This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transformers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of transformers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransformersWikipedia:WikiProject TransformersTemplate:WikiProject TransformersTransformers articles
Tag the talk pages of Transformers-related articles with the {{WikiProject Transformers}} banner.
Gather support and attract TransFans to support and assist in the WikiProject.
Discuss standards, starting point, and come to agreement on some uniformity among Transformers pages (the most complicated and obvious being a standardized format for a Transformer biography).
Begin the task of updating individual Transformers pages.
Discuss the possible merging TF Series and TF Universes. Upon consensus, execute whatever the going-forward plan might be.
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
I actually considered PRODing this as well (Special:Diff/939215651), but in my WP:BEFORE, I found good sources and decided against it. It can stand on its own, but there's WP:NORUSH to get there. WP:NBOOK is the relevant guideline, and criteria 1 is satisfied. Highlighted by publisher IDW as one of the premier stories they published (out of over 40). That one doesn't count towards GNG, but it illustrates the rationale. Independent sources: 5 critic reviews at Comic Book Roundup & IGN also highlighting this as the best Transformers story. -2pou (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@2pou: Hmmm, the IGN entry is not bad and IGN is reliable, good find. 5 critic reviews sounds good though I'll note those are revies per issue, with 1st issue getting 2 reviews, issues 2-4 one each, and issue 5, none. Let's see what we end up with: all 5 reviews are to a site called "Comic Book Revolution", now offline. Here's a sample review of theirs. They are anonymous by 'William' or 'minimus-minor', except one review by 'Chad Nevett'. I am seriously not convinced they are better than 'user reviews', except they are published on a blog instead of in a comment field. Here's the one non-anonymous review by Chad Nevett: [1]. I guess this really boils down to whether we can consider the "Comic Book Revolution" website reliable. Here's their about us page: [2]. It started at least in 1998 ([3]), and I think disappeared around 2016, through it might have not been updated for a while. It seems to have been run by one person at first, then by a small group, but does it make it better than a web-fanzine? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: It looks like you are mixing up a couple things there between Comic Book Resources (now CBR) and Comic Book Revolution. The Chad Nevett review is actually from Comic Book Resources, so that is an additional independent source if you lump all Revolution reviews to a single independent source (and regardless of whether Revolution is reliable or not). Note that this review is from before what some consider a 2016 downward spiral, from the time they were winning several awards for coverage. Two is enough for me, but there is also ComicsAlliance coverage here (another award-winning comics journalism winner--and in that time frame), among others. (I sometimes find Wikipedia article titles also adversely affect the BEFORE process.) -2pou (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
