Wikipedia:Peer review/Louis Riel (comics)/archive1

Louis Riel (comics)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it to be reasonably complete and comprehensive, and would like to get some more eyes on it to improve it and spot any oversights.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

A few points. Before I get too much further, can you elaborate on your hopes for this article? Is this improvement for its own sake, or are you hoping to go the GA/FA route?

• Mix of spelling conventions - should probably use CanEng consistently (so -ization but -our)
• Don't use contractions in article text
• Suggest moving the Appendix section up, or perhaps merging into Overview
• Any further information on influence? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

—

Thanks for the quick feedback.

I'm aiming at at least GA. My long-term goal is to bring all Chester Brown-related articles to GA-status. This is the first one I've done that feels more-or-less complete (with all statements reffed). FA would be nice, but I'm not sure that Canadian alternative cartooning would be considered the stuff of FAs. I'd be delighted to be told I'm wrong.

When you say influence, do you mean influences on the book, or influence the book has had on others? As for the former, Brown has a long list of influences, but he changes his style from project to project. With Louis Riel, the influence was overwhelmingly Harold Gray, with a few others thrown in (I think I've listed all that were explicitly mentioned in my sources). As for influence on others, I don't have anything concrete from reliable sources (there are many who claim Brown as an influence, but I don't have anything that says "Work X was influenced by Louis Riel" specifically). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 16:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, if Cartman Gets an Anal Probe can be FA, I'm sure an alt comic can. I meant influence the book has had on others, but if there's no info on that, that's fine. The article seems a bit on the short side, but for GA that shouldn't be a problem. Some more comments:

• Quite a few duplicate links - User:Ucucha has a script that highlights them, if you're interested
• File:Rielcomicstripcover.jpg needs a FUR for its use in this article
• File:Thomas_Bland_Strange.jpg needs a US PD tag
• Some typos and grammatical errors - for example "governement", "incidient", "rôle" (actually, it seems like some parts may be translated from French?), "Alan Moore use", "because was amused", etc
• Check for consistency in details like U.S. vs US
• Suggest "Plot" instead of "Summary"
• Be careful to distinguish between what is actually considered historical fact and what is presented as such by the book
• "caricatures his features in an ideological charged manner" - you'll probably need to explain this further
• "and in softcover in 2006.[2] A softcover version was released in 2006" - why the repetition?
• Avoid first-person pronouns
• Some of the See also links would be better incorporated into the article body
• Further reading should go after References per WP:LAYOUT
• Referencing format needs cleanup to be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

—

I think I've tackled all you've brought up here, although I've expanded a number of the sections along the way as I found more things in my sources (and a some new sources), so I may have introduced more issues. A couple of things:

1. "Rôle" is actually an accepted English usage, albeit an obnoxious one (I also use the spelling "coördinate"). If someone removed it, I would never revert it, but it is how I actually spell it in real life.
2. I'm not sure if the formatting of my referencing is up to par, and could use some help.

Thanks. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)