# Talk:Joey Manley

He died in November according to the box, in August according to the body text.
I had heard that WCN etc. died with him, but according to this they shut down in April; why? —Tamfang (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tamfang: The body text was incorrect, and I don't know how that happened. Manley did pass away on November 7. Modern Tales and associated websites did shut down in April. Looking at the website using the Wayback Machine confirms it. I don't know why this is, as no sources comment on it. Only one source mentions that the family shut down in that month specifically, and I decided to use it. Oddly, it wasn't news when the Modern Tales family shut down, apparently. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joey Manley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Will be doing this review as part of a Discord GAN trade deal with Mable. As this nomination's subject is outside my usual line of expertise, it may take a while for me to do this review, but for now, my main suggestion is that the article, particularly the Early life section, may need more footnotes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll continue the review soon, but as a suggestion, I think it might be a good idea to add footnotes to specific statements, in order to avoid confusion and make it clear which statement cites which. For example, the "Work in webcomics" section has only two footnotes, and at first glance it's not clear which statements are sourced to which sources. And speaking of that section, there's a minor typo: there's no period before reference 3. Finally, shouldn't "Joey Manley stated that he did not believe that an optimal business model for webcomic exists" be "an optimal business model for webcomics exists"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the preliminary comments. I fixed the two typos you found. As for the citation usage: all text written beyond one citation and before another is sourced to the second citation. So in the "Work in webcomics" section, this text: "To learn more about webcomics ... such as Harvey Pekar and Will Eisner" is all cited to one source. If you want, I can duplicate the citation usage, but I believe this can end up looking quite messy. It is a trade-off. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: have you been able to make any progress on this review? I won't be able to actively edit from Thursday to Sunday. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Took a look at the article and didn't really see many issues other than the footnotes thing which I raised above. I can do the full review in a few hours, if you wish. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I would personally very much appreciate it if I could get the final fixes in by Wednesday, if that turns out to be possible. I'll be asleep in an hour, but I'll be sure to apply any specific comments tomorrow. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
As I mentioned to you on Discord, I have concerns with how the referencing is done in some parts of the article, particularly with the first paragraph of the "Work in comics" section. There's a long block of text before you get to your first reference, and though I know all of the content up to that part is cited to that reference, it might still be a good idea to add at least a few more footnotes in that part, particularly in the first mentions of his podcasts and Modern Tales. As the article is not a BLP, this suggestion is technically optional and not a major point against the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwigs detects quite a bit of close paraphrasing, particularly with the TCJ obituary. In addition, the statements regarding Snake-Boy Loves Sky Prince: a Gay Superhero Teen Romance are not discussed in reference 5 but instead in reference 3 (and indeed, the statement is one of many that appear to be close paraphrases). The nickname "the subscription guy" is not mentioned in the source provided. The quotes are adequately referenced and verified, however. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
According to some sources, it appears that he was awarded the title of Kentucky colonel. Did this really happen? If so, could this be added to the article? Also, has there any more post-death retrospectives or coverage that could warrant a "Legacy" section? Finally, perhaps some content about exactly why all the sites closed down could be included in the article. I know the reasons are elaborated in each website's article, but perhaps even one sentence could be added here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Considering the nicheness of webcomics in general and the lack of coverage it gets in more mainstream media, the reliability of the sources used is accepted in good faith. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The article is close to passing, but the amount of close paraphrasing is too close for comfort here. The other issues are relatively minor and don't really prevent this from passing, as long as they are adequately clarified. The paraphrasing is the major issue here and this needs to be resolved before I can pass this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rather than editing my responses into the template, I'll respond to each of the points here: ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

2B) I have attempted to increase the number of footnotes I use within a given paragraph, but I have difficulty judging where they are placed best. I know they typically fit well after a quotation, but I actually don't even have that many of those. I hope the way I implemented them works, though feel free to make suggestions for improvements.
2D) It seems like ChrisBike (talk · contribs) beat me to it with the Snake-Boy reference (thanks for fixing that for me, Chris! ^_^ ). There was a typo in "subscriptions guy", which is why you weren't able to find it. I've attempted to change up some of the paraphrasing.
3A) I completely missed the fact that he was a Kentucky General, in part because I didn't know it was an actual title bestowed upon him. With this information, I created a Legacy section. I would like to know what you think of it as it stands now. I might be able to expand upon it, but I worry that adding more quotes from colleagues and friends will introduce a certain amount of POV to the article that you don't have to worry about with larger industries.
3A part 2) I changed the structure of "Works in Webcomics" so it is more chronological and so it gives more information about the fate of Manley's projects. I believe this addresses your concern, but it may create other issues, so I'll bring it up in a separate bullet point in case you have any comments.
Thanks for the work Mable. I think all of my concerns raised above have been addressed, and thus I'm happy to say that I am passing this nomination. Good work. As this has now been promoted, I'd suggest you nominate this for DYK within seven days. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Naruto! You certainly helped me improve the article, and I am happy that it has reached this lovely status! I'll think about whether or not I'll nominate it for DYK ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Bradbury, Dieter (2008-01-29). "PORTLAND DRAWS COMIC ARTISTS;  Industry veterans hope unknown artists will find audience, income on the Web". Portland Press Herald. p. B1.
[1]
Could also be used for a potential ComicSpace article. Oornery (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a really great source, Oornery! I'm trying to think of how to potentially use this one in Manley's article, but I think the only way to do that is by going into more detail about ComicSpace. I think it's time to create a ComicSpace article, we have enough information about it now. I'll set up a userspace draft for it, and of course I'll save this Pastebin text locally. Thanks so much! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

There is one thing ChrisBike (talk · contribs) and I seem to be going back-and-forth on (and I apologize for kinda "sneakily" reverting you for it alongside other changes, that was not right of me), which is whether the following line should be in the lead section: "Though Manley's subscription services never became financially successful enough to support the artists he worked with, ...". See this edit. Some sources that include this information include the Shaenon Garrity obituary, the Dirk Deppey interview as well as this unused Wired article which doesn't mention Manley specifically. Perhaps Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) who is currently GA-reviewing this article has insight on this as well. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I removed the "Though never financially successful ..." phrase because there were significant problems with it. First, it is incorrect because, for example, artists like James Kochalka describe their Joey Manley published webcomics as being big successes financially: "setting up the web site and having it be subscription based where people pay $1.95 a month [has made it] my most moneymaking comic ever ... I make more money from it than any of my other comics. In that sense, it's a big success for me."[2] Second, that phrase (as well as the article as a whole) vastly overemphasizes monetary concerns over artistic concerns, which is an incorrect thing to do in an article whose topic is described as "supporting ambitious and challenging art" and someone who "publishes newcomers without thought to whether or not the work is lucrative."[3] There were also other problems with that phrase (including with the sentence structure itself), but I think those two reasons alone are good enough to remove that problem phrase and move on to improving other areas of the article. Thanks. ChrisBike (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You make good points, though I would have a rebuttal for both of those points. For one, Kochalka actually had a separate subscription system from the main Modern Tales-family ones, so it is not part of Manley's main subscription services. However, you're right that the way I phrased the sentence, this is unclear. Secondly, the main obituary does state that "Manley’s stated goal was to bring in a living wage for its artists in five years."[4] I personally don't feel like lucrativity is overemphasised in the article, but maybe I am clumsily trying to balance out the fact that half of the sources are written by people who likely met Manley and write very positively about him. I'd like to know what you're thinking, as your edits have been quite constructive (though I have had difficulty not feeling owenership over the article especially as it went through the GA process :s ). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)