Talk:Captain America/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2016

69.218.76.144 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC) signifigant other: Bucky Barnes, Iron Man

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Plus, it's vandalism. :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Marvel cinematic universe

Shall we also add MCU versions in Captain America, Iron Man blah blah blah pages? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned in Captain America in other media. DarkKnight2149 21:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Something missing

It would be in line with wikipedia standards to include a section on analysis of this, as well as any other, superhero character and the American self image they project. A quick search gave these among numerous others: http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/441/366 http://godawa.com/captain-america-civil-war-american-exceptionalism-corrupt-world/ http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/Captain_America.htm 83.249.179.117 (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Retitle Page: Steve Rogers (comics)

Given that Captain America is a title, not a person, should this article not be renamed Steve Rogers (comics)

No. No, more than the Spider-Man article should be renamed "Peter Parker". Common name applies. Maybe a split could be done but I'm not sure of it.★Trekker (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

New Cat?

Category:National_personifications ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.232 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Reception or Cultural impact section

I feel like it would be appropriate to add a reception or cultural impact section to the article.

This edit:

The character has been used for dog whistle politics by white nationalists in 2016.

by Kencf0618 is an intresting one worth noting but I feel like it does not fit into the lead section. The character has been around for over 75 years and I think there would be a lot to add in a new section.★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same. Fortunately there's been more coverage of the matter, so I'll get to it. kencf0618 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Kencf0618 Eh, the problem with the section that you made is that it still lends undue weight to something which is rather minor. It's a footnote in a section which should examine the character impact over several decades. To name the section "Contemporary political usage" is inappropriate also becuse "Contemporary" is something which will inevitably change. We should discuss this more and prepare a better section before adding it.★Trekker (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Kencf0618 Ok, again, please don't add something so potentially controversial to the article without us going through this with the project. The section as is is still not a "cultural impact" section, it's just about one trend which hardly deserves the most attention out of everything. ★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I do have to agree with ★Trekker, whom I had thanked for her edit and was planning on joining this discussion before I was asked. People have appropriated Captain America, Superman, Calvin and Hobbes and countless other characters in countless ways. I'd have to agree that minor misuse of copyrighted characters is trivial; if it ever gets to the point of Marvel issuing cease-and-desist letters for major misuse, I think that would be worth a sentence. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly and respectfully disagree. The fact that a major comic book character invented by two Jews has been co-opted by early 21st-century neo-Nazis (or white supremacists, or the alt-right, or whatever the branding is) is no minor matter, and deserves incorporation in the article. Furthermore, it is well cited. And the image is gigantic enough so people can read the text. Shall we swing this by the Comics Project in some formal manner...? kencf0618 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I have already notified the project. Co-opting is seriously strong language in this case, truth is that pretty much all old comic book characters were created by jewish people, and while they were often the victim of nationalism at that time they are not the focus of white-power groups today and this is minor and incidental, again we're not sayin that it souldn't be mentioned just that it's hardly deserving of it's own section.★Trekker (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The co-optation is both a factual and a serious matter inasmuch as it is an injection of 20th-century pop culture into early 21st-century radical political discourse. kencf0618 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the "seriousness" is totally your own opinion. As far as I can neither Marvel or it's parent company Disney has reacted to it. I understand that you don't like it, neither do I, but that doesn't mean it's very notable. It happens all the time, I think the character Nick Fury was used by some gay political faction a while ago, it's not that big of a deal.★Trekker (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The coverage by the Idaho Statesman today indicates otherwise. kencf0618 (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It indicates nothing except that someone took notice that they used a Cap picture, he is mentioned ONCE in the article I found.★Trekker (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Which is sufficient attribution, given the context. kencf0618 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really. I don't see how it warrants more than a mention. There's not really anything more to note.★Trekker (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mention away. Wikipedia is citation driven. http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/education/boise-state-university/article128742204.html kencf0618 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Kencf0618

I've already seen that. When you added it to the article earlier. This entire discussion was about how we should develop a section for the cultural impact. It will be mentioned as soon as we have collected some more material.★Trekker (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently after sleeping through the Vietnam War Captain America has appeared at protests in Brazil and Hong Kong: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/captain-america-hong-kong-occupy-central/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/16/brazil-protests-dilma-rousseff kencf0618 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

While the dog-whistle thing is only a footnote in the history of Cap's legacy, I do think a proper Reception section should include times when he and his symbol have been appropriated or criticized by political groups. He's a copyrighted fictional character, but he's also be a symbol of America since he punched Hitler in the face.

There was an issue eight years or so ago that included a scene of protestors using signs with slogans taken from Tea Party rallies, and the fictional protestors were portrayed in a very negative light. It caused quite a stir in reputable newspapers, and the writer (Brubaker, I think) apologized for it and claimed the slogans weren't from his script. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Captain America complex" from the 1970s, which is the subject of this book, might reasonably be mentioned here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"The fact that a major comic book character invented by two Jews has been co-opted by early 21st-century neo-Nazis"

Well, the superhero in question in white, blond, and blue-eyed. Quite reminiscent of how the Nazis imagined the Aryan race. See the following source on how Captain America represents the "Aryan ideal". https://books.google.gr/books?id=gQD0WX6czQAC&pg=PA66&dq=Captain+America+Aryan&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Captain%20America%20Aryan&f=false

Captain America is also regularly depicted as an All-American hero, whose job is to face whoever threatens America (Nazis, communists, terrorists, etc). I could see the appeal to Nativist elements of American society.

As a child, I found Cap to be a disturbing depiction of nationalism, not patriotism. A "hero" dressed in a flag, like a cheap politician. And a willing volunteer for human experimentation, who blindly serves his government. I am Greek, and these elements tend to remind me of the "patriotic" speeches of figures of the Greek military junta of 1967–74, whose self-described mission was to save the nation from itself. Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

While that's how you personally feel, that not much like what the character has been written like since the 50s, at that time he was a communists hater, which has later been retconed as not being the same person. Everyone here needs to put away their own personal feelings about nationalism and focus on the article and what it should include. The reference you have is great.★Trekker (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"pretty much all old comic book characters were created by jewish people"

Would you mind rephrasing that? It sounds like an argument that "Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field" is Un-German, one of the justifications for the Nazi book burnings.

While people of Jewish descent were indeed prominent in the American comic book industry of the 1940s and 1950s, not all writers or artists were Jewish. Gardner Fox was not Jewish, Carmine Infantino was Italian-American, Steve Ditko is Slovak-American, Bill Everett was from a prominent British-American family, we know little about the ancestry of William Moulton Marston, Otto Binder was Austrian-American, John Romita Sr. is Italian-American, etc. They were not a homogeneous group. Dimadick (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to rephrase that, nothing that I said had anything to do with Germany. I'm not a fan of rewriting what I've stated. My point was only that this use of Captain America is nothing really special politically. Ofcourse I know that not every comics writer back in the day was jewish, that'd be ridiculous. I don't mean to diminish any non-jewish writers of the time, I was just exaggerating a bit to emphasise that the idea that the Captain America situation is far from unique. I probably should have known that a joking tone in my head wouldn't translate into wikipedia script but well well, done is done.★Trekker (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

As stated above, the "Captain America complex" written about in the seventies seems to me to maybe merit specific mention in the article, as well as, perhaps, discussion of whichever person other than Rogers who claimed to be Cap and more or less showed those tendencies. I think that character was allegedly killed in that era, or sometime thereafter? If so, that might be seen as a form of repudiation of the idea, and might merit specific mention on that basis. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've read and re-read this thread, and from everything I'm seeing, any such section is going to be cherrypicked WP:SYNTH. As well, any section purporting to cover Captain America's cultural reception would be leaning to undue weight unless it also includes material covering both the traditionally patriotic uses of the character and the commercial uses of the character. And as it stands so far, one or two isolated instances of alt-right co-opting is, as other editors have noted, hardly notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If a cultural impact section were to be based exclusively on the material so far presented, I would agree with you. I would also agree with you regarding the patriotic usages of not only this character, but the other overtly patriotic heroes in comics. I personally don't know the level of sourcing or notability on such patriotic heroes, but as per List of United States-themed superheroes there certainly seem to be a rather large number of them, and on that basis I think it might be reasonable to think that there might be sufficient notability and material for an article on such overtly patriotic heroes, and I guess I might include Captain Britain (maybe) and maybe a few others as non-US examples of the same phenomenon. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been several books about comic propaganda. I haven't read them (yet), but I'm sure they cover the use of individual characters like Cap. We even have United States propaganda comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

And we could always contact WP:MILHIST. I imagine given Cap's prominence as a World War II poster-boy, they might have some additional sources relating to his use in WWII, and maybe Korea, Vietnam, and other conflicts as well. John Carter (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. As per a current discussion at the comics project talk page on a broadly similar area, I think maybe the time might have come to develop some sort of broad guidelines for those characters who are in effect popular icons and whose impact and reliably sourced material sometimes crosses well beyond the comics themselves. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Captain America. 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/20100214003603/http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/feb/10/marvel-admits-mistake-captain-america-comic/ to http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/feb/10/marvel-admits-mistake-captain-america-comic/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GBSJxxHy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicsalliance.com%2F2011%2F05%2F30%2Fcaptain-america-brubaker-mcniven-preview to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/05/30/captain-america-brubaker-mcniven-preview
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65bgjtJzz?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marvelmasterworks.com%2Ffeatures%2Fint_stern_1006_2.html to http://www.marvelmasterworks.com/features/int_stern_1006_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

He actually did kill him (Red Skull) as of #15 & took over the position of HYDRA, once the mutants removed Xavier's brain from Skull. Crossbones & Sin betrays Skull in exchange for their loyalty to Cap. 139.193.136.119 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 04:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2018

I would like to request the "Alter Ego" be changed to "Full Name" seeing how "Captain America" is technically his alter ego. 69.144.236.131 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The fields are part of a standard template. Also, per the sources provided in the article, Steve Rogers and Captain America are alter ego for the same person. There is nothing wrong in this regard. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 18:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

South America – not America?

South America – not America?

Captain partially North America, Captain not South America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.114.49 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Captain America was born in 1917, not 1920 169.252.4.22 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This can't be changed unless you provide a reliable source to support your claim. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

add /Steve Rogers next to Captain America(in the beginning) Baws465 (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Steve Rogers is mentioned in the second paragraph (bolded), which should be enough, and also gives context for the name. – Þjarkur (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Speech balloon.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Captain America (Steve Roger circa 1968).png

Hi, I uploaded this image (File:Captain America (Steve Roger circa 1968).png) and think this could be a good Infobox image.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

File:No List of Captain America supporting characters

Hey, I just noticed that no one has done a list for supporting characters of Captain America. There's lists for Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman-- Captain America would not have gotten far in World War II without the Invaders, and he never would have been a member of the Avengers had Hulk stayed with the team, then they never would have found him in ice. Please, make a list of supporting characters.IronKnight374 (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No more Black Widow and Iron Man.

Kinsley Bottom can't stop adding Black Widow and Iron Man in Captain America's partners. Tecnically, this is a Wikipedia page starring comic book Cap, not MCU Cap. In comics, Black Widow is more related to Hawkeye or Bucky Barnes. Iron Man is a friend from work, just like Thor, Giant-Man, Hawkeye or the Scarlet Witch. Johnf69 (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources supporting your cases. You have made edits before that have been reverted because they weren’t referenced in the article. Unless, you can prove the characters you’re are more notable than Iron Man and Widow. Leave has it was before. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Neither of you seem to realized the infobox is meant to be a summary of the article. Iron Man is mentioned in the main biography section only six times: all in one subsection, four times in one paragraph, and most should be removed as undue recentism. D-Man isn't mentioned at all. I recommend you improve the article (which doesn't just mean expand it) before trying to expand the infobox. Argento Surfer (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomad, as well as D-Man, has been a legendary sidekick of Cap during Mark Gruenwald's run. Black Widow and most importantly Iron Man are part of the Avengers, so it's irrilevant adding them in that infobox. If we count them as partners, then we can also add Hawkeye, Ant-Man, Wasp, Thor, Scarlet Witch and so on. I honestly don't know how to use Wikipedia properly, but that's for sure that adding Iron Man and Black Widow in Cap's comic book history is a big mistake. MCU Cap already has his own Wikipedia... let's add them there Johnf69 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, as you all can see, Black Widow never gets mentioned during the article. She's not very important to Cap's history, not just like Nomad, D-Man and Agent 13. Johnf69 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly you don’t know. Find sources. There’s comic history of Cap and Widow, teaming up together. Not just in the Avengers. There team ups have to be notable. You should be very careful the next you edit. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're totally wrong. Cap also had several team-ups with Spider-Man, but that doesn't mean Spidey is an iconic partner of Steve Rogers. And, anyway, as Argento Sufer previously told us, the infobox is meant to be a summary of the article. Black Widow never gets mentioned in the main biography section... that's because she's not important for COMIC BOOK Cap. That's it. Johnf69 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There team ups have to be notable. No, they don't. If they are, they should be noted in the article. They aren't. Since they aren't, they should not be listed in the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary of the article.

Find sources. It is the responsibility of the editor trying to add material to source it. It is unfair to ask an editor removing it to prove sources aren't available. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that! So you think we should keep only Bucky Barnes, Falcon and Sharon Carter? Johnf69 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And you both should find consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring, which will get you both blocked. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I'm really sorry for that! Johnf69 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It will never happen again! Johnf69 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Here’s my sources: Cap and Iron Man’s relationship from the official marvel website: https://www.marvel.com/articles/comics/4-iconic-captain-america-and-iron-man-moments
per paste magazine: https://www.pastemagazine.com/comics/captain-america/frenemies-in-arms-the-best-captain-america-and-iro/

then Cap and Widow: Captain America and Black Widow Vol 1, The SOLDIER and The SPY, a (ROMANOGERS) love story (they’re in a relationship in this one), more in depth here (https://www.cbr.com/avengers-black-widow-captain-america-near-miss-romance/), Uncanny X-Men Vol 1 268, Captain America: Triple Threat (2014), and that’s not even including when they’re all in the avengers. I found mine. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Cap also shared a miniseries like "Captain America and Black Widow" with Hawkeye... that means nothing. And, as previously told, Natasha never gets mentioned in the article, so we can't add her in the infobox. Regarding Iron Man, do you think we should add him only because Marvel.com and PastedMagazine talked about their relationship and their best moments? Trust me, you can find articles like that about every single character in Marvel (and DC) history... that doesn't mean Iron Man needs to be in Cap's partners infobox Johnf69 (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: every single comic book you mentioned (excluding Uncanny X-Men Vol 1 268, but that issue mainly stars Wolverine) came out only AFTER the MCU movies. Sharon Carter, Bucky Barnes and Falcon have always been important to Steve Rogers, unlike Black Widow and Iron Man Johnf69 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes they have. Some came out before MCU, and during. You have a bias with my selection because they’re not yours. The fact you never provided anything shows you were adding them just because. They’re relationships are notable and if you don’t know, then that’s on you. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

"You have a bias with my selection because they’re not yours"

Can't believe you said that. I'm not twelve. By the way, at the end I didn't added Nomad or D-Man, I only demonstrated why you're wrong. And I'm okay with that. Your proofs are completely weak. I think you're only an Iron Man / Black Widow fan that has nothing better to do, and you should read more comics. They're great, and they dimonstrate why Iron Man and Black Widow will never be like Sharon, Bucky and Sam for Steve. I suggest you to read comics that came out from 40s to 00s, especially the stories written by Kirby, Englehart, Stern, DeMatteis and Gruenwald... five legendary authors who never gave a prominent role to Iron Man and mostly to Black Widow.

Thanks for anything and goodbye :) Johnf69 (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly suggest all editors read Argento Surfer's contribution above - and actually heed it. Improve the article, then the infobox. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

Please add how he died 26chandler (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

Remove the red link of alternate future of the Ultimate Universe and also remove the generic name of reference 13!2804:7F2:5A6:5749:85F3:C4FF:18CE:D188 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Argento Surfer (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Cap’s partners

Ziggy Coltrane is starting an edit warring again, adding Black Widow and Iron Man as Captain America’s partners. They’re not. Black Widow could be considered Bucky’s partner, but not Steve’s.

Iron Man is an Avenger. If we add him, we could also add Thor, Hank Pym, Wasp, Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver… that doesn’t make any sense. Johnf69 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, I refer both Ziggy Coltrane and Johnf69 to this archived talk page section and especially urge ye to take heed of Argento Surfer's comment there, and my own comment. Further, would a sock report be useful here, Ziggy? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

"Steve Rogers (Marvel Comics)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Steve Rogers (Marvel Comics) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Steve Rogers (Marvel Comics) until a consensus is reached. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Captain America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 22:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This one should be interesting. Hopefully I'll have a review posted for this within a few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Morgan695: Overall, I'm really impressed with this article. It's refreshing to see a comic book character treated in an encyclopedic context instead of having a glorified Fandom page. Most of the issues here are just copyedits and things to be adjusted for clarification, but there are also some possible issues with the sources that need to be looked at. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review, and for the thoroughness of your comments. I'll make revisions to the article based on your feedback in the coming days. Morgan695 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Hi, I've responded to (most) of your comments, but I've been busy this week in my personal life I don't think I'll have time to rewrite the "Enemies" section in the next day. Possible to hold this GAR for a few additional days? Morgan695 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, personal life always comes first. There's no real deadline with these. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Okay, I think I've responded to your notes. Thank you for your patience. Morgan695 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Morgan695, great! If I have one more note for this article, it's that you should definitely take it to FA if that's something you're interested in doing. I see this article becoming a model for how to write comic book character articles going forward: it excels everywhere that most of these articles fall behind. For now, it's easily a GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

I've made some minor copyedits myself.

General:

• Is there a clear dividing line between what goes in publication history and what goes in fictional character biography? Splitting them is almost certainly the right call, but there does seem to be a little overlap. It's most obvious with the Nomad arc, where they both provide very similar information.
  • I've tried to keep them separate, but there are some instances in Publication history where some plot context is necessary; explaining, for example, why Secret Empire represented a political shift for the character necessarily requires some level of summary of the story.
• I'm noticing a specific grammatical error throughout this article. For example, take The series was a commercial failure, and was cancelled after just three issues. This is split into two clauses, but the second clause has no subject. This should either be rewritten as "and it was cancelled", or the comma should be removed so the subject applies to the entire sentence. There are several instances of this, so I suggest during a search for ", and" then doing a search for ", but".
  • Are there specific instances of this that stand out to you? I am clearly unaware of this grammatical convention, given that ctrl+f is returning 54 results for ", and".
• Check for instances of "would" that work better as past tense. For example, would be can often be rewritten as "was".
  • Revised.
• "Notes" and "noted" are used several times to describe a personal interpretation or opinion. This wording implies a factual nature and should be replaced in each of these instances. If it is factual, then it can just be said in wikivoice without "Critic A noted that..."
  • Revised.
• There are several sentences that go on too long because they're combined with a colon or a semicolon. I listed a few examples below, but I suggest going through the uses and deciding case-by-case whether they would flow better as two sentences.

Lead:

• The lead seems to be heavily weighted toward the character's 1940–1964 history, where it goes into detail about that aspect and essentially says "and he's been around since then" when it gets to 1964. A sentence could be added about Nomad, and S.H.I.E.L.D. could be mentioned alongside The Avengers, among other things.
  • I actually think that for the lede, the character context is adequate. It hits the three major aspects of his character – his wartime origins, the freezing incident, his modern status as a man out of time – and I fear that highlighting specific stories would lead to a slow creep of the lede being bloated with too much plot summary.

Creation and development:

• This approach was also consciously political... – This sentence runs on. It could be two or three sentences.
  • Revised.
• and notes that he regards Kirby as a co-creator – "and notes that" can be dropped. This would be more concise as its own sentence saying "Simon regarded Kirby as a co-creator..."
  • Revised.

1940–1944:

• Is there a reason why the comic title is in bold?
  • This was an addition not made by me that apparently is meant to comply with WP:R#PLA. I feel like it's just confusing, and have removed it.
• Captain America's popularity drew a complaint – Long sentence
  • Revised.

1980s and 1990s:

• in a run that saw a storyline in which Captain America declines – Could this be rewritten to be less wordy?
  • Revised.
• in which Captain America faced a crisis of confidence in the face of what Dematteis described as – Too wordy, and this sentence runs on.
  • Revised.
• notably Paul Neary – "notably" suggests that we're elevating the importance of these examples. Does the source specifically identify them as the most notable?
  • Revised.

2000s–present:

• Cassady noted that while the series was criticized for its political content, he stated that the aim – Besides the issue with "noted", saying both "noted" and "stated" is redundant
  • Revised.
• The character was ultimately killed – "ultimately" feels inaccurate when the same sentence goes on to say that he was revived.
  • Revised.
• A sentence about the current run might be warranted
  • Added.

Fictional character biography:

• the superhero the Falcon – Two "the"s this close together read awkwardly
  • Revised.
• Following the disbandment of the Avengers, Rogers discovers that Bucky is still alive – maybe Rogers can be replaced with "he" in this sentence. The sentences before and after this also use Rogers.
  • Revised.
• Ultimately, it is revealed – "ultimately" is used twice in this sentence.
  • Revised.

Personality and motivations:

• the character was consequently often criticized – "consequently often" reads awkwardly together
  • Revised.
• while those characters became heroes because of a traumatic incident, Rogers carries on as a hero in spite of a traumatic incident – Italics should not be used for emphasis in formal writing
  • Revised.
• which Weiner argues serves to reinforce the "nobility" of the character – "argues serves" reads awkwardly. "nobility" doesn't need quotes here, where it looks like MOS:SCAREQUOTES
  • Revised.
• overt partisan political statements – "partisan political" is redundant
  • Revised.
• writers have nevertheless regularly used Captain America – "regularly" can be lost without changing the meaning
  • Revised.

Political themes:

• For example, the conspiracy storyline of "Secret Empire" reflected... – The Secret Empire and Civil War examples are attributed to critics, but this interpretation of the Streets of Poison storyline is stated as a fact, which implies it was the explicit intention of the author. It should clarify whether this is the case or not.
  • Revised.
• where the United States is criticized for imperialist policies – It should be made clear that this is Dittmer's interpretation, rather than the article taking a position on foreign policy preferences.
  • Revised.

Shield:

• The description of the shield seems to veer into in-universe description. This is particularly the case with phrases like The shield is constructed from and when thrown, it is capable. A few wording changes might help clarify that it's how the shield is depicted, described, portrayed, etc.
  • Revised.

Sidekicks:

• "Sidekicks and partners" might be a more appropriate subheading, since Cap and Falcon were more or less peers.
  • Revised.
• first sidekick is Bucky Barnes – I know this is tricky with fiction, but in my opinion "first is" reads awkwardly as opposed to "first was"
  • Revised.
• noting that "mostly, Bucky was brought in – this could be cleaned up by pulling "mostly" from the quote, choosing a different word if necessary.
  • Revised.
• the character remained deceased for many decades & he was revived in 2005 – This makes it sound like the character died and was brought back to life in-universe.
  • Revised.
• introduced as the superhero The Falcon – "the superhero The" reads awkwardly
  • Revised.

Romantic interests:

• after Bernie decided to leave New York – "after Bernie left New York" is more concise
  • Revised.
• Did any of the sources specify who his "primary" love interest was (presumably one of the Carters)? If so, that would be a helpful detail.
  • I wouldn't say that Cap has a "primary" love interest; Sharon has certainly been his most consistent love interest in modern comics, and the elevation of Peggy Carter as a character following her appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has certainly heightened her perception as Cap's "true" love, but neither of those relationships have been permanent and inviolate aspects of the character.

Alternate versions of Captain America:

• The sentence about the former Captain Americas is long and wordy. I suggest giving this one a little more room, maybe introducing the idea that there were inconsistencies and then in the next sentence listing the examples that were creates to resolve them.
  • Revised.
• there are multiple variations of Steve Rogers and Captain America – This makes it seem like just a few. Would "many" be more appropriate than "multiple"?
  • Revised.

Cultural impact and legacy:

• one of the most popular and recognized Marvel Comics characters – "widely recognized" might be preferable to just "recognized".
  • Revised.
• of the United States-themed superhero to emerge – "superhero" should be plural
  • Revised.
• provoked a significant proliferation of patriotic-themed – "significant" editorializes, and the sentence still makes sense if it's removed. Of course, this whole sentence should be reworded because the alliteration is distracting
  • Revised.
• such that a mere three months – "a mere" can be cut
  • Revised.
• Captain America became linked to counterculture of the 1960s through the film Easy Rider. – This doesn't make sense without further context, and I didn't see any when I checked the source. If this isn't significant to the character, it might be better to remove it.
  • Removed.

Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear to be reliable. WP:EARWIG turned up no obvious copyright violations. Non-independent sources by Marvel or its employees don't appear to be used for contentious claims. The Blogspot source appears to be written by reputable entertainment journalists. What I'm really happy to see is that this article isn't plagued by a wall of citations to seemingly random comic book issues.

• Is there any methodology to how the list of enemies was chosen? If not, then it presents two problems: the selection might be original research, and it encourages drive by additions.Either some sort of criteria should be made clear, or this should be rewritten to look more like the "sidekicks" section. My preference would be the latter, but either would be fine for GA.
  • I've revised the section.
• I often give this as blanket advice in GA reviews, but it's generally better to paraphrase than use to quotes if the exact wording isn't important to the reader's understanding. There's no such thing as under-quoting, but there is such a thing as over-quoting. The quote boxes are a nice touch though, helping break up the text in an article where images aren't always an option.

Spot checks:

• Dittmer (2012) – Checked all uses. The cited page doesn't appear to support that he is tethered to hegemony, only foreign policy.
• Stevens (2015) – Checked all uses.
  • Does this support any of the information it's supposed to support under "alternate versions of Captain America"? The source just has a long list of names, but the article uses a random selection of these names and then provides extensive context that I don't see in the source.
    • The reason listed in the article is the reason why these characters were established as Captain Americas, but as they are relatively minor characters, I found it difficult to find a source directly substantiating that information. I've revised the section accordingly.
  • I see the Ultimate Captain America coverage at pp. 225–226, not p. 224. It also looks like there's enough information here to lend itself to a sentence on how Ultimate Cap is different from primary Cap, if that would be beneficial.
    • Revised.
• Wright (2001) – Checked all uses.
  • p. 32 is a full page image in the copy at archive.org. I also don't see Cap being referred to as explicitly anti-fascist on the pages before or after, nor that the stories frequently contained political messages.
    • I mostly intended this as an intro statement for the section, but it seems somewhat flowery so I've removed it.
  • Close paraphrasing: steals the wording consciously political.
    • Revised.
  • Supports post-war period but not final years of the war.
    • Revised.
  • This doesn't seem to support any of the details after Timely's corporate successor Atlas Comics relaunched
    • Corrected.
• Hayton & Albright (2009) – Checked all uses.
  • I see the Vietnam content on p. 18, not p. 17.
    • Corrected.
  • Captain America became linked to counterculture of the 1960s through the film Easy Rider is almost a word-for-word copy of the source.
    • Already removed.
• Walton (2009) — Checked both uses. causing Dematteis to resign from the series in protest is almost a word-for-word copy.
  • • Revised.
• Dutter (1990) – Checked all uses.
  • Simon only writing two issues is on p. 12, not p. 11.
    • Revised
  • Not a problem with the article, but this source really seems to stress that they wanted to get the first issue out quickly before someone killed Hitler. This is one of those strange facts that could make the article more interesting.
    • Added as a note.

The spot check wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either. The WP:Text-source integrity issues are minor, but five of the six sources I checked turned up at least one. If the information isn't stated on the cited page, that makes it look like WP:original research, even if it isn't. On the other hand, there are also a few times where similar wording is copied from the source. It's not too serious of an issue since it's mostly just a few words each time instead of whole passages, but it's still a plagiarism risk. I went back and forth on whether to halt the review early based on the spot checks, but it should be easily surmountable if it's just a matter of adjusting page numbers and some minor wording changes. There's also the real possibility that I'm just oblivious and some of these are clearly written on the cited pages.

Broad in its coverage

Omissions:

• It's not clear what Steve Rogers has been up to since 2012 except that he was succeeded as Captain America by Sam Wilson and then replaced by Hydra Supreme. Between publication history and fictional character biography, at least one of the two should have some info about this. A few words as to how the Secret Empire storyline resolved might be helpful as well.
• I checked the version of the article before your rewrite, and one redeeming quality was that it (tried to) describe the different types of enemies Cap has historically faced. In addition to (or as an alternative to) the list of enemies, a paragraph detailing the general themes of his rogues gallery might be beneficial if sources can be found for this. This is something I'd expect for FA rather than GA though.
• It might be appropriate to have a paragraph about video game appearances under "in other media", though he doesn't have any super prominent video games and it ultimately depends on whether his video game appearances are prominently mentioned in the sources. Either way, it's beyond what I'd expect at GA and I'm just throwing it out there.

Excessive detail:

• This article's scope otherwise seems to be specifically about Steve Rogers, but an entire paragraph is dedicated to Bucky's costume while he's Captain America. I suggest moving this to Bucky Barnes. If this paragraph is moved or removed, then the subheadings in this section might be unnecessary since there will only be three paragraphs remaining.
  • Done.
• patriotic-themed superheroes in American comic books during the 1940s, including... – The list of examples is a bit long. It would be better as two or three of the most prominent if not cut entirely.
  • Revised.

Neutral

No aspect is given undue weight, and no interpretation is given undue prominence. A few minor wording issues, but they are addressed above under criterion one.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

The three non-free images are all justified with valid non-free use rationales. Captions provide detailed context. Good choice for the infobox image.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.