# Talk:A God Somewhere

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A god Somewhere. 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/20111024224502/http://blog.newsarama.com/2010/07/12/review-a-god-somewhere/ to http://blog.newsarama.com/2010/07/12/review-a-god-somewhere
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 23:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:A god Somewhere/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Haukurth (talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's do this! Haukur (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


### Capitalization in title
Styling the title as A god Somewhere looks awkward. I know it's like that on the book cover (where it looks cool) but I notice much of the coverage goes with A God Somewhere, which is what MOS:CT would suggest. Does the title appear as A god Somewhere somewhere in the book itself in a text with a normal font? Haukur (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I created the page with a capital g. It was moved by another user and I didn't feel like debating it. Armed with your second opinion, I have restored it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Great! We should probably also change this in the text itself. Haukur (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
done Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


### Possible additional sources
Rage against the superhero
Adding bits from this one now. Great find! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Superhero? Critics see superbullies (another Philadelphia Inquirer piece with some comments from Arcudi on superheroes)
This one requires a login. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
If you drop me an e-mail I can send you the text. But, on reflection, this may not add anything beyond what we already have. The book is mentioned but it's not really text about the book. Here's the beginning of the Arcudi part:

Philadelphia comic-book writer John Arcudi agrees that movie superheroes are too aggressive, cocky, and narcissistic. Superheroes "used to be the underdog, or at least had to fight against powerful obstacles. And they could fail," says Arcudi, author of the superhero graphic novel A God Somewhere. "Superheroes now are bullies," Arcudi says. "They have become so powerful, they have so many guns, they can never lose."
It goes on like that for a little while. Haukur (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, here it is, actually: [1] Haukur (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Reading through, I didn't find anything too useful. It has his opinions on superheroes generally, but nothing seems all that relevant to AGS. Argento Surfer (talk)!
Der Spiegel comments on the story, briefly and positively: [2] Not a lot of substance but it's a highly prestigious publication. Haukur (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
What do you think of this review by Bill Sherman, apparently originally published at Blogcritics? [3] Haukur (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I pulled a line each from the above two sources. Thanks for tracking these down! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


### Plot summary
She and Hugh had split up to search for Eric, but Eric does not hear her explanation and misunderstands Hugh's absence. This feels like it needs either to be expanded or dropped. Does he misunderstand Hugh's absence to indicate that Alma is now single? Haukur (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The text is open to interpretation as to exactly what Eric is thinking here. I have revised it to focus on how he feels, which is clear from the text and important (I think) to later events. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe delink President of the United States? Haukur (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

done. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I've read the plot summary again now and I have no further suggestions. It feels clear and coherent. It also draws out the story elements that are commented on in the other sections, which is important for a good synopsis section. Haukur (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


### References
Publishers Weekly does give the date the review was published, you just have to click on 'Details' to get it. Haukur (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

corrected Argento Surfer (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The Kirkus review needs the website in the citation template. Haukur (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

corrected Argento Surfer (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm picking really tiny nits here but I'd prefer consistency of date styles, there's one 'archive-date' parameter which has a different format. Haukur (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

done - I blame the archive bot. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


### Development and publication
The mention of the Dyson book currently leaves the reader with no idea what's being used from there. Maybe we should bring in the hydrogen bomb thing to explain at least one idea? On the other hand maybe we shouldn't give too much space to Arcudi to explain how much he dislikes superheroes and how his book is like soooo intellectual and different from everyone else's. Thomas friggin' Aquinas? It kind of rubs me the wrong way. It's no fault of yours, of course, this is what the guy says. But I'm glad that we have reviewers pointing out that comic book authors have been working with these themes for a long time to the point that this supposedly subversive and clever plot is pretty much a cliché. Haukur (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I would like to expand on the connection to the Dysons, but the source is vague - I had to go to a different review to find out what Starship and the Canoe was about. The book doesn't have an article, the father's article doesn't have any detail, and the son's article just has a vague "he was estranged from his father" with no mention of the cause. In light of all that, I believe Arcudi's takeaway was how one party (Freeman Dyson and Eric from the story) effectively becomes the subject of study by a formerly close son/friend. That's OR on my part, though.
I was thinking of this part: Freeman had hoped to use hydrogen bombs to power starships, which he thought would save mankind by leading us to other worlds. ... The idea that such an incredibly destructive force could be used peacefully seemed so strange to me, but then I realized that this was exactly what you would routinely see in superhero comics - powerful characters that can tear down mountains, all on missions of peace. But we don't necessarily need this. Haukur (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I reworded the sentence with the theologians. It's still lofty, but I think the new wording puts more emphasis on Saul. Let me know what you think. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it's an improvement. Haukur (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
He also wanted to include racial and religious backgrounds for the characters because he felt they were underrepresented in comics. Can be improved, I think. Maybe something like this: "He also wanted to address certain racial, religious and cultural issues which he felt were absent from most comics or handled in a ham-handed way." Haukur (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
revised Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
From Arcudi's inception of the story to his final draft was about 18 months. I think the wording could be improved. Maybe Eighteen months passed from... or The time from....  Haukur (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
revised Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Critics typically praised the story, but sales were not remarkable. I think "not remarkable" could be improved. Weak? Limited?  Haukur (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
revised Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
We should link Peter Tomasi. Appart from that I don't think I have any further suggestions for this section. Haukur (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


### Reception
Reception sections are a strong point in your articles and this one is true to form. It does a good job of producing coherent text out of multiple reviews and without resorting to excessive quoting. Here we have three paragraphs, the first on the themes, the second on the characters and the third on the art. I'll comment on each.

What a kind thing to say! Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The first paragraph feels like it comes to a natural end after "their own conclusions". Then we get some information from an interview with Arcudi which isn't really reception as such. Also, the word 'transformation' might also be a little vague here. It refers to Eric gaining superpowers but it might be mistaken to refer to his transformation from hero to villain. I'd recommend dropping or moving this sentence but if it's kept in some form then some clarifying might help. Finally, we get Arcudi at Villanova which doesn't feel so relevant that it necessarily needs to be in the article and doesn't fit well in this paragraph.

I knew Arcudi's intentions weren't really reception material, but that seemed like the most natural place to fit it. Looking at it with fresh eyes, I agree that it's not needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The second paragraph is great. My only note is that the sentence that has "some saying..." and "...others seeing it" flows well but a single reviewer is cited in each case so maybe it's slightly misleading?

I've revised this to make specify the sources of each opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The third paragraph reads well but really cries out for an image illustrating at least some of what we're talking about. When we were talking about Revolver (DC Comics), I felt the cover image told us so much about the art no more was needed. But here we have a cover that tells us much less. I think a decent fair use case could be made. Haukur (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll look around and see if I can find a good representative panel. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


### Images
The cover: I don't see any issues.
The photo of Arcudi: I don't think it adds much here and it's not a great photo. Someone good with image processing might be able to improve it slightly by editing the eye glare. Personally, I'd be inclined to just drop it. But you don't need to cater to my every whim and if you like it there that's fine. In its defence, at least it's from the exact right year. Finally, note that the photographer has this in the license statement:

This photo may be used, modified and published for any purpose, only if a easily visible credit to the photographer is placed near the photo in each instance in which it is used.
I assume this means that he wants a Photo: Luigi Novi credit in every article that uses it. Haukur (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe not. A recent template he's using suggests he means this to apply only for reuse outside of Wikimedia projects. I don't know. (As a side note, the CC licenses really do insist on attribution and I've long felt Wikipedia kind of skirts this requirement by hiding the attribution two clicks away.) Haukur (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I've removed it - I through it in because it was available, but you're right about its quality and lack of contribution. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


### The lead
The lead really does cover the main points and has held up well even after some editing of the body has taken place. The only thing in it that I wonder aobut is that the book "was originally conceived as a miniseries". It's stuff that didn't happen so maybe it's too minor to include? Or maybe it's important after all. Does the book maybe feel more like a miniseries than a novel? Haukur (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's minor. I didn't notice it until my second or third reading, and someone less familiar with the genre might never notice without being told. I've removed that portion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


### External links
"Video of Arcudi's talk at Villanova" – after we removed mention of this from the body, the link could maybe use another description. But I'm fine with keeping the link. Haukur (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


### Result
I think you've done a great job with the article and I don't think I should make the addition of another fair use image a condition for passing it – just take it as a suggestion.
Are there any remaining issues you feel we should discuss? Haukur (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you've been pretty thorough. Thanks for taking the time! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, let's call it a day. I find that the article is well written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable and appropriately illustrated. A pleasure working with you again, Argento Surfer. Haukur (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)