Talk:Luke Cage

Needless deletion

Apparently the discussion I had wanted to start on this talk page has been censored. See the page where I reported a false positive to see the original text. Thanks.

diff

So much more difficult to edit this thing now, with idiot editors, red tape and lengthy procedures to have to go through even to just start a discussion on a TALK PAGE ffs! :/ --98.122.20.56 (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BURDEN. Also you're wrong, it's Marvel's first black superhero to receive his own comic book, the actual first was Lobo (Dell Comics). Don't worry, I went ahead and corrected it for you and moved the sourced info to the appropriate sections in the body of the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest with you, I don't really give a shit about your wikilawyering, nor too many of the policies on Wikipedia - I mentioned that I'm a casual editor. I've spent too much energy already on this one issue! My point remains: if you cared, you would have looked at the material and assumed good faith.
The Guardian says (and I wrote) first black superhero - not first black hero or star. Don't worry though - I went ahead and corrected it for you, whilst keeping the main details of the history of black superheroes in the main body.
.. speaking of which, I had not written a "detailed essay" on the history of black superheros, nor was there a "detailed essay" in the article prior to, or subsequent to, my edit. Barely a paragraph or two. The information is, I believe, quite essential to the history of comics, to this character, to Marvel and is not without import with regard to the history of popular culture in the USA - it was certainly a first.
Trip - if you want to add back the info about Lobo, feel free. He was probably an important step on the way to Powerman getting his own comic, though Lobo was a hero, not a superhero. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Luke Cage. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Luke Cage (flim)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Luke Cage (flim). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 26. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. MidnightAlarm (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:Luke Cage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 20:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MidnightAlarm (talk · contribs) 22:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this on. At a glance, the article is stable and has no cleanup tags or banners. I'll be back once the review is completed or if I have questions/concerns in the meantime. MidnightAlarm (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I need to spot-check some more references and that will take longer, but in the meantime, here is the review and my comments. It's a great article overall, but I did identify a couple of issues that need to be addressed.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Article is well-written. I identified a few minor grammatical issues during my review, but I have edited to fix those myself. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Article complies with MOS for layout, words to watch, and list incorporation. Some concerns identified for compliance with MOS:FICTION and MOS:LEAD in lead; see comments below. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FICTION and MOS:LEAD concerns have been resolved. Article now complies with the relevant MOS guidelines. MidnightAlarm (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Article has a reflist. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Some issues identified; see comments below. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved. All cited sources are RS, everything is appropriately cited, and claims in lead are supported in body. MidnightAlarm (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2c. it contains no original research. No OR identified. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyvio or plagiarism concerns detected. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Main aspects covered. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No unnecessary detail. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. NPOV maintained throughout. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is stable. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are tagged, and non-free images have valid fair use rationales. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images are relevant and suitably captioned. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.

MOS compliance

I made a few edits to fix minor MOS:FICTION-related issues, but the lead needs a bit of rewriting for compliance with MOS:FICTION and MOS:LEAD. Specifically:

  • MOS:FICTION: The fourth paragraph of the lead (beginning with Carl Lucas gained superhuman strength...) needs reframing from a real-world perspective. As written, most of the paragraph reads like an in-universe biography, albeit a short one. It may be useful to refer to the leads of other comics character articles with GA status, such as Joker (character).
  • MOS:LEAD: The lead gives undue weight to the character's in-universe biography, again largely with that fourth paragraph. It could be edited to pare biographical details down and instead introduce the major points covered in the Themes and Reception and legacy sections.

Verifiability

By and large, the sources check out, but I found two issues that need addressing:

  • The lead states both that he was the first African-American superhero by Marvel Comics to be the main character in his own series (first from Marvel) and he was the first Black superhero to star in his own regular title (implying first overall). The Creation section supports the first statement but not the second. Unless a reliable source indicates he was the first Black superhero overall (not just from Marvel) to star in his own series, the second statement should be removed from the lead.
  • Under 1970s, the statment Englehart wrote subplots for the series, only for Tuska to disregard them and say "I didn't feel like drawing that". should have an inline citation at the end of the sentence because it includes a direct quotation. Alternatively, it could be rewritten to say something like Engleheart wrote subplots for the series, only for Tuska to disregard them and say he didn't care to draw them.

MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MidnightAlarm, thanks for looking over the article! I added a few words to frame the character bio in the lead so it doesn't imply he's a real person. I'm of the opinion that all the details in this paragraph are relevant, as they cover both the characterization and developments in his publication history. I'll note that the third paragraph at Joker is also written in a way that could be interpreted as in-universe. I've removed the sentence about "first Black superhero to start in his own regular title", since it's kind of unclear what definitions are being used here. I think the exact quote is important for the part about Tuska, so I've added a citation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Thebiguglyalien! Looking at the article again with fresh eyes today, I retract my comment about undue weight in the lead. I was getting hung up there being a lot of detail from the fictional biography section, but you're right, those details cover other sections as well. Apologies for that.
Thanks for tackling the other pieces. I did see that the lead in the Joker article includes a bit of fictional biography without real-world framing, but it was only two sentences and bookended by the preceding paragraph (firmly real-world perspective) and more real-world framing at the end of that third paragraph, which I felt contextualized it nicely. The addition of In his origin story, to this article's lead similarly contextualizes it, and I'm happy with where it stands now.
The references I've spot-checked have all checked out, so I'm going to update the table above and then complete the review as a pass. Great work with the article! It was a really interesting read, by the way - I've enjoyed Luke Cage as a character for a long time but hadn't delved deeply into his origins (in-universe or real-world), and this was a great way to learn about them. MidnightAlarm (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luke_Cage