Talk:Modern Tales

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern Tales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924112941/http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/blog/?p=503 to http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/blog/?p=503

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Was looking into the sources listed above.

• Sunday Times: [1] - only shows the first paragraph; full article requires a subscription.
• Alameda Times-Star: article can be purchased here: [2]
• Playboy sells access to its complete archives [3] (NSFW)
• The Guardian has online archives via subscription [4] but they don't go past 2003 at this time, and the article is from 2004.

Edit: I got the Sunday Times article! [5] Oornery (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a great find! This source is going to be useful for quite a few articles, I believe, as it talks about other webcomics as well. I've applied the source to this article. Thank you very much for finding it! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: Two more! The Guardian [6] and Alameda Times-Star [7] Oornery (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: Got the Playboy one! Just a short bit on Modern Tales: [8] (It also talked a bit about Bee and The Spiders, which I've added to their articles.) Oornery (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Modern Tales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MJL (talk · contribs) 19:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maplestrip:  Reviewing... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Everything in this article is verifiable. It's naturally light on sources because of the lack of general attention to this sort of subject in the first place outside the same 3 or so sites. However, I will be sending you a WP:RS on WP:Discord. You are going to want to incorporate it throughout the article.

• The source you found is a great find, but interestingly, the online version of "Page Clickers to Page Turners" is already being used in the article. It seems to be exactly the same as the print version, though if you have ideas for how to use the source in more ways I am happy to hear it :)

Lol woops.. see final comment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

• The spin-off section should expand on why the various other sites were spun out. CBR explains it well enough (TCJ also works). I also found an old press release about the launch of Girlamatic.

• Done.

• diverse roster of artists and cartoonists... TCJ doesn't say this.

• No idea where this came from. Removed it.

• Any reason why the archived website is dated for 2004 and not 2012?

• I went ahead and just added multiple archived versions in the external links.

• It's well written and in WP:NPOV. I have no concerns on that front about the prose. Good job! Also, it's very clearly stable and as illustrated as it could possibly be (not a lot of free media here). Though I think you'd be fine if you included at least one non-free screenshot of the website (2004 or 2012- take your pick).

• Thank you! Added a screenshot; it's quite nice.

• I think that's all I have for you for now. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for the review thus far, MJL. I hope I addressed your concerns! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maple: Yes indeed, that is everything!
I suppose if this was going for a FA that the Closure section and third paragraph under "Success and impact" would be an issue for determining comprehensive coverage. Obviously, I worked on articles in this field, so I know that this is pretty good to establish broadness in scope for the purposes of GA. My suspicion is that a more stringent reviewer who didn't know a lot about webcomics (and how lacking in coverage even the clearly notable subjects are) they'd could probably wrongly argue that this isn't broad in a convincing way. I think I spent like an half an hour to a full hour looking for sources which could even possibly add something new to this article. I think the "Page Clickers to Page Turners" has maybe one or two facts which could be added, but I'm probably just forgetting what they are right now (might be worth checking if you milked it 115% yet lol). For better or worse, coverage don't really get much better than this for this subject.
Happily, I can say that this review is being closed as pass. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, @MJL:! I appreciate all the thought you put into it :) – I'll be sure to keep looking for more sources. I don't think this article in the Topic will ever go to FA mainly because the closure information is scant, but I am really glad GA was possible. Thank you! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)