# Talk:Action Comics 1000

Since this is a relatively recent issue, does anyone think we should write a summary about the featured stories? Leader Vladimir (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Leader Vladimir: That already exists. What are you asking? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action Comics 1000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 20:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"$7.99 cents (equivalent to $8 in 2018)."  First, we don't need the "cents", and second, this conversion is so recent as to be nonsensical, you're converting 2018 dollars to... 2018 dollars.
References all need access dates.
"the issue got nine out of 10"  Don't change between number formats mid sentence for the same things, so either 9 out of 10, or nine out of ten.
"In contrast, Amazing Spider-Man #800 sold 300,000 copies to retailers"  Why is this the most apt comparison?  When was it released, for instance?
All in all, a really solid effort, one I'll be happy to promote once my niggles are taken care of. Courcelles (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Should be good on all those fronts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep, promoted. Courcelles (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The commercial reception needs to be reworded/redone. this issue and variant covers of it were by far the best-selling advance orders of the month of April 2018. This statement is accurate as AC #1000(w/ all its variants), was the best selling advance and final. But then it proceeds to list the variants as 3rd, 4th, 6th, as if those were there respective placings for the month. The source is specifically for re-orders, which doesn't include initial orders, and it is just for one specific week, not the entire month. Honestly don't think the details of the re-orders for one week need to be listed, but I do think the listing of the variants(along with the others) should be someone where in the article to keep the article broad in coverage for it's GA status.
Another point to be addressed, is the comparison to ASM 800. Two weeks before it was released, retailers had purchased more than half a million copies. If this is kept(since final numbers are included later), it should be specified that it was according to one of the co-publishers from DC Comics Dan Dido. This is then compared to the 300k advance orders that ASM had on April 5th, even though the issue wasn't come out until May 30th. Finals numbers for ASM 800 were 411,480[1], which is a lot closer to the final numbers of AC 1000 of 449,787 then the 300k vs 500k comparison. Comparing the final numbers both from Diamond would be better than comparing the advance orders of one two weeks before its release, and another over 7 weeks before release. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: These are great points. Do you feel like you can make the edits yourself or do you want me to do it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I don't mind doing them, I just didn't want to change/remove stuff without talking with people who did the original work in article first. I'll do an edit based on what I said above, then you can adjust whatever you see fit. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but: Action Comics published an issue #0 between #s 703 and 704. Is there a reason why #1,000 would not be considered the 1,001st issue of the comic?
Caseyroberson (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Caseyroberson, For that matter, there was the 1,000,000 issue tying into DC One Million. The issue numbers don't signify "this the [x]th issue of [title]" as such, tho it's intuitive to think that they would (and they usually do). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
So does that mean I should change the article to read that "Action Comics #1000 (cover dated Early June 2018) is the 1,002nd..." instead of what it says now? Caseyroberson (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Caseyroberson, Good eye. I just changed it. Thanks, Casey. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I just wanted to be sure I wasn't being too much of a pedant in someone else's territory. Caseyroberson (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Caseyroberson, Wikipedia is humanity's territory. Just because I made this article and wrote most of the text does not mean that I own it. You do just as much as me. Additionally, I personally license all my contributions in the public domain: anyone can do anything with all of them as much as they want. I'm really glad you corrected the oversite that I included. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)