WikiProject iconComics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

New book articles[edit]

It strikes me some of the books we use could meet notability themselves so I thought I'd drop resources in as I find them - feel free to add anything you find or start the article.

Main category: Category:Books about comics

Kirby: King of Comics

Evanier, Mark. Kirby: King of Comics. Abrams, 2008. ISBN 081099447X

Reviews:

Articles:

That last one mentions a sequel.

Peter Sanderson posted a 5-part review/article on the book at Quick Stop Entertainment:

Also given the date of release I assume this will be up for awards this season so will keep an eye out (I'd assume an Eisner nomination is in the bag and there'd need to be something special out there to keep it from getting the win). (23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Yep, got nominated [1]. (Emperor (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
And it won. I think that pretty much clinches it. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Men of Tomorrow

Jones, Gerard. Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book. Basic Books, 2004. ISBN 0-465-03656-2

Reviews:

Eisner/Miller

Eisner/Miller

Reading Comics

Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean or the shorter Reading Comics

Excelsior

Excelsior!: The Amazing Life of Stan Lee

Reviews: Excelsior!: The Amazing Life Of Stan Lee, by Stan Lee and George Mair, The Independent, July 1, 2002

I'd like to add a section[edit]

I'm finding that an awful of of Project articles contain footnotes to ComicBookMovie.com, which is an unedited site of solely user-submitted content, making it essentially a forum. It doesn't pass muster as a reliable source because of that. Other material is just copy-cat paraphrases of original reporting from elsewhere, which it appropriately links to, and the original source should be the footnote. In addition to all that, consensus discussion is against its use.

Because such disallowed ComicBookMovie.com footnoting is widespread, I'd like to add a section on specific non-RS sites we should avoid. There are probably others, but we can start with this if there are no objections. It would help save a ton of work going over those cites and replacing them, as I've been in the laborious process of doing.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Websites that qualify as a reliable source for comic book reviews[edit]

I can't find a list anywhere for this. There doesn't seem to have been any detailed debate. This should certainly be on this page, or somewhere on the Wikiproject.

Please tell why you believe each of the following should or should not be considered a reliable source. The more input the better. Add any other comic reviewing sites to the list that might be considered reliable sources please. Dream Focus 14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Resources

For

Against

Newsarama

For

Against

aintitcool

For

Against

ComicsAlliance

For

Against

Multiversitycomics.com

For

Against

The Comics Journal

For

Against

The Comics Reporter

For

Against

IGN

For

Against

ComicsContinuum.com

For

Against

Automatic Google search for reliable sources[edit]

Some other Wikiprojects have this already. Anyone know how to make one for this one? Google only looks through all the sites copied over from this reliable sources list. Dream Focus 18:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GCD[edit]

The way the guideline is written re GCD is vague: It's referring to plot details, which like movie plots can be cited directly to the primary source. It has been acceptable as a credits aggregator, however, for many years as an edited site of non-POV site of statistics and credits, with named contributors and stringent editorial standards. Because contributors have to be vetted by mentor editors for weeks or a couple of months, it is an edited site with (unpaid) freelancers. It is certifiably not a wikia anyone can edit, and claims are subject to citing and verification before they're accepted. It can sometimes take days for edits to be approved. This is as opposed to the Comic Book DataBase, a wikia which has long been acceptable only as an EL. We need the sentence here to clarify the distinction between plot details and credits. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tenebrae Why is the Comic Book Database listed in the project as a source? It's a user-generated site (they solicit user input as shown here: http://comicbookdb.com/add.php) and thus is not a reliable source. I'm dealing with a COI editor who believes the inclusion of the Comic Book Database on teh References page means that it has been accepted as a reliable source. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Joseph Michael Linsner Meters (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ 2005 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards
  2. ^ 2006 Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards
Categories