Talk:The Monarchy (comics)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Monarchy (comics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comics: DC Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Regarding Henry Bendix

The explanation here is relatively easy. Authority: Revolution established that the Bendix who was active between the immidiate aftermath of Stormwatch's reogranization and the end of Stormwatch was an alternate version of Bendix who replaced the original. He was the Bendix that Jenny killed. Thus, no contradiction. As for the matter of Bendix's diaries, who is to say they haven't been planted by the alternate Bendix or something. --Strannik 06:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and NPOV

The praise and criticism sections are crying out for sources, especially where people are quoted but also sales numbers, etc. The former also has big WP:NPOV issues with things like "During its publication, the Monarchy gained rabid fans who spent hour after hour on the Wildstorm boards discussing the comic at length. Highly intelligent conversations about the story and characters included topics ranging from quantum physics to Eastern mysticism and tarot cards." which also raises the issue of how much you can rely on fan reaction and discussion on message boards (especially when they tend to violate WP:EL).

That said I do think a praise section is needed to balance the criticism - I enjoyed the trade and would pick up any second volume to see what he does (even though some of the criticism is valid too). (Emperor 12:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've added some reviews. Mainly the reviewer is positive and could be used as a source for praise. There are in fact 2 reviews of issue #6 (a positive and negative one) which should be helpful and make it easier to source claims. (Emperor 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Criticism and Praise Sections Should be Deleted

The individuals who wrote the criticism and praise sections are beneath contempt, as they clearly and shamelessly did nothing more than insert their own POV, something that's outright against the policy and spirit of Wikipedia.--steveg99

I agree and I removed the POV content. The Ain't It Cool News quote is, I think, worth mentioning since that is a high-profile site. Antonrojo 01:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]