Talk:US fans turn out for 2012 Phoenix Comicon

Original Notes

As you can tell from the video, I was in Phoenix for the 2012 Phoenix Comicon, among other events. My notes and video/photographic material are recreated in the body of the story. I wrote down the names of people I interviewed and a few short quotes. No long winded folks here as everybody just wanted to have fun. Those appear in the story. Crtew (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1516053 [Not ready]

Revision 1516053 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: It is unclear what is original research and what is pulled from the sources. More detailed reporter notes are needed where OR can be verified from notes and which sources we should be looking at for what facts are in the article. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1516053 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: It is unclear what is original research and what is pulled from the sources. More detailed reporter notes are needed where OR can be verified from notes and which sources we should be looking at for what facts are in the article. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

A paragraph by paragraph rundown of sources

The reporter's notes are based on personal observation, which is a tool that is many times underused in the journalist's toolbox. It often adds more vividness to a story that quotes or documents cannot provide. Here the observation is the main tool used and it's supplemented by photos of the sources. The only sources I did not take a photo of was Pugsley and the handler from 13th Floor Haunted House, which I did on purpose because that's the staging and not show. The son and father Phelps are not photographed. And I didn't take a photo of the coordinator for media. As you can see from the video, I'm there, too. The main documents I used were the Phoenix Comicon 2012 Programming Guide, The 13th Floor Haunted House postcard, and Nyki Robertson Crosby's handout from the tunic-making class; however, these were used for finding events and people or for double checking source names. Reordered after a second pass by an editor through the story. Filled out more completely. Crtew (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Para. 1: Give credit to source Fox 10 News for the US$5 million dollar figure. In the lead, it confirms the tenth year and this is also confirmed by the Downtown Devil which states in the middle that Phoenix Comicon started in 2002. Colin Aprill told me this was the 10th year for the convention, that it was put on by volunteers only and he told me about some of the highlights going on, like the flash mob and Jon Bernthal's appearance. The programming guide says 700 volunteers put together the event. The Fox article also confirms it was at the Convention Center and this is also confirmed by the table of contents in the programming guide. Phoenix is known as Valley of the Sun.

Para. 2: As I entered the Phoenix Convention Center and headed down the escalator, I saw all of these costumed people below of various types (Personal observation listed in the third paragraph on characters which I would just recreate from the list on my notes). As luck would have it, I heard someone say aloud in the crowd, "The Comicon -- It's all about the fans." I knew intuitively I had my lead. I have no idea which person in motion or of the up-or-down variety who said that, but it just stuck. It ended up being the theme to the entire piece.

Para. 3: Give credit for the 30,000 people to the Downtown Devel source. This source also says the convention lasted from Thursday to Sunday, which is confirmed by the programming guide. The rest is my observation as noted above.

Para. 4: Sources from Camp family pictured and identified in captions (which I would just recreate here). I talked to Tony after the others said he's "the instigator." He told me the quote that I used in the article.

Para. 5: Personal observation. I walked around the entire hall at the convention center and summed it up. What I noticed outside the hall and in the hall is that people were taking pictures of their friends but also strangers in character/costume, and people like the Camps would stop and gladly pose for strangers. The fans were entertaining each other. This is all my description.

Para. 6: I talked with Manager Tim Pugsley who was monitoring his two monsters. He watches the monsters for safety reasons, but he was able to talk in between coordination. I wrote down his self description as owning the top haunted houses. While he was talking to someone else, I talked to a handler (the monsters needed to be watched for exhaustion and such) and she told me the quote about not identifying the actors in the suits to maintain the integrity of the character.

Para. 7: Pugsley identified the names of the monsters. The photos identify the human sources posing with the identified monsters.

Para. 8: Thriller per Phoenix Comicon 2012 Programming Guide, which I posted as the third image. I observed the Zombie Chicks doing the act around the hall. Sources from Zombie Chicks pictured -- not the masked guy who was part of the act but didn't really fit into the photo angle. I got the quote from Tori and the names of all the others (see photo caption)

Para. 9: I walked down autograph row in Exhibitor Hall looking at the stars and fans. I included the page from the guide that listed the three stars I mention.

Para. 10: Talked to John and his son right before I walked into the Exhibitor Hall. I asked them what they were into and they answered William Shatner. I talked to them about this and got this quote from each. I didn't take a picture of them because they didn't come in costume and we were in a crowd of people that didn't allow for a good shot.

Para. 11: See video of the largest line in the Exhibitor Hall, Jon Bernthal's Saturday and the sources are used in this paragraph all in the video and are identified in the photos. See photo and video of friends getting an autograph. Hunter pointed out to me the message on his autograph, which I wrote down and a person can read if get the photo out of thumbnail and zoom it.

Para. 12: The Programming Guide listed all the events and classes and I used that to find an interesting class. I attended Nyki Robertson Crosby's session on making A T-Tunic, shorthand for T-shirt Tunic, and I included the top of the page of her handout (the rest isn't needed because it's about how to put the costume together), which identifies her and and her character's name. I took notes while she talked, including the quote that I would just reproduce here. She talked about her organization in Phoenix and her role in it. The room wasn't ideal for photos.

Para. 13: Costumed people in the streets of Phoenix. Again, personal observation, when I ate lunch and dinner in the city and close to the center I overheard a similar conversation of people gawking and talking about the spectacle of all of these people walking around in costume. I overheard several people ask the same question, "What's going on?"

Para. 14: Talked to Colin Aprill, a volunteer who handed me a press pass. More or less, he just gave me the lay of the land. He said it was the "signature event" in the southwest and that's listed in the welcome message in the guide, but i didn't include that because the event is compared to San Diego's much larger convention, which is upcoming. I used the external site and decided to end with a future kicker about what's going on next.

Crtew (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I cleaned up the obscenity to make it a family friendly article. I did it in cartoon style because of the theme, but usual journalism style for many publications is to write "F___in." Just in case you were curious! Crtew (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

See the External Link for information about the San Diego International Comicon this year. Crtew (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comic-con/Comicon

The term, short for Comic Convention, has multiple acceptable spellings. I used Comic-con on first use within the story, and, thereafter, used "Comicon".Crtew (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fun!

Looks like a fun event...and a fun article! But, I think paras 1 and 8 need a re-work. The first paragraph strains NPOV....and what's up with all the names in paragraph 8? A litle confusing. Bddpaux (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1516755 [Not ready]

Revision 1516755 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph doesn't work re NPOV or style. (Note Bddpaux's remark on NPOV, above.) Although "it's all about the fans" is catchy, it's also an opinion — op-ed material. We don't assert opinions as fact; we attribute them. Attribution isn't prevented by the miscellaneous-attendee source, but one would have to present it skillfully to come across as relevant. (As independent reviewer I have to avoid getting drawn into this interesting challenge in writing tactics.) The all-about-the-fans paragraph isn't a lede answering basic questions about the news event; that function is apparently performed atm by the second paragraph. The all-about-the-fans (in modified form for NPOV) is detail, and as such really does belong somewhere further down. The spontaneity doesn't have to be lost in changing these things — not entirely, though a news article can never be quite as spontaneous as an op-ed. The spontaneity would inevitably be transformed, and is perhaps not as easy to pull off with the NPOV/style factors. (Again, working to not get engaged by the challenge...) I'm noting these problems without having delved into other factors; notably, I haven't even tried to assess the acceptability of the added reporter's notes — I've no real clue whether they're super-excellent or woefully inadequate. I do know the problems I've described here exist, though, so I'm flagging them out sooner rather than later. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1516755 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph doesn't work re NPOV or style. (Note Bddpaux's remark on NPOV, above.) Although "it's all about the fans" is catchy, it's also an opinion — op-ed material. We don't assert opinions as fact; we attribute them. Attribution isn't prevented by the miscellaneous-attendee source, but one would have to present it skillfully to come across as relevant. (As independent reviewer I have to avoid getting drawn into this interesting challenge in writing tactics.) The all-about-the-fans paragraph isn't a lede answering basic questions about the news event; that function is apparently performed atm by the second paragraph. The all-about-the-fans (in modified form for NPOV) is detail, and as such really does belong somewhere further down. The spontaneity doesn't have to be lost in changing these things — not entirely, though a news article can never be quite as spontaneous as an op-ed. The spontaneity would inevitably be transformed, and is perhaps not as easy to pull off with the NPOV/style factors. (Again, working to not get engaged by the challenge...) I'm noting these problems without having delved into other factors; notably, I haven't even tried to assess the acceptability of the added reporter's notes — I've no real clue whether they're super-excellent or woefully inadequate. I do know the problems I've described here exist, though, so I'm flagging them out sooner rather than later. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

So a soft lead is not acceptable? In a soft lead, the first paragraph is an attention getter and the second paragraph performs the task of laying out the details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crtew (talk • contribs)

That technique feels to me like burying the lead (under something soft). It reminds me of magazine articles that meander and you have to read a few paragraphs before you start to see a hint of the content you actually want, then it doesn't really start getting to the meat of the subject, in dribs and drabs, till the second or third page. The first pass at attention-getting is the headline, and the second is the succinct-answers-to-basic-questions. There's something iirc in the SG about how at any point where you stop reading, the stuff you've read is more important than the part you hadn't gotten to.

Also note that once NPOV is adjusted for, that first sentence wouldn't feel quite so light-and-fluffy anyway. --Pi zero (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1516946 [Not ready]

Revision 1516946 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The notes above say "The main documents I used were the Phoenix Comicon 2012 Programming Guide, The 13th Floor Haunted House postcard, and Nyki Robertson Crosby's handout from the tunic-making class." Where are these documents? Clearly they're essential material for review. They're sources, and presumably there's no problem with illegibility. (Not rhetorically: Am I missing something?) As an alternative to making them public here, they could be forwarded to scoop, an important part of what wikinewsie.org exists for. (I vividly recall the major role of the press kit forwarded to scoop in the review of this.) We're on an OR schedule here, rather than a synthesis one. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1516946 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The notes above say "The main documents I used were the Phoenix Comicon 2012 Programming Guide, The 13th Floor Haunted House postcard, and Nyki Robertson Crosby's handout from the tunic-making class." Where are these documents? Clearly they're essential material for review. They're sources, and presumably there's no problem with illegibility. (Not rhetorically: Am I missing something?) As an alternative to making them public here, they could be forwarded to scoop, an important part of what wikinewsie.org exists for. (I vividly recall the major role of the press kit forwarded to scoop in the review of this.) We're on an OR schedule here, rather than a synthesis one. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I can't imagine how you would use these in the review. The programming guide helped me select events and know what's going on. The other documents helped me identify my sources. Besides I can't upload them because they are copyrighted. I just can't imagine how you would even use these in the editing. Crtew (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Under copyright would be why they couldn't be made public; I did address that, above.
• Not sure what you were saying about these documents in your notes, if in fact you didn't use them.
• I see you attributed the quote, but left the assertion of opinion in place. (It can probably be fixed by a reviewer during review; but I admit to surprise.)

--Pi zero (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "how you would even use these in the editing". We're talking about verification, not (necessarily) editing. --Pi zero (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Crtew : With the Australian Opals situation, the packet was under copyright so this was e-mailed to scoop. I also e-mailed another thing to scoop from some one for the water polo article because of the limited sourcing issues. Everything in an article is supposed to be verifiable. (I've lost at least one article between timeliness and because my hand written notes did not fully support the text.) If your OR notes do not say which session you attended, what time it occurred or you don't have a source for SYNTH that tells the reviewer these facts, then it should not be used. When multiple sources and different types of research are happening, it makes it even harder for a reviewer because you need to figure out what is happening. Basically, document and document and document more. --LauraHale (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a ***simple*** observation story. All but 3 of the sources are photographed and identified in the captions and so you can see that I talked to them. I think I'm a trusted member of the community, and a lot of this story is personal observation because the event was a spectacle. Crtew (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Convention stuff. The booklet is 62 pages long.

Locations of celebrities. Mentioned celebs circled.

Thriller dance.

Review of revision 1517150 [Not ready]

Revision 1517150 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: After all the not-ready reviews we've had that stopped at one problem, rather than attempting to provide more comprehensive feedback, I decided to attempt a full review, as far through as I could trace it; even if not-ready, I hoped, it wouldn't have that frustratingly incomplete feel. Okay, I've attempted a full review. About six hours' worth, allowing for occasional distractions. (Sorry to say, I'm not finding it less frustrating; I agree with the reporter that this should go more smoothly than has happened thus far.) Bottom line: For some reason, OR notes for this have remained persistently on the low side. OR notes should err on the side of everything you can think of, lots more than needed. The three parts of this are documents cited but not provided, off-line notes invoked but not provided, and descriptions of what's from where that are cryptic (at least, cryptic if one doesn't have the documents referred to). In case it has not been articulated clearly: if copyright impedes uploading material to wmf, email it to scoop instead. There may be some misunderstanding about the nature of OR review. Reviewing OR is generally more work than reviewing synthesis. The verification phase of OR review might first pinpoint article content from cited sources and check that, then (I'm assuming, for this account, that the writer is a highly trusted Wikinewsie) identify correspondences between unverified article content and OR notes, and judge how reliably each bit of article content would be recalled to mind by the corresponding notes. Quite a bit of error-resistant content might sometimes be reliably conjured by a couple of words jotted down, while more finicky stuff —direct quotes, nontrivial numbers— might have to be noted specifically. Here, The documents named have not been provided. Again: if copyright impedes upload to wmf, email to scoop instead. Two pages were uploaded to Wikinews, but I haven't been able to read the smaller print on them (low resolution, afaics). Off-line notes, referred to, also have not been provided. This means the reviewer cannot cross-check the article content against the notes. In effect, the writer is asking the reviewer to trust that the writer has self-reviewed the OR. When I got to paragraph 8, I found I couldn't even tell which article content was supposed to come from where. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1517150 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: After all the not-ready reviews we've had that stopped at one problem, rather than attempting to provide more comprehensive feedback, I decided to attempt a full review, as far through as I could trace it; even if not-ready, I hoped, it wouldn't have that frustratingly incomplete feel. Okay, I've attempted a full review. About six hours' worth, allowing for occasional distractions. (Sorry to say, I'm not finding it less frustrating; I agree with the reporter that this should go more smoothly than has happened thus far.) Bottom line: For some reason, OR notes for this have remained persistently on the low side. OR notes should err on the side of everything you can think of, lots more than needed. The three parts of this are documents cited but not provided, off-line notes invoked but not provided, and descriptions of what's from where that are cryptic (at least, cryptic if one doesn't have the documents referred to). In case it has not been articulated clearly: if copyright impedes uploading material to wmf, email it to scoop instead. There may be some misunderstanding about the nature of OR review. Reviewing OR is generally more work than reviewing synthesis. The verification phase of OR review might first pinpoint article content from cited sources and check that, then (I'm assuming, for this account, that the writer is a highly trusted Wikinewsie) identify correspondences between unverified article content and OR notes, and judge how reliably each bit of article content would be recalled to mind by the corresponding notes. Quite a bit of error-resistant content might sometimes be reliably conjured by a couple of words jotted down, while more finicky stuff —direct quotes, nontrivial numbers— might have to be noted specifically. Here, The documents named have not been provided. Again: if copyright impedes upload to wmf, email to scoop instead. Two pages were uploaded to Wikinews, but I haven't been able to read the smaller print on them (low resolution, afaics). Off-line notes, referred to, also have not been provided. This means the reviewer cannot cross-check the article content against the notes. In effect, the writer is asking the reviewer to trust that the writer has self-reviewed the OR. When I got to paragraph 8, I found I couldn't even tell which article content was supposed to come from where. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I went through paragraph by paragraph filling in where I got the information. I avoided just reproducing the same info in the notes, like listing the names in the notes because they are already in the captions. There is nothing more to upload. The programming is 62 pages and you only need the relevant pages to review.Crtew (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

About to re-review. (No idea, really, why I couldn't get the image resolution to behave.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1517824 [Passed]

Revision 1517824 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The lingering difficulty here was about reporter's notes. Where we've ended up, the form of notes provided made for a gratifyingly smooth review process. Smooth as it was, I admit I felt the absence of the alluded-to off-line notes. I've in mind to come back to this after some time to unwind from it, and meditate on the issue of reproduction of handwritten notes; I agree wholehearted with BRS's objection against requiring photos... well, as I said, time to unwind. I do mean to comb through our archives for stellar examples of reporter's notes, for WN:OR#Keep notes. Of all the passages I'd marked for reconsideration during source-check, the only one I was left with in the end was "five out of the top 1300". After my preliminary marking of potential NPOV trouble spots (prior to source-check), the one marked passage I left intact was "the most fun was simply enjoying the presence of other fans in costume." I'm hoping the neutrality edit to the all-about-the-fans sentence didn't spoil its effect; it's a beautiful line, and as the reporter has remarked here, it's the theme for the entire piece. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1517824 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The lingering difficulty here was about reporter's notes. Where we've ended up, the form of notes provided made for a gratifyingly smooth review process. Smooth as it was, I admit I felt the absence of the alluded-to off-line notes. I've in mind to come back to this after some time to unwind from it, and meditate on the issue of reproduction of handwritten notes; I agree wholehearted with BRS's objection against requiring photos... well, as I said, time to unwind. I do mean to comb through our archives for stellar examples of reporter's notes, for WN:OR#Keep notes. Of all the passages I'd marked for reconsideration during source-check, the only one I was left with in the end was "five out of the top 1300". After my preliminary marking of potential NPOV trouble spots (prior to source-check), the one marked passage I left intact was "the most fun was simply enjoying the presence of other fans in costume." I'm hoping the neutrality edit to the all-about-the-fans sentence didn't spoil its effect; it's a beautiful line, and as the reporter has remarked here, it's the theme for the entire piece. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.