I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote this to featured article in the future; I'm sure there will be more to write and improve the article once season 2 rolls around. I want to make sure that the grammar, sentence structure, and flow of information is up to FA standards. I'd also like to remove any wordiness, as that is something I sometimes have an issue with. Lastly, I would appreciate for someone to go through the sources, doing a spot check and source review regarding reliability.
I will focus on the article before doing comments on the lead. I am admittedly unfamiliar with the character or either version of the X-Men animated series so I would want to approach the lead with a better understanding of the character, and to also better gauge how it summarizes and connects with the article.
I have a comments about this part, leaves once more. From my understanding, this is the first instance that Morph voluntarily leaves the X-Men, as in previous instances, they had either died or was taken away for medical treatment. I am uncertain if "once more" fits in this context, as it implies that they had voluntarily left the group before.
Nice catch. Rephrased it to show it was Morph's choice to leave. Finally, they have some agency.
This is admittedly quite nitpick-y so apologies in advance. There is a slight inconsistency with the usage of "the" while discussing the Blue and Gold Teams. The article is used for the Blue Team is handling, but it is not used for either the rest of Gold Team or overpowers Blue Team. It is minor, but I would recommend a consistent usage of "this" in this context.
Added a definite article to all of them for consistency.
For this part, it starts pummeling towards Earth, do you mean "plummeting" rather than "pummeling"?
I would recommend linking adamantium, as it does have its own separate article and I could see readers, both unfamiliar and familiar with the X-Men, potentially being interested and wanting to read more about it. I have a similar note about Factor Three in the following section.
Linked both words. Funnily enough, when I read the 1960s run of Uncanny X-Men, I noticed that the Factor Three storyline was actually the first instance the comic had an ongoing story arc spanning multiple issues.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is really interesting. One of these days, I should read more X-Men comics. I cannot remember if we have talked about this before, but I have only read "The Dark Phoenix Saga", which I enjoyed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I had no idea. Nice. :D "The Dark Phoenix Saga" is so good. None of the film/cartoon adaptations have done it justice. Only the 90's cartoon came a bit close, but even that left out many things. It was also great to see Jean and all her teammates react to her actions of destroying a sun, in turn commit a genocide without even realizing it, and ponder if she's even worth saving. I can see why the editor decided to go with the ending where she dies. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The film adaptations did leave a lot to be desired. I think that they tried to condense too much down into one movie. The Dark Phoenix storyline had a lot of set-up, with an entire "Phoenix Saga" beforehand, and that may have helped with adapting it. It is a big storyline and introduced so many iconic characters. I do remember liking Famke Janssen's performance, but I have not seen the X-Men movies in several years now. I highly doubt that we will see another adaptation of this storyline, at least not in the near future. It's a shame, but hopefully it means Jean will get featured in other ways. I also prefer the death ending. I kind of wish she stayed dead to keep it more impactful, but the Madelyne Pryor stuff that came from her return is quite interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creation and progression in X-Men: The Animated Series
The first paragraph in "The X-Men's sacrificial lamb" leans quite heavily on quotes. I think that "really wanted to kill somebody" is an instance that could be paraphrased without losing anything, particularly since the previous sentences had already established that the crew wanted to kill off a character.
I have rewritten the paragraph a little bit. One issue I noticed is that I had three separate sentences with comments by three separate people and from three different sources that all (more or less) said the same thing. Hopefully, the paragraph now isn't as repetitive.
It does look better and it is not as repetitive. There is just one spot as the first sentence start with "According to X", but other than that, I do not see any other issues. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, who had joined the X-Men in Giant-Size X-Men (1975), I would clarify that it was the first issue of this series.
Done.
This is more of a suggestion than anything. For this part, it was decided that killing off their only Native American character would have negative implications, so it was decided to replace him with another character, it may be helpful to avoid repeating "character" twice in the same sentence if possible. Maybe end it with something like to replace him with someone else instead?
Follower your instructions.
I think that these quotes, "minor character" and "only like, three or four", could be paraphrased. I believe that you could just say minor character without the quotation marks as it is a smaller quote with more general language. Just a suggestion though as I know that quote usage can sometimes attract focus in FACs. I have tendency to over-quote and overly rely on them so more so just passing along a note that I have noticed and received in the past.
Done with the former. With the latter, part of me thinks I can paraphrase it, but then saying something like "they found around three to four characters" seems a bit unprofessional. I left it as is, but if it's an issue, I can rephrase it.
I have comment about this part, It has been noted that the show's interpretation of the character was loosely based on their comic book counterpart. It is unclear who is noting this about the show's interpretation, as it could mean anything from critics to viewers to comic books fans. I think that this part could either use further clarification and attribution or it could just state this with something along the lines of The show's interpretation of the character was loosely based on their comic book counterpart. These are just two suggestions, but I did pause at this part and wonder who was noting this.
I decided to move this sentence further below, as I believe it's more appropriate in discussing Changeling/Morph specifically, rather than the crew wanting an X-Men member to die. I've also clarified that one of the two people is a Gizmodo writer.
I would avoid the sentence construction used in this part, with Variety writer Jordan Moreau even describing them as "an original character, based partly on the comic-book hero Changeling". I have seen in previous FACs that some reviewers dislike the "with X verb-ing" phrasing. I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I find that it is best to avoid this in general as I have seen this brought up in enough reviews.
Related to the above, I've rephrased the sentence.
I would be curious on how long that this, Changeling has remained dead, lasts, considering that Marvel has even revived Gwen Stacy so it seems like anyone can come back, now even more than ever before.
Changeling actually died in 1968, but he did so in the form of Professor X, and this "retcon" wasn't revealed until 1970, just as the Uncanny X-Men comic was semi-cancelled for 5 years; until Giant-Size X-Men came about. And despite most mutants having been revived in the Krakoan Age—even Thunderbird!—Changeling has remained dead for the past 50 years. Given the success of X-Men '97, it's possible the character could be revived, but I doubt it. Especially given that his Exiles counterpart Morph—based on the cartoon version—is a much more popular character.
Also, lol. Gwen Stacy coming back as Marvel's Jason Todd? God, no wonder so many people are only paying attention to Miles Morales or the Ultimate Spider-Man comic.
I also doubt that Morph would be revived in the main Marvel continuity. It would be cool if the X-Men '97 contributed to an Exiles revival, but I also know that there are a lot of X-Men comics being published right now. I was disappointed to hear about the Gwen Stacy return, particularly as Dark Gwenpool. It is just such an odd choice, but then again, I did not understand the choice to have Mary-Jane be Jackpot or Venom. I just do not really understand it myself. (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is again a very minor note, but for this part, who also has shape-shifting abilities, "shape-shifting" is used, while the rest of the article uses "shapeshifting". I believe this is the only instance where the hyphenated version is used, but I would still be consistent with the formatting.
Good catch. Done.
I hope that these comments are helpful. I will stop here just to make sure that I take the time to thoroughly read through everything. The prose is overall really good and engaging. I think that it is always interesting when a character gains unexpected popularity, although I am not entirely surprised that this happened with a comic relief who can shape-shift. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are helpful. Thank you for your kind words. Funnily enough, I was never a huge fan of Morph growing up, as I preferred Jean Grey, a bit Storm, and didn't pay much attention to anyone else, lol. But then, watching the movies, and especially since reading the comics, my roster of faves has expanded. But I always remembered Morph and their sacrifice, as well as how badly Wolverine took it, and then their revival as Sinister's thrall. Honestly, rewatching the show as an adult-alongside X-Men '97-plus the reveal that Morph is queer and me knowing all the things that went on behind-the-scenes has made me appreciate the character more. Morph is literally a survivor both on and behind the screen. XD PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that this review was helpful. I have left one response to be addressed, but otherwise, this looks good to me. It is fun to revisit something and to have a better appreciation of a certain character or story, whether it is because we have gotten older and have more experience or we have read more on the behind-the-scenes stories. The article does a really job in presenting this side of the character, while also remaining true and appropriate to Wikipedia's tone and policies of course. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be mindful repeating the same verb for two sentences in a row as I have seen that pop up a few times in this section. Here are the instances that I have noticed: was revealed at San Diego Comic-Con (SDCC) and was revealed by creator Beau DeMayo, described Morph's death as and described the show's depiction of Morph, director Jake Castorena described this approach and Castorena also described Morph's altered, Houston and Eric Lewald have stated that and Karliak has stated that Morph is on.
I think I've fixed that.
I have a comment about this part, as well as sporting an altered appearance. I think that it would be helpful to provide some context or description on what they look like in the original series. It is a bit unclear how their appearance has altered if their original look was not discussed. By comparison, both images of the character are from X-Men '97, and the article provides a description for their new appearance.
For the first paragraph of the "Appearance and personality", there are a few sentences that use "it was ... ", and I think that it may be beneficial to change one of these instances to avoid repetition.
Done.
I am curious on why Ron Rubin is first brought up here and not in the previous section about the original series? Is it because there is limited information about his role/performance and interviews with him about it? I do not think that the current placement is bad. It just implies to me that there is not really any information about Rubin's performance as Morph.
You're right. Some of the sources I've found include an interview by Rubin himself, so I hope to actually create a separate "Casting" subsection; or something akin to that.
The comic relief phrase is linked in a previous section so you can unlink it here if you would like.
Done.
This is more of a clarification question. This part, Rogue does at one point refer to Morph using the proper pronouns, made me wonder what leads to Rogue using these pronouns, how did Morph react to them, and did the series had either explicitly or subtly signaled that these are the proper pronouns for the character. Again, this is more of a clarification question for myself. I am not asking you to add this to the article, as that would likely be too much of a tangent and the information is already succinctly worded.
I believe this scene took place in episode 8, where the X-Men team is split as some members—like Rogue and Sunspot—decide to align themselves with Magneto. When doing so, Rogue says about Morph had barely been with the team "before we [the X-Men] threw them to the wolves". It was the only time throughout the entire season when Morph is referred to using they/them pronouns, instead of he/him ones. Neither Morph nor any of the other characters really react to the situation, verbally or visibly; and to be fair, given the gravitas of the situation, I doubt any of them even noticed. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what season 2 does with them. Funnily enough, this scene reminded me a little bit of Willow and Tara's first kiss, which similarly took place during a very serious/emotional moment that didn't even draw attention to itself.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That honestly sounds like the best way to handle it. That seems more organic and avoids hitting this point too hard or with too much of a heavy hand. I can understand the Willow/Tara comparisons. I can see the benefit of being more subtle for a lot of reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I do agree that with everything going on in the latter half and everything, the moment was done well of introducing Morph's gender variance. I just hope the show won't betoo subtle to the point of completely ignoring it and cis/straightwashing the character. Sometimes less isn't more, you kno?. And I would like if season 2 finds a quiet moment where Morph opens up about these things to someone; possibly Wolverine, or even Storm. It could help show the strength of the bonds these characters have with one another. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this "mak[ing] sense" quote could be safely paraphrased without losing much. I would say that a lot of shorter quotes like this could be paraphrased in general. I remember getting a note in past reviews about how doing a lot of smaller quotes could take away the potential impact from others. Just a thought, but I do feel this one in particular can be paraphrased.
Paraphrased it. Hopefully it looks better now.
For this part, it was speculated that Morph's feelings for Wolverine were not platonic, I would attribute who is speculating this.
Attributed to Whitbrook.
In this quote, "as if I [Wolverine] don't know. As if we all don't know", I do not think that you need to clarify that Wolverine is saying this, as I believe it is clear from context.
I do not think that "fan-favorite" needs the quotation marks.
Done.
For the "X-Men: The Animated Series" section, the first paragraph repeats "described" three times in a short proximity.
Now used only once.
The first sentence of this paragraph, the one starting with Morph has often been acknowledged, is quite long and I think would benefit from being broken up. I have a similar point for a later sentence, which starts with Concerning their storyline with Sinister.
I broke up both sentences. Hopefully it looks better now.
There are few spots in the first paragraph where the critics are discussed in present tense rather than past tense. An example of that is the following, Shaurya Thapa notes that despite their brief tenure.
For the second paragraph in "X-Men: The Animated Series", it may be helpful to add a topic sentence to clarify that the focus is shifting toward Morph's involvement with Mister Sinister. It may also be helpful to have topic sentences for the paragraphs in the X-Men '97 section.
I would make sure the show titles (X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97) are consistently italicized in the reference titles per WP:CONFORMTITLE. I would also be consistent on whether or not the reference titles use title case or not. I was not really aware of either of these in my earlier projects, but I have received this note before, and consistency is alway good.
You're right to point that out. Done; I think.
I would be consistent with how things spelled across multiple citations. For instance, Citation 28 has "Va" as the publisher, while Citation 31 has the full "Valnet Inc.". I am guessing the first instance was a typo, but it is till good to double-check.
Two typos back-to-back with Valnet, lol. This was before the company had its own page. Fixed that and also linked to the company's article.
There are some instances where a publisher is not provided, such as with Citation 22 (AIPT Comics) and Citation 23 (ComicBook.com). Not to sound like a broken record, but it would be good to double-check all of the citations for this.
Provided the publisher to ComicBook.com. As for AIPT Comics, I genuinely have no idea who the publisher is. I'll try looking for that.
I could potentially see the Men's Health sources being an issue for a FAC/FA. Since they are currently used to source plot information, I wonder if there are other citations that could be used instead. I could also just be over-thinking it though.
I am guessing that you have already done this, but did you see if there was any scholarly analysis on the character? It does not help that his name is more on the generic side. I did a brief search on Google Scholar, but only found theses, which I consider inappropriate for Wikipedia in general.
Yeah, their name doesn't help matters. Overall, I found very few things, and most were theses, as you said. And all were from years ago, talking solely about Morph's death as a passing reference.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing the above points and for checking for this. It might just be the case where scholarly analysis focused more so on other X-Men characters. I would be curious if X-Men '97 would lead to any changes with that. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these comments are helpful. This should be for everything in the article and for the citations. I will look through the lead when everything has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up in a previous section, but I would rephrase leave once more as this was the first time that Morph had voluntarily left the group.
Done.
For this part, and figuring out their identity, I would clarify that this is referring to their gender identity. The current phrasing is rather vague, especially since the character was controlled by Mister Sinister and had lost their identity that way so I could see people reading that way instead.
Ah, I see. I can understand the confusion. I guess one small "issue" with Morph's role in X-Men '97 is what the cast and crew says, versus what we've seen thus far in season 1. For example, Morph is non-binary, yet the show's first season doesn't actually explore this, outside of a brief reference where Rogue uses they/them instead of he/him pronouns. So I though it was important to kind of create this distinction of what is show in season 1 of the show versus what has been said. For these reason, I decided to make a few changes to the final sections of both the 1st Paragraph (pertaining to in-universe information) and the 2nd one (about real-life development info).--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I would revise this part, with the first season exploring their trauma following Sinister's experimentations and their romantic feelings for Wolverine, to avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction, but that is my only note. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This part, Loosely based on Marvel Comics' Changeling, during The Animated Series' development, the showrunners, is not grammatically correct as it is saying that the showrunners are loosely based on the Marvel Comics character.
Oops. Done. However, the sentence is somewhat longer now. I hope that isn't an issue.
I would remove this sentence: X-Men '97 sees Morph working through the trauma of Sinister's experimentations and discovering their identity as core aspects of their character arc. This information was already stated in the first paragraph so it is repetitive. Either that or remove the sentence from the first paragraph, but I would avoid repeating this twice in the lead.
Related to my earlier comment.
I would recommend linking non-binary in the lead to be consistent with how it is linked elsewhere.
Done.
I would be mindful of "also" as it is more often than not a filler word. I do not think that it is necessary in these parts, The character is also depicted as non-binary and has also achieved praise from critics.
Removed.
I am uncertain about the wording for this part, has also achieved praise from critics. I think it would be better to make this was more concise by saying something like, was praised by critics. The "achieved" part seems a bit like overkill to me.
Changed.
This is separate from the lead. I raised this point above, but I could see some potentially pushback for the Men's Health sources so I was curious on your opinion about them?
For now, I will leave them in place. I will see about how often these sources are used, and try to replace them.
Thank you for the update. If there is not a source for Morph's original look, there is nothing that can be done, but I would still recommend looking as the article does put an emphasis on the redesign so it would be beneficial to know what he was redesigned from. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again this is separate from the lead, but the article discusses how Morph's appearance was altered for X-Men '97 and shows multiple image of their new look, but I still think that it is necessary to clarify what their original look was, particularly for an unfamiliar reader like myself.
These are my comments for the lead, as well as two miscellaneous comments. I hope that this is helpful. I will read through the article sometime tomorrow to look through the changes made there. I do not think that I will find much, but I want to make sure that thoroughly read through everything. I am looking forward to seeing this at the FAC process and wonderful job with everything! Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Boneless Pizza!:. Although CBR is treated as situational, I ended up removing most instances where Valnet sources are used. Quite a few were being used for the "Biography" section, so it wasn't much of an issue. As of now, only 4 remain in the article. Personally, I don't see an issue with these 4 sources. The latter two are both interviews, so very much not an example of "churnalism". The former two are also accurate in terms of information - if not necessarily long article - but I'll try to get my hands on the 2017 X-Men book and replace them when I can. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
