I don't know what it is you want sourced, and I don't feel guidance calls for an inline citation after each sentence, which is what I feel you are calling for. I'm trying to cite the most contestable facts, but I have my hands tied elsewhere at the minute, so I can't devote my full attention to this. Perhaps you would care to pitch in? Hiding T 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I'd like to see citations for events that have occurred, such as in "Personal and early life". I still feel like you would rather keep debating this rather than actually place inline citations, as if this is easier. I'm not treating this differently from the other Good articles that I have reviewed, just FYI. Gary King (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article I've already added two inline citations whilst the debate has been ongoing, so I resent your accusation and I feel I could direct it back at you. However that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it, and we're meant to focus on the content. As I said, all I asked for were specific statements you wished to challenge, I'm not sure why that has proved so hard to detail. And I don't mean to suggest you are treating this article any differently to any other, and I look forwards to your help in citing sources. Which areas do you want to take care of? Hiding T 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These could certainly use references:

• "In March 2006 Moore completed"
• "The limited series Watchmen, begun in 1986 and collected as a trade paperback in 1987, cemented his reputation." – the bolded text could certainly be considered POV unless a source was used that used these words
• My point is that most of the article is unreferenced; too many sentences are worded as facts when there are no inline citations to prove it. Here is an example article that was recently promoted to Good article that references well (most recently promoted Good articles have good amounts of references; I chose the first article listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/recent): Hed PE. If you'd like to see example featured articles, which ideally articles should compare to, here's the most recent one: Mario Power Tennis (which I chose at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008). Gary King (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the FA process moderately, I've nursed three articles in FARC. Typically I was given a list of statements to source. That's why I asked here. I will attempt to source the statements you've listed here, unless you beat me to it. Hiding T 10:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a sample of the statements that I believe should be sourced:

• "After Moore had received widespread commercial success for his comic-writing, he decided to turn his back on mainstream comics to develop other projects. Together with his wife and their lover, he set up Mad Love Publishing in 1989. The company suffered several setbacks, however, and Phyllis and Deborah left Moore to live together, with his two children."
• "In March 2006 Moore completed his self-penned comics books line, and once again announced his decision to return to less commercially-oriented works. Also in 2006, he appeared on the BBC's The Culture Show and joined a campaign to try and save Northampton council housing from being sold to private companies. In March 2007 he appeared at a Robert Anton Wilson tribute concert at the Queen Elizabeth Hall."
• "For his life's work Moore was honored in 2008 with the Max & Moritz Prize."
• "At 2000 AD he started by writing one-off Future Shocks and Time Twisters, moving on to series such as Skizz (E.T. as written by Alan Bleasdale) with artist Jim Baikie, D.R. and Quinch (a sci-fi take on National Lampoon's characters O.C. and Stiggs) with Davis, and The Ballad of Halo Jones (the first series in the comic to be based around a female character) with Ian Gibson. The last two proved amongst the most popular strips to appear in 2000 AD but Moore became increasingly concerned at his lack of creator's rights, and in 1986 stopped writing for 2000 AD, leaving the Halo Jones story incomplete. The theme of fallings out with publishers on matters of principle would become a common one in Moore's later career."

These are from the "Personal and early life" and "Early work" sections. Most of the second half of "American mainstream" needs sources, so we can move on to that once the above is done. Gary King (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Most of that I would suggest is sourced from the works in the references, two listed there are bios. I don;t have them so I can't verify it, but that would be my guess. Let me ask around and see if I know someone who has them or find a library that has them. Otherwise, it's down to web searches. Is there a deadline? I've got real life issues over the weekend. Hiding T 13:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typically it's seven days. Gary King (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need a favour. Can you put this on hold until after October. I appreciate this is a big ask, but the 0.7 dvd version's deadline is October and I think efforts are better focussed on the articles in a worse state than this. For more information see Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Style_questions. Incidentally, if you can help out on those articles in any way, I think it would be appreciated. Let me know either way. I'd hate to see this lose GA status without having had a good effort at finding the sources, but I don't think it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to focus my attention here right now, if that makes sense. I think the potential for embarrassment with the 0.7 is more worthy of my time. Hope you can see my point of view and agree to an extension. Hiding T 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all, I stumbled across this article because I love Moore's work (Watchmen, Batman: The Killing Joke, and V for Vendetta) and I submitted it for reassessment because I'd like to see it really deserve that GA classification. Late October is quite a ways from now; I think it might make more sense to remove this article from GA and then when you are ready you can contact me and we can work together to bring this article back up to GA, and then have someone else re-review it for GA again. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't hold off, I'll try and fix all the errors by the end of the week. It was worth an ask. Hiding T 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because seven days has passed since this reassessment began, I will now re-assess the article to B-class status. Please renominate the article again at GAN once it meets the Good article criteria. Gary King (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, real life intervened. When my life is less busy I'll get this worked back up. Hiding T 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What next?

Sources for: * Wein & Swamp Thing; * Proto-Vertigo; * Adult sensibilities; * Miracleman (from comics.org, or similar; maybe Kimota!); * Watchmen issues, promotional items, ratings; * Mad Love; * Big Numbers; (* From Hell (film) reviews..?); * Supreme? Issue references - matching the 80pg Giants to #52, etc.? ...I suppose. But who would challenge these things really...?!

The reintroduction of the Demon, the Stranger, etc. needs no external source, although the Swamp Thing issue numbers would be a help. Is it worth sourcing the "high profile" of The Killing Joke with a footnote from DC Direct noting that it would be one of the earliest prestige format titles, or that Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan both like it..? Or is it just patently obvious and "un-challengeable" as a fact as is? Does the Watchmen cement need a Time citation, or is the wealth of information at Watchmen enough to make this a clearly obvious fact?

Should Chuck Austen be piped to Beckum? DC's V reprints needs to be clarified to make it clearer that they were issues before a TPB. Brought to Light is lacking its author. The GOSH/Lost Girls situation needs clarifying - GOSH didn't stop it; Top Shelf talked to GOSH and they all (Moore, Gebbie, Staros, GOSH) agreed it would be politer and easier just to hold off until 2008. GOSH didn't stop it coming out. The Big Numbers info is duplicated. "Return to the mainstream" needs a rewrite - the Liefeld and Lee breakaway companies shouldn't really be lumped together, so the opening line is disingenuous at best, and wrong at worst. (The opening paragraph could do with the actual quote about 'grim 'n' gritty deriving from Moore's bad mood in the 80s' ...is it from the DKR introduction..?) Is it worth mentioning that John Byrne dislikes 1963, and thinks it mean-spirited, rather than gentle parody..? Does the 1963 annual's non-appearance need any more info, or does the 1963 article cover it? It's WildStorm, with a capital 'S'. Can Amazon not shipping the Dossier out of the US be cited in any way?

Disputes & Awards need work and sources. Music needs to be updated. The Simpsons episode ought to mention that his ire comes from his deepset beliefs in creator's rights, since those are threaded throughout everything he's ever done.

What else needs to be tackled..? ntnon (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]