Talk:Chninkel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 10:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this one over the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress box and general comments

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Nice to see an article on this interesting bande dessinée. I don't think it is complete, though, and currently fails on "broadness". More on that below.

Images: I would expect to see a non-free cover, or an image of J'on or something. For example, the cover of the most recent Casterman edition.
- Fine now, although as I said more illustration could be useful.
Broadness: Several things are lacking. We don't get any background (short bios of Rosiński and van Hamme, that they first collaborated on Thorgal after R came to Belgium etc.) Some of this is mentioned for example in the three-page preface by Arnaud de la Croix [fr] to the 2008 Casterman edition mentioned above.
Publication history should be its own section, and mention the first publication in À Suivre as well as the colourised 2001 editions. (Some info in the preface mentioned above).
No concerns with stability, copyvio, neutrality or focus.
Please use page numbers for works like Delneste/Steyaert.

Looking at the sources (which seem reliable):

The De Stripspeciaalzaak [nl] text is pretty good, you should use it more. (And perhaps format the reference better)
For "Reshaping the Scandinavian Saga through Hybridity", mention the author. Also, this source mentions Kubrick.
The Nouailhat source explicitly compares J'on to Jesus, which merits more comment than the word "Bible".
Didn't find the Bernicot source; which "Calliope" is this? ISSN?

Putting this on hold but it will fail if not expanded. —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma C/e of the above mostly done (I just need to deal with the fair use image upload, aaargh, I hate dealing with fair use templates). I am not sure if the background of artist's work history is relevant here, in theory it should be in their biographies, which are linked (and the fact that many of them are bare bones is a separate problem, not relevant to our article here). I am unable to add a specific page range for Nouailhat, since pageless html is open source but PDF is paywalled.

The article should stand alone. Most of the longer sources about Chninkel (for example the introduction to the 2001 and 2008 editions that I sent you an email about and the Planete BD/Stripspeziaalzaak feature) give us some snippets from their biographies. One or two sentences about each of the authors plus what we know about their intentions while writing (there is a Les Cahiers de la bande dessinée no. 70 source with decent info) should fill out the section nicely. —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma Can you link to the Les Cahiers source, I can't see this one in our ref list, nor linked here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus I can send you a copy of that source by email (if you reply to mine so I can send attachments) and I can format the reference but I can't link to it. —Kusma (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the preface by Croix? I don't have access to it, so I cannot add the info you mention. Which does seem like relevant (perhaps you could add it, if you have access to it?)

I have access to it on paper in the 2008 b&w edition (and I think it is the same as in the colour version). It mentions a nice interview by van Hamme in Les Cahiers de la bande dessinée no. 70. For copyright reasons, perhaps I should send you some excerpts by email (if you wikimail me I can send you some attachments).

Regarding the Bernicot source, I got it from fr wiki. I am a bit concerned it doesn't google outside Wikipedia, but it may be b/c as I said I cannot search in languages other than English and Polish.

It is this one.

Regarding De Stripspeciaalzaak, I am having trouble translating it, which is why I used it simply for the name of the comic in Dutch. I'll see if I can feed the pdf to Google a bit later, but I'd certainly appreciate any help in formatting the reference, and you are welcome to expand the article (or, perhaps, to preserve the GA-reviewer/author distinction, you could suggest here text you'd like to see added, based on the source, I'll review it and add it, and then you can review my additions?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to read it again, but not today. My French is better than my Dutch, which is just some educated guesses from interpolating between German and English :) —Kusma (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to machine translate it and I expanded the article from it. I'll look at other sources you linked shorty. The only thing is that I am having trouble formatting that reference - is the pdf an excerpt from some magazine related to that website (De Stripspeciaalzaak?). There is some infobox in the bottom left, but it's hard to read - I am not sure it is for the magazine (article) or the edition of the comic (being reviewed)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text is actually a translation of a French text published in Planete BD #24 (see the bottom of this page). Might be worth asking for the text via WP:RX, I haven't been able to find it so far. Stripspeziaalzaak also made a list of the best ever Belgian albums and a list of best ever albums by a non-Belgian and you won't guess who comes first both times :) —Kusma (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have asked at RX. —Kusma (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And someone found the French original. I'll figure out how to cite that in a couple hours. —Kusma (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe like this? —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haslé-Le Gall, Brieg (2011-01-20). "Le Grand Pouvoir du Chninkel, un mythe prébiblique et 'tolkienien'" [The Great Power of Chninkel, a pre-biblical and 'Tolkienian' myth]. Planète BD (in French). No. 24. Hachette. 4 pp. Retrieved 2022-06-22.

Wonderful, updated (plus I preserved the link to the Dutch TL). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've summoned a bot that will reduce it to under 100k pixels around midnight UTC. —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, perhaps we should get this moving again. I sent you a Chninkel-related email a week ago; did that not reach you? I think there are one or two sources left that I would like to share with you that could help with "Background", which is still incomplete (if you write about the artists you could also include pictures of them...). Also, some material from analysis could be in Background.

Other than that, I think there's just a few very short paragraphs that may need expanding or combining, and then we should be done soon. —Kusma (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma I did miss it, thank for double checking, now I see it. I've added a few tidbits from it to the article, but as you did not provide a citation for me to copypaste, I've marked them with a temporary 'citation needed'. Please let me know here what code to use for reference (or you can just add it directly there). Note that I stand by my previous view that information in how the authors met etc. is not very relevant here (and should belong to their biographical articles). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who the authors are is relevant, and one or sentences about each shouldn't be too difficult to write. Look at The Blue Lotus or Cigars of the Pharaoh or Valérian and Laureline: each of them tell us a little about the BD in the context of their authors' work. —Kusma (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Mhm, I added a bit from the sources. Remind me if I missed something, they really don't talk much about the origin, and I keep thinking this is not the place to discuss how they met, etc. (That might belong in Thorgal, however, which I'd like to work on one of these days). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

Lead: As I said above, some of the content about publication history should rather be in its own section, summarised here.
It is wrong that there is no English translation. See here (not sure whether reliable) for a hint and here for a piece of the real thing. Dark Horse Comics is a major publisher, and while they may have only published it serialised in a magazine, this is a publication of an English translation.
Plot: I don't think you should omit the character of ~~Mary Magdalene~~G'wel, unless you have a good argument to explain that she's there only for the running joke that J'on and G'wel are always interrupted when they try to have sex. The titular "great power" that J'on is given by O'n could also be mentioned.
Reception and analysis: Some of the inspiration might be better in a background section. ("Background and themes"?)
Space Odyssey: I don't think you can talk about this without mentioning Kubrick, especially for the imagery.
I think you should try to round up some more reviews, especially in French. (I can try to help finding/reading some if you have trouble with French).

It's a short article, and I don't have much to complain about the writing of what is there, but I do think it is too incomplete to be Good in its present state. —Kusma (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma I'll work on small things soon. But FYI my French is intermediate, I can't search in it and I reply on MT to understand the stuff properly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done. I am not sure how to split reception and analysis into background and themes, perhaps it will be easier when I translate more content from other reviews you mentioned, which I'll try to do over the next few days. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to round up a few things.

[1] short review in an anarcho-libertarian journal that talks about the drawings
[2] Dutch article about Rosinski in a comics magazine
[3] interview in the same magazine
Chninkel won a prize at Angouleme in 1989: [4], [5]
I also have the introduction mentioned above and another interview with van Hamme, but I can't link to them. When I have some time, I'll quote and translate some snippets if you are interested.
- @Kusma: I cannot macihine translate the Archive.org (if there's a way do let me know how). As for the added the Angouleme prize, does it have a name? As in, I can add a sentence "Chninkel won a prize at Angouleme in 1989", but it would look much better if we had a name of that prize. Is it the Angoulême International Comics Festival Prize for First Comic Book? If so, it is not mentioned in the list we have. Is it another category, a second place/nomination, or something else? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. Found it, it's the Angoulême International Comics Festival Prize Awarded by the Audience. Will add. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue looking later. —Kusma (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Interview with Rosinski who talks about not having originally done colours and about the colour version and refusing to do a sequel.
[7] The original cover image, oil on canvas, was sent to Casterman by Rosinski back in the day but disappeared and was put up for auction in 2014 (I don't know the sequel to the story yet).
[8] [9] sold for 180000 euros
[10] review in Spanish
[11] Le Monde describes Chninkel as Rosinski's masterpiece, a "disenchanted version of the New Testament with Tolkien sauce".
[12] article describing an auction that calls Chninkel "one of the first graphic novels in the history of Franco-Belgian comics".
[13] interview with the colorist

I've done reading and expanding from the refs I could translate (i.e. ones not locked behind paywalls or IA equivalent...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

As it's been a moment (sorry, I was distracted by this and that and real life), I'm going to go over the article again. I think there's just minor things left, and I'll just do some of these myself.

Lead: Try to say a bit more? At least one sentence per section? More of plot, reception, interpretation would all help.
Background: Barely long enough now. As I understand it, Rosinski wanted to do a one-shot in black&white, but that is not a "concept" really. "Color" isn't just what R&vH used, but it was normal for all francobelgian productions (in one of the sources they mention breaking the "48 pages in color" scheme). I've made some changes, although this could be strengthened still.
Publication history: you say "first in black and white then in colors" twice, perhaps better to first tell the b&w history, then say that despite the style specifically adapted to b&w, Graza (one of the Thorgal colorists) made a color version for the 2001 re-edition. (You are omitting the 2008 French b&w edition visible in the infobox).
Sequel: I think you misinterpret what Rosinski says, which is that depsite some pressure to make a sequel, they said no
Plot summary: Still a bit minimalistic (there would be something to say about his journey and about Volga the seeress, or how at the end the double sun turns into one and the planet into Earth) but it probably works ok
Reception: perhaps combine the last two paragraphs into one as they are very short.
I think some of the content of the van Hamme interview would fit better in the Background section, but I won't insist.

I've done a few copyedits, some of them changing the meaning a bit when I thought this was closer to the original intention. @Piotrus: please consider these comments and we should be done soon. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma I appreciate your comments, but at this point I feel we are in the subjective zone where the minor changes you think are beneficial - and that I have no objection too - are at the level I simply don't know what to do. I expanded the lead a bit more, but I can't see the repetition in the section on publication history. Regarding the sequel I concur with you that this is what he said yet I think the section also is correct - if you think rewording is needed, please suggest specific changes here or edit the text to clarify it as I am not sure what to tweak. Regarding the plot, I didn't notice the double sun detail in any review (in fact, your observation is novel to me too - I didn't notice the second sun dying in the book either, tnx :). Regarding the reception, I hesitate to combine those last two sentences as they are about different events. I am sorry I am not doing anything this time, but I honestly don't see what I could change (that you haven't). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll take this as confirmation that you agreed to my edits. I think it could be better, but it does pass the criteria now (some not with flying colours). Will promote now. —Kusma (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]