Actually, all information on Broadway comics came from this forum and the site connected to it
As for Jim Shooter's bio, the bit about New Universe has since been removed from Wikipedia.
If you are the writer, let me share my opinion. With an encyclopedia listing, I'd think the writer should want to convey Mr. Shooter's importance as quickly and precisely as possible without wasting the reader's time. A stranger clicking on his bio does not need to know that he was an "occasional fill-in artist". Seriously. He probably takes out the trash a few times a week also. Is that really noteworthy? A bio should drive it home pretty quickly as to why Mr. Shooter has an entry for his name. I happen to feel that his most noteworthy accomplishment was achieving the status of Vice-President at Marvel Comics. His writing skills might be incredible, but that is not as spectacular in the occupational world as becoming the man in charge of a large company. The Phobos biography starts from and equally strong perspective and notes that he is a child writing prodigy in comics.
www.phobosweb.com/books/nobody/shooter.htmlEither way, I think the beginning prolongs itself and doesn't serve the casual reader very well. Hmm! He's a writer... he must write books like Mark Twain! Well... No.. he doesn't.
Once I got to the middle of the article, it continued to stray. This sentence is particularly vague tedious:
"During his tenure the company enjoyed some of its best successes, especially with titles headed by Chris Claremont and John Byrne." Is this listing about John Byrne and Chris Claremont? Why bring up their successes? Why the name dropping? If I'm reading about Jim Shooter's accomplishments, I want to know how and why he inspired John Byrne to achieve greatness. That sentence implies that he just happen to be lucky and rode other peoples coat tails. I feel it strays from the topic it is supposed to be telling me about.
I could cite every disappointment in the way it's worded, but I'll jump ahead to this sentence instead....
"While there is no consensus as to what exactly happened, Steven J. Massarsky is considered the primary architect of Jim Shooter's departure."
This sentence contradicts itself. The author says there is no consensus as to what happened, but then the author says Massarsky is considered to be the one resposible for him leaving. That sounds like there is a consensus. The article is filled with heresay and very deficient on flat out facts. I go to an encyclopedia for facts.
The article closes with this.."Since August 2000, he is owner and creative consultant for the sci-fi firm Phobos Entertainment." That sounds like a guess to me. I haven't publicly stated it online, but my understanding was that Jim Shooter was working on other projects not involved with Phobos at all. The reason I haven't said that publicly is because everything I know is 2nd hand heresay. His association with Phobos could be subject to change at any time without me knowing. The simple fact is that he hasn't stated exactly "what" he is working on or "who" he is working for. It is an assumption to say he is still working for Phobos.
It would make more sense to call him a recluse that has resigned himself to withdraw from the public spotlight.
If I was writing for this listing, I'd make an outline of facts.
1) He was a child writing prodigy.
2) He worked directly with (and was an understudy to) the legendary creative talents of the early 60's that revitalized comics for a modern generation.
3) He worked his way up through Marvel comics to achieve Vice president status.
4) While in charge he spearheaded / revitalized / implemented :
4a) - 4z) (You fill this in!)
5) He founded a company that went from the debt of venture capital to being sold for 65 million dollars.
6) He hand picked and mentored many of the artistic and creative tallents in the comics industry that later went on to work on blockbuster titles for Hollywood.
An encyclopedia listing needs to be pure fact. It needs to clarify why the subject is important. It's wonderful and quaint that the author wants to mention a DC crossover series that Shooter had nothing to do with... but it's far more relevant to the reader that Jim Shooter was a mentor to Frank Miller who's work was later featured in two or more hollywood big budget movies.
When I finished reading that piece, I wasn't the least bit impressed about anything Shooter had done. That's sad... but it's true.
In the real world, I'm impressed that one of the characters in the 1st X-men movie was named by Jim... the character was named after one of his relatives. You have a blockbusting Hollywood success and Jim's influence can even be detected in the naming of the characters.... yet he got not one once of credit for any of it.
Defiant1
). 
