Talk:Wonder Woman: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:50, 5 February 2014 editSummerPhD (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers91,322 edits →The article mentions Wonder Woman had telepathy and electro kinesis during the Marston run.: c← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:05, 5 February 2014 edit undoOccultZone (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers224,089 edits →The article mentions Wonder Woman had telepathy and electro kinesis during the Marston run.Next edit →
Line 104:		Line 104:
	:Fine, you told what you believe. Now tell what you actually want to edit? ] (]) 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)		:Fine, you told what you believe. Now tell what you actually want to edit? ] (]) 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
	::Presumably, CS wants to add categories describing Wonder Woman as a character with telepathy, a polygraph examiner and a psychologist. If so, do reliable sources ''commonly'' and ''consistently'' define her this way? - ] (]) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)		::Presumably, CS wants to add categories describing Wonder Woman as a character with telepathy, a polygraph examiner and a psychologist. If so, do reliable sources ''commonly'' and ''consistently'' define her this way? - ] (]) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
			:::If they ever did, I would like to have a view. ] (]) 18:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:05, 5 February 2014

Wonder Woman was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 11, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 22, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comics: DC Comics Top‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.
	This article is a candidate to be the project collaboration of the month.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. 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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Feminism Mid‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Archives

Archive 1 Nov 2005 – April 2006
Archive 2 May 2006 – Oct 2006
/Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Merging this with the Diana Prince article is Long Overdue

Merging these is a no-brainer. "Wonder Woman" and "Diana Prince" denote the same fictional character. Having two articles for them would be like having separate articles for Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.218.82 (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Article structure and due weight

This article is horribly overweighted with info from the last reboot. Please trim that back drasticly. Also it has far too many primary sources that appear to be elaborated on too much. More detail to the original character as created and less insider type narrative as explained in the last GA review. Don't get discouraged. I am not taking over the article...just drawn in from an apeal in the wrong venue at the village pump.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the New 52 reboot with "last reboot"? If so, I would appreciate a lot if you could point out specific areas where I could trim it. After the last GA review, I reduced the primary sources used and added many secondary sources. The places where primary sources are used mainly are in the ficional bio section, where according to me they are appropriate. But if you think that there are specific areas where primary cites should be replaced with secondary/tertiary, please point them out to me and I'll try to my best to replace them. "More detail to the original character as created and less insider type narrative as explained in the last GA review"- I'm sorry I didn't really get this sentence can you please clarify.

I'm really happy someone is giving me valuable feedback on this article. :) I request you to point out to even more places where improvement is due. I would really appreciate your cooperation on this article.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Lets use this new GA review to see what the reviewer suggest as well. this could well be the right time to cleanup the article and get it listed. Give me just a sec. I want to check a few things first and have some suggestions.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As to the issues with it's coverage, here is an excerpt from the last review-

3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	However "In other media" needs to be in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, providing a summary of both daughter articles. May be, "Alternative versions of Wonder Woman"
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

So I think the coverage of the article is fine. The reviewer at that time pointed out that "However "In other media" needs to be in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, providing a summary of both daughter articles. May be, "Alternative versions of Wonder Woman"}}" This point was fixed.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well then I won't bother you with any further details and will simply lay out my concerns with the review. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I didn't mean to prove you wrong. No hard feelings and no offence intended. :)--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry...but you didn't prove me wrong. That isn't the point. The new GA review doesn't even have to agree with old one. What you did was blow me off. Cool.....that's your choice.....but that doesn't mean I was wrong....it means you don't take me seriously....not exactly assuming good faith and not exactly collaboration. You might want to consider that others are going to be writing this article besides yourself.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, just to clarify I never said I proved your wrong. What I meant to say was that proving you wrong is not my intention or motive. And I'm fully aware that the old review and the new review do not always agree with each other. I didn't mean to say that too. And I always welcome suggestions and constructive criticism, and edits by other users too. I'm sorry for blowing you off, you are a more experienced editor than me and I respect you. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Top Importance?

There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

…Amazon what champion?

There's been some interesting vandalism on the page… How long has it been there? 193.60.143.15 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Be specific. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wonder Woman :: the Complete History by Les Daniels

There is but one minor citing of this incredible work on Wonder Woman. With a release date of 2000, I am sure that it is not the most up-to-date work on Wonder Woman, but it takes time to go into great depths of not only the Amazon Princess, but her creator as well. I strongly suggest a fans of Wonder Woman to track down a copy of this publication for reference material. As is the new trend in sensationalist main-stream comics, characters are retconned on a nearly continual basis with increased frequency over the last three decades. This has caused a dramatic shift from the original character conceptions of the character's creators in order to increase sales numbers often through shifts in a characters image (including wardrobe, hair-style, and moral stance) and origin. In some ways these changes are made to make these fantasy characters appear more realistic in an attempt to justify the reading of comic books by adults which in turn takes away from the mythology of super-hero comics and their historically distinctive separation of good and evil which made them morality plays and examples of extraordinary behavior and morals in the face of wrong-doing for children and adolescents for over fifty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WereTech (talk • contribs) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The article mentions Wonder Woman had telepathy and electro kinesis during the Marston run.

I believe the original Wonder Woman is actually the best known; as it is the only one regularly cited by feminist theories as having a major societal impact. Also I believe given she has a lasso that makes people tell the truth Wonder Woman is a type of psychological fiction. I understand Sherlock Holmes stories are not medical fiction because Conan Doyle was a doctor; but Wonder Womans lasso is clearly the polygraph. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine, you told what you believe. Now tell what you actually want to edit? OccultZone (Talk) 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, CS wants to add categories describing Wonder Woman as a character with telepathy, a polygraph examiner and a psychologist. If so, do reliable sources commonly and consistently define her this way? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If they ever did, I would like to have a view. OccultZone (Talk) 18:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories: