I am nominating this for featured article because, since building it up from a stub, it is now comprehensive, well-organized and fully referenced. The book which is its subject was a turning point for its author on personal, artistic and professional levels, and it was a surprise best-seller from a veteran underground cartoonist whom few would have expected would ever have broken out of the underground. It has just passed GA review. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 03:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Disclaimer: reviewed at PR. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
File:Rielcomicstripcover.jpg: purpose of use could be a bit more expansive. Also, are you sure Brown retained copyright to the cover? It would be more usual for the publisher to assume copyright of works they publish.
Done---Drawn and Quarterly has a reputation for not retaining the rights of the artists it publishes (actually, this is standard practice in the alternative comics world, where creators' rights has long been a hot topic). The indicia on both the serial and the collected work confirm that the copyright is his. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
File:Battle_of_Batoche_Print_by_Seargent_Grundy.jpg: was this subject to Crown Copyright? Also, do you have a catalogue or ID number for the archive, or a link?
Done---added link to where I originally found it, plus more catalogue information and more detail to the description. The Crown did not hold the copyright---it was published independently by John Wilson Bengough's Grip Printing & Publishing Co. in Toronto in 1885. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
File:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg: need more information. Is the photographer known? Was this subject to Crown Copyright? If so, when/where was first publication?
Done---the photographer was George Lancefield, and the photo is actually believed to be from ca. 1875. I've added more information, and I've put in a request to have the file renamed to reflect the correct date. Library and Archives Canada doesn't say if it was subject to Crown Copyright, only that the copyright is expired. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
For example, compare the two Arnold 2003s - one includes an access date and one does not, even though these cite the same magazine. Essentially, access dates aren't required for newspapers/magazines/journals/books, but if you want to include them you can so long as you're consistent in what types of publications include them. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears the "Eye Weekly" link has gone dead. maclean (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's frusatrating. It appears the Eye Weekly site now redirects to The Grid TO, and the Eye Weekly archives have gone down. Ther's no copy at the Wayback Machine, although Google still has a cached copy.
The "|archiveurl=" and "|archivedate=" parameter of cite web might work for this but I an unsure how long the google cache will exist for. It is ok to remove the dead external link - they are not required. maclean (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
...the cached page has disappeared, just as I thought I should download a personal copy before it did. Too bad, it was a good article, and I used it as a ref in Chester Brown and Paying for It as well... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 06:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Support. I reviewed this article at Talk:Louis Riel (comics)/GA1 under the GA criteria and again here under the FA criteria. It is well-written and well-researched and meets style guidelines required by the FA criteria. maclean (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments: Supported below Looks interesting, I'll give this a review. I made some copyediting changes, feel free to revert the stylistic changes if you don't like them. My experience with Canadian comics is limited to the first half of the Cerebus series, so I'll mainly be looking at prose/MOS issues.
Check for consistency in the use of the serial comma.
"a key work in serious graphic novels holding shelf space in mainstream bookstores" There's a fused participle here, I think. Also, this sentence reads a bit wordy to me, is there a good way to tighten it?
"and which he himself does not necessarily believe" Not a big deal, but this also seems a bit wordy.
I'll have to think about how to reword this. I don't want to remove it, though. The way Brown's notes undermine his story is one of the more interesting aspects of the book, and critics and reviewers have repeatedly noted it. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Though Brown grew up in Quebec, where the majority speaks French, Brown speaks only English, and only became interested in Riel's story in 1995, well into his adulthood." How do the two halves of this sentence (his language and when he became interested in Riel) relate?
How about: "Brown grew up in Quebec, where the majority speaks French, and where Riel is often considered a martyr. However, Brown (a monolingual English-speaker), was largely ignorant of Riel's story until he read a biography about the Métis leader in 1995." From the interview which is the source for this, Dave Sim (another monolingual English-speaker, from Ontario) assumed Brown's upbringing in Quebec would have meant that Brown would have been inundated with Riel's story while growing up, and that maybe that was the source of Brown's interest in the story. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you know which stream of Anarchism Brown was part of before his transition?
He was only an anarchist in a vague, "government is bad" sort of way, but "anarchist" is the way he consistently described himself in interviews. He never formally subscribed to any political ideology until he became a libertarian. He says himself he wasn't very politically aware before his libertarian rebirth. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking good thus far, will post more comments later. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I made some more copyedits, my apologies in advance if they introduce errors. Still looks pretty good.
In the "Primary characters" section, I see you use " ; " in front of the names, I think " ''' " is better for screen readers or something.
Done. I looked at some literature FAs, and it looks like some of them put the characters in subsections, so I've gone and done that, too. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Tone and mood are set by the composition of the panels, as during Riel's trial when all tonal variation is dropped, and the white figures are placed against a heavy black background, emphasizing the courtroom's claustrophobic atmosphere" Just a suggestion but I think you could remove "courtroom's" since the reader will infer that his trial took place in a courtroom.
"⟨chevron brackets⟩, and Cree language dialogue in ⟨⟨double-chevrons⟩⟩." I think just the link would do here.
I'm sure it would, but I think it gets the point across quickly and concisely, especially since a lot of people aren't familiar with the word "chevron" in this context. Is it intrusive or distracting? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"The size and weight of the dialogue in the is varied according to speech patterns" a bit jumbled here.
Done. Weird, there was an extra space in the source for "seech balloons"... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"reminiscent of the late-19th century editorial cartoonists that would have been Riel's contemporaries." "Would have" or "were"?
"It has perhaps sold more copies that any other graphic novel within Canada." Is there a way to be more definite here? Maybe attribute the estimate to someone?
Done. Actually I meant to change that, and forgot. Attributed to Jeet Heer. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Louis Riel brought Brown out of the fringes into the mainstream, and also brought more serious attention to graphic novels." Is there a good way around the "brought... brought" repetition here? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for taking the time to look this over. If you have any more feedback or answers to my questions, though, I won't be able to respond quickly for the next month. I'll be travelling, and I'll have infrequent access to the internet. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Support Ok, I think this meets the FA criteria now, good work. Sorry for the slothful pace of the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment I expect to support, but have a small batch of comments. I'm sorry to be so delayed and I'll hope to have the rest to you in a day or so.
""He also noted where he incorporated a conspiracy theory not widely accepted by historians, and which he himself does not necessarily believe." This is an awkward sentence ("noted where") and the ending reads like a legal disclaimer. I think this can be better handled, perhaps by moving it up to the start of where you talk about his apparatus, and use it as a lead-in. "Brown included in the comic a conspiracy theory ..." leave out Brown's opinion.
I'm not sure I would finish the lede that way, which is your last opportunity to sell the reader on the "first page" of the article (i.e., he's got to decide whether to scroll down or not. Do you expect Brown's change of view to be important to the reader? Will the reader consider Brown important enough to want to get the goods on how it was that happened?
Done. It was important in the sense that he would later run for federal politics as a Libertarian, and that his next book would be written from an explicitly Libertarian point of view, but I suppose it's not a good way to end the lead. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If you are going to say how long the depiction of Riel's conflict with Canada is, we need the length of the the book to be close by.
You should probably explain what Underwater is as soon as you mention it. I'm getting somewhat of a feeling that this article assumes some knowledge of Brown and his works, and it assumes that he is prominent enough for us to take considerable interest in him. I don't know if he is or not, I know little about comics. Just saying that's what is coming across to me.
" One of the prisoners, Thomas Scott, relentlessly quarrels with the guards, showering them with racial epithets. Eventually, he is convicted of treason" The implication is that his badmouthing of his guards led to conviction for treason (it's the "Eventually,", really) possibly without legal proceedings, just because he ticked off his guards. Trial by fury? You need to make it clear that what happened to Scott was by Riel's provisional government.
In the comic, does he return to Red River (you should probably say Manitoba, btw) to stand for Parliament? Or was it in his absence?
In the book, he runs and wins his seat while hiding out in Manitoba. He's depicted later in Ottawa, hesitant to actually sit, and then goes into hiding again. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Mackenzie becomes prime minister before 1874, no? Is it presented out of chronological order in the comic?
Done. "become" ==> "has become". The book is strictly in chronological order. Mackenzie's election is not shown, though, and he makes his (brief) appearance only after Riel's 1874 win. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Not much of an exile if he was near Montreal in 1876.
He was supposed to be in exile, and was in the US until being transported secretly to Montreal. In the book, he was most recently in Washington DC before he is brought to Montreal. It is not stated how he was brought there, but he was brought there under an assumed name. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
" Batoche, Saskatchewan, in mid-1884." Saskatchewan? In 1884? Perhaps (now in Saskatchewan)
End of part 1.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
"every dog shall bark" You say he famously said this. At least according to Gwyn, his most recent biographer, there's doubt about whether he did. Can you phrase this in a way that doesn't say to the reader with definiteness that he did? Yes, I know it's the plot section but you are saying with definiteness that Macdonald said this.
The drunkenness of Macdonald is certainly established historical fact, although I don't think there's any indication he had a drinking problem in 1885. He appears to have cleaned up his act (or his wife did) while he was in opposition.
In the book, Macdonald is depicted as coming up with the conspiracy to finish the CP railway by instigating the North-West Rebellion while in a drunken stupor alone in the Watts Hotel in November 1884. If there's a reference saying he'd given up drinking by that point, I'd be happy to include it, but I hardly think his depicted drunkenness would be more libellous than depicting him coming up with the conspiracy. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
" Louis Riel, Brown was increasingly making use of notes and appendices in his work." Increasingly compared to what? It's not so much the notes, it's the "increasing ... use of ... appendices" which is giving me pause here.
The sentence about the grant of $6000 seems out of place.
Really? He was given the grant halfway through the serialization. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I note the sentence on the footnotes in this section, and that it is the third time you have mentioned them in more than passing. Can some consolidation be done?
"as the series progressed and the influence of Harold Gray became stronger" You've mentioned Gray before, though only in passing. I'm not able to see why a minimalist drawing style would lead to big hands. You may want to say that he altered his drawing style as the series progressed, and why, and say he adjusted them. I don't think "corrected" is the proper term.
A minimalist drawing style doesn't lead to big hands—Harold Gray's drawing style was noted for small heads and big hands. The paragraph doesn't mention minimalism.
"Composition takes place from panel to panel—scenes change anywhere on the page with little regard to page layout." Huh?
Maybe I'll have to work on this. Brown doesn't take the comnposition of the page into account when telling his story. In many comics, transitions happen between pages, but in Louis Riel, scenes can change anywhere on the page. This is because Brown draws each panel on separate sheets of paper, whereas traditionally one would draw the whole page on one sheet of paper. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"He frequently cited Harold Gray " You've mentioned Gray twice before, but this seems to be the main explanation. I'm dubious that this is the best way to inform the reader about Gray's influence over Brown. You may want to have this explanation prior to the earlier two mentions of Gray.
Do you mean: move the "Style" section earlier in the article? Given that the influence is 99% in the drawing style, I don't think the explanation would be better in a different section. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. I've moved the "Style" section forward, so I suppose this is done. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"Gray often used his strip as a public platform for politics, and Louis Riel was also very public and outward-looking, in great contrast to the inward-looking comics he had previously been known for—notably his autobiographical work. " This sentence takes on too much, and it is unclear what the attributes you mention mean. Divide and rephrase.
Legacy. I think it is premature to speak of a ten year old book as having a legacy.
Could you suggest a better catch-all for the content of that section? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, while I understand Wehwalt's doubt, I thought it was probably the best word, on balance. "Critical reception" would not cover everything that the section addresses, and I'm not a fan of "Impact", which was the only other thought i had.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"despite Riel's own political conservatism" I'm not sure I would characterize Riel as a conservative.
Done. Reworded to shown it was Brown who considered him politically conservative. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Can't anything more be said about the footnotes/appendix? Such things can be clever (say those of George Macdonald Fraser. You never really tell us anything about it except that it's long and that Brown details his political change.
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. There's a three-paragraph section on the appendix, and it definitely talks about things other than Brown's politics (in fact, the "Appendix" section doesn't even talk about his politics—that's talked about elsewhere in the article). CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
That's what I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Quick comment I find the opening sentence to be a little awkward and non-standard. Could it be recast along the lines of Watchmen?—indopug (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
One issue with that is that it was never conceived as a ten-issue series---it was conceived as a graphic novel. The fact that it was serialized was against Brown's intention, and it wasn't known at the beginning of publication how many issues it would be. Wording it the way it was in the Watchmen article would put undue weight on the serial, which was financially unsuccessful and not the way Brown conceived his book, whereas Watchmen was conceived as a 12-issue miniseries which later just happened to be collected in a book due to its success. If the opening sentence is awkward, I'd be happy to fix it in some other way. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I've edited it myself to my liking, but feel free to tweak/revert (specifically, the mention of it being a historical bio of Riel is moved to the second sentence). One more thing: a lot of words should be de-linked—rebel, martyr, index, prophet, insanity, visions—and this is just in the first part of Overview. Basically, common English words needn't be linked.—indopug (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
A couple of issues:
"Graphic novel" is a term I've danced around. The term itself is a movig target---not only has its meaning changed rapidly over time, but it has widely different meanings for different people. Some avoid its use entirely; others use it as a synonym for comics; yet others insist it must mean "novelistic" comics (which, again, has different meanings for different people). Given that Louis Riel is a biography rather than a novel, I've avoided use of the term except where unavoidable (for example, all comics over the past decade have been classifed as "graphic novels" in bookstores and libraries, so in references to its sales classification I've referred to it as a "graphic novel"). "Comics" is neutral and factual.
I don't like the idea of referring to the serialization dates in the first sentence---it puts undue weight on it, when the serialization was something that Brown opposed, and was commercially unsuccessful. Unlike something like Watchmen, where each issue was a "chapter", in Louis Riel, Brown paid no heed to the serial nature of the book, cutting off issues in mid-scene once the required number of pages had been met. For the reader, I think it would be far more helpful to talk about what the book is about, before talking about incidentals like the serialization dates. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind de-emphasising the serialisation. However, keep in mind that, in a sense, "how the author intended his work to be" is not really the ultimate consideration for us. How history actually played out matters too. As for graphic novel, replace "comic book" in the lead sentence?—indopug (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"How history actually played out": in that case, the serial was a commercial flop, but the book was an unqualified critical and commercial success, breaking into mainstream bestseller lists. It is the form, whether hardcover, paperback or digital, that the vast majority of future readers will be exposed to. Reprinting of the serial, which Brown was opposed to, and which had less consistent artwork, is extremely unlikely.
"Comic book" is totally inappropriate, as it refers to the thin periodicals that North American comics stories (aside from comic strips) were most commonly printed in in the 20th century. In fact, that's what originally gave rise to the term "graphic novel"---just what do you call a book full of comics, when "comic book" already refers to the floppies? A "comic book book"? Unfortunately, things have come full circle (in a way) with many booksellers and librarians now referring to all comics as "graphic novels", including the floppies. Comics is frustrating to talk about in English when one is trying to be precise, and the situation doesn't seem like it will clear up in the near future. This is why I prefer "comics", as it doesn't seem to be such a moving target. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it proper to pluralize "comics" in the lead? "Louis Riel is a 2003 comic biography..." seems more proper to me.
In that vein, "In 1995, Brown published the anti-psychiatry comic essay..." in the background section would also be more proper.
Like "economics" and "politics", "comics" is singular when referring to the artform. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"Comic" also has the meaning of "comedic". Neither the book nor the essay are comedic. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: Would "The book explores the possibly schizophrenic aspect of Riel's personality..." sound better?
"He became interested in Riel in 1995 after reading Maggie Siggins' 1994 biography Louis Riel: A Life of Revolution." - Redundant, as you already mentioned one paragraph above that he became interested after reading a biography.
"and the Toronto Star placed it on its list of the ten best books of the century in 2009" - this misled me a little, as I first took it to mean over the last 100 years. That struck me as very odd. The source refers only to the decade ending 2009. I think that should be made a little clearer.
I was looking at some of the references, and noticed in the Joan Marshall reference that she notes the speaking of Riel and others is "more educated and sophisticated" in French than English, part of which the dropped h's in English is meant to imply. I think that might be a useful addition to this article.
Overall though, I quite like the article. I can't see much wrong from my position, and I am unable to think of anything it may be missing. I also may have to check out this book, though I generally dislike graphic novels. It seems interesting! Resolute 02:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Supporting now, nice article! Resolute 15:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is there a section called "Overview" that is actually half the article? And should "background" really be a subsection of an "overview"? Why are the plot and "primary characters" subsections of "overview"? And why is "Appendix" a subsection of overview?? The article structure seems wierd to me.
I've fiddled with this myself to try and improve it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The overlinking is extraordinary. I've tackled some and will try and tackle some more.
I've never quite understood this. Many people (myself included) don't read articles (particularly long ones) in sequence. As long as the duplicated links are in different sections (and they are), why is this an issue? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:OVERLINK in the Manual of Style, it is about helping readers identify relevant information; but links also detract from readability, in that they attract the eye - so we only want them where necessary. Yes, if someone picks up the thread half way through, they may strike a word or name that they might want to know more about but, if they know they started half way through, they'll figure it might be elsewhere in the text. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Done, though I've left a couple, which I'm willing to defend if anyone cares enough to object. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
In "Appendix", we are told "In Louis Riel, the appendix totalled 23 pages, along with a bibliography and an index." Then in the very next section, "publication history", we are told "The comic book and the collection both came with copious amounts of footnotes (23 pages in the latter), and the collection came with a bibliography and an index." This seems repetition of some oddly obscure detail, yet slightly inconsistent in referring to the 23 pages as appendix in one, but footnotes in the other (or are they genuinely two different parts of the text, but both just happen to be 23 pages long?).
Done. The appendix is made up of footnotes. I've gone and reduced the amount of repetitious details. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Consistency query - a rebellion is called North-West Rebellion at one point, but 1885 Rebellion at another.
My 'oppose' is based on the article structure - but if it can be explained and defended, and other editors have no problem with it, then fair enough; I also don't get how something got this far with the overlinking on steroids, but at least that can be easily fixed... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
On further thought: I think the minimalist solution is: get rid of the two paras directly under "Overview" - if you want to keep any of that text, it should be under the next heading "Background". Then delete the heading "overview" and promote "Background", "Plot", "primary characters" and "appendix" to top-level headings. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Support, now that structural issues in particular have been addressed, but with the caveat that I haven't looked at source issues and referencing. The changes weren't that major, but I think it has a much better 'feel' now, and it tells an intriguing story. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Crisco 1492
"Don McLean and D. N. Sprague" - And they are? I'm hearing "American Pie", but I doubt that's the right person.
Done. McLean was a researcher from Saskatchewan, and Sprague was a historian. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"The Louis Riel script came to over 200 pages." - Reads a little awkward. Why not "The script for Louis Riel came to over 200 pages."
Looks better, but now we have "publish" repeated twice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"Le crépuscule des Bois-Brûlés ("The Twilight of the Métis")" Why do you have a translation for this and not the others?
Done. I thought the translation was in the source, but that doesn't appear to be true. I don't trust my own French to have done it...so where did it come from? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Footnote: "Please" isn't really encyclopedic. Perhaps just "Other translations contradict the one given here (see Manitoba), but "the god that speaks" is the translation Riel's character gives in the story", or even "other translations contradict the one given here (see Manitoba)"
"the white figures are placed against a heavy black background," - In a literal or racial sense? If the former, this may need a bit of rephrasing.
I think this is only an issue when the line is taken out of context. At this point in the article, and in the "Style" section no less, it's hard for me to see this not being obvious. I also don't see any obvious fixes and aren't awkward. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"size 0" - Any good targets?
It would be nice if the Ink brush article weren't so horrible. Maybe someday I'll be able to motivate myself to work on it. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
He also included a "Major-General Thomas Bland Strange" in an 1885 meeting at which he was not actually present. - Perhaps "He also included Major-General Thomas Bland Strange in an 1885 meeting at which the general was not present."
I know that when I go to banks they just use CAD and USD. Perhaps the alternative, C$? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a bit tricky - we should not be making up our own term, but using one that sources use. I think CAD (and no dollar sign) or CAN$ are options. CAD$ might be an option, despite the redundancy - i have seen it used occasionally. C$ seems less often used. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd stick with CAD myself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think there's a large swath of readers who wouldn't know immediately what "CAD" meant without a dollar sign somewhere. I'm Canadian, I live in Japan, and I don't think I would have recognized it until well into my twenties without a dollar sign. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you think, Hamilton? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
making the book's success a surprise. - surprise to whom?
To Brown, his publisher, his fans, his critics, and the publishing industry, which rarely had seen comics in the bestseller lists before then, especially from underground cartoonists. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"The comic book and the collection both came with an extensive appendix, and the collection came with a bibliography and an index. The end notes, bibliography, and index were tightly hand-lettered by Brown." - Perhaps with the previous information on the appendix?
(he would later run for parliament as representative of the Libertarian Party of Canada, to the dismay of his friends) - Perhaps as a footnote?
No. Since Louis Riel, Brown's politics have become a central part of his public persona, and was front and centre in his next book. Researching Riel was the turning point for his politics, and he's talked about it multiple times. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree it should be in the main text. You could consider reworking text to take it out of the parentheses. But i don't mind it as it is. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree to reworking it into the main text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence seems a bit long and convoluted, the second a little short and choppy. Suggest revamping as: Louis Riel is a 2003 historical biography in comic-book form of Métis rebel leader Louis Riel. Created by Canadian cartoonist Chester Brown, it deals with Riel's antagonistic relationship with the newly established Canadian government. -- or something similar (note my suggestion also alters "comics form" to "comic-book form", which I think reads better). If you go with this phrasing, the next sentence would probably flow better as It begins shortly before the 1869 Red River Rebellion, and ends with Riel's 1885 hanging for high treason.
Done, except for the "comic book" bit. As I've explained above, the word "comic book" refers specifically to the thin, floppy periodicals in which multipage comics have traditionally appeared in North America. This is what gave rise to the use of "graphic novel" in the first place: just what do you call a book-length comic book? Further, British members of WikiProject Comics have pointed out that "comic book" is not a term normally used in Britain. If we are looking for commonalities, then, even "graphic novel" would be a better term (being in use in all English-speaking countries these days). That term's definition, however, is a moving target, and I'd avoid it except where it can't be avoided. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 11:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I take your point, but "comics form" still sounds an odd construction to these ears, and I noted when I was composing the above post that you've said "Louis Riel was the first comic book..." towards the end of the lead... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That's correct. The serialization (ten issues from 1999 to 2003) received a grant, making it the first comics periodical (in North America, known as a "comic book") to receive such a grant. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As I think you haven't taken an article to FA before, Curly, I'd like to see a reviewer make a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promoting this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I haven't looked properly yet, but "in order to" in the lead should be just "to". Tony(talk) 13:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)�
Article: He also came across books by researcher Don McLean and historian Douglas N. Sprague that advanced the conspiracy theory that the 1885 North-West Rebellion was deliberately provoked by Prime Minister John A. Macdonald in order to gain support for the building of the transcontinental railway.
Source: ..including the conspiracy theories advanced by D. N. Sprague and Don McLean. (According to these authors, Prime Minister John A. Macdonald deliberately provoked the 1885 rebellion in order to garner support for the completion of a transcontinental railway.) I think the page range should be 165-166
Done. If you mean to include the full sentence, then that would be 164–165. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Article: The book makes frequent deliberate use of silent panels, focused on imagery
Source: ...a minimalist approach that saw him "focus on imagery and ... try to have silent panels as much as possible."
Article: as did his earlier experience researching and annotating his comics essay, "My Mom was a Schizophrenic".
Source: This is on either pp. 157, 164 and 204, not p. 165
Article: An army of 1,200 men arrives, ostensibly to keep the peace, but when it is learned they intend to lynch Riel, the rebels abandon Fort Garry. Riel flees to the U.S., and the anglophone population assumes governance.
Source: Louis Riel: the newly, ad hoc-elected eponymous popular leader sends his troops into the nearby-situated Fort Garry to secure the provisions and weapons stored there, before they fall into the hands of their pro-Canadian adversaries.
I can't fully verify this.
From the source, this is closer: These lead to the promise of extensive autonomy for the region, now called Manitoba by its government, as well as amnesty for those involved in the insurrection and the execution of Scott. Rather than honoring the deal, however, Canada sends its army to the area and crushes the opposition. This leads to the English-speaking part of the population taking over the region’s governance and Riel being forced to go into hiding. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 19:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
But there is no mention of 1,200 men or the lynching (and please try to do something with your signature, which by occupying three lines on each occurrence , is cluttering the edit page). Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm...okay, I've removed that. It's disappointing that I can't find a source that talks about the lynching. Taking that out removes context. Curly Turkey (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Article: ..which were rendered running with their legs splayed, as an artist may have depicted them in the days before the influence of Eadweard Muybridge's photographs of bodies in motion.
Source: This is accentuated specifically by the use of the pre-photographic convention depicting horses running with their legs splayed – a non-naturalistic and now archaic, but nevertheless dynamic strategy fully in step with pictorial convention before Eadweard Muybridge’s late 1870s split-second sequential photographic depictions of horses and other bodies in motion.
Article: Against his will, Riel's lawyer tries unsuccessfully to defend him on grounds of insanity.
Source: He is defended by a lawyer who – against Riel’s will – seeks acquittal on grounds of insanity, but ends up convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.
Article: The drawings were finished using both a thin ink brush (no larger than size 0) and dip pen with a Hunt 102 nib and black ink.
Source: For the Riel book, I drew on water-colour paper, using a thin brush (a zero or thinner), or a dip-pen with a Hunt 102 nib, and black ink. (A dip-pen is one that has no ink cartridge—you have to keep regularly dipping it in ink.) Those materials and tools might sound fancy, but all you really need is any kind of blank paper and a drawing tool of some sort.
No issues, except for those in bold text, which need clarification or correction. Graham Colm (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments Sorry for coming back so late:
Shouldn't there be a critical reception section quoting or summarising what major critics and publications had to say? Enough has been written about it's commercial successes, but you don't learn of its critical acclaim until Legacy.
You said above that the author wasn't happy that it was serialised. I'm surprised this isn't in the article.
"Louis Riel is a 2003 historical biography in comics form by Canadian cartoonist Chester Brown. It deals with the rebel Métis leader Louis Riel's antagonistic relationship with the newly established Canadian government." - I think the opening should be changed to this because 1) the artwork's creator really should be in the first sentence and 2) you avoid the awkward "Louis Riel is a biography of Louis Riel" construction.
"Louis Riel is a historical biography in comics by Chester Brown." It is about Métis rebel leader Louis Riel and his antagonistic relationship with the newly established Canadian government."
and (last paragraph)
"Originally serialized in ten instalments between 1999 and 2003, it was the first comic book to receive a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts."
Perfect. I wouldn't mind adding his reluctance to serialisation too.—indopug (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I think a couple of key things in the body are missing from the lead. You mentioned above about not wanting to give undue importance to the the serialised publication, but it needs to have a cursory mention at least. Also, you could include a bit more about its critical acclaim.—indopug (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Delegate's comment - One of the spotchecks still needs to be addressed.Graham Colm (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I haven't forgotten that. I'm still trying to figure out how I screwed up and how to fix it. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Closing note - This has been a candidate for a long time, and I think consensus to promote has been established. I am aware that one or of the reviewers' comments have not been fully addressed, but these can be ironed out post promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.