Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maus/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 16:59, 17 January 2013 [1].

Maus

edit

Maus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 08:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive article on a subject which is considered a key work in its medium. Both commerically popular and critically acclaimed, the article would likely generate considerable interest on the main page, while filling in an important gap in WikiProject Comics.

This is my second shot at FA with this article. This first time there wasn't really any opposition, but it didn't seem to gather a lot of interest. I've given the article a thorough copyediting, and added a considerable number of free images I found. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 08:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk

  • Weak support. While as I noted before more could be written about reception in different countries, any expansion is optional and could just as well belong to a subarticle. Also, this requires help from editors who can read Polish and other languages, and it's unfair to prevent nomination due to lack of skills for such a minor set of points. As such, I've decided to offer a weak support (I cannot offer a full one until I see a subarticle on reception with more coverage of international events, but I am just being picky here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MarchOrDie Oppose per prose quality. Too much passive voice, and I saw several ambiguities and sentence fragments. Needs a major copyedit. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over the article again, but I have no idea what MarchOrDie is referring to regarding "sentence fragments". I've worked on the passive voice (rewriting most instances, though I don't think it was really that persistent), but "several ambiguities" is...well, rather ambiguous feedback. Curley Turkey (gobble) 12:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synopsis
  • Primary characters
  • Background
    • "Shortly after getting out, his mother committed suicide" This is the ambiguity, and it's a beaut. Who killed themselves, him or his mother?
      You can't be serious. What is ambiguous about "his mother committed suicide"?!? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm entirely serious, but I didn't express myself well. Who got out, him or his mother? Ambiguity, where the reader has to search through context to figure out the meaning of a sentence, is really poor writing and should be avoided, except for comic or poetic effect, neither of which belongs in an encyclopedia article that aspires to high standards. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In context: "He spent a month in Binghamton State Mental Hospital in 1968 after a nervous breakdown. Shortly after getting out, his mother committed suicide."
      If his mother "got out", where is she supposed to have gotten out of? There is no searching through context—he context is in the immediately preceding sentence of the same paragraph! One cannot account for readers who read sentences at random, which would be the only type of reader who could possibly be confused by this one. Sure sounds like WP:BEANS to me.
      And again, how on earth could "his mother committed suicide" be any more explicit? Please demonstrate how this could possibly mean the that son (or anyone other than herself) killed himself. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, writing clearly for a mixed audience is a pain, isn't it? For this example, He spent a month in Binghamton State Mental Hospital in 1968 after a nervous breakdown. Shortly after he was released, his mother committed suicide. carries the same meaning and lacks the ambiguity. Sentences of this type are therefore preferred by good writers. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately our article on the subject isn't very good. com/od/terms/g/ambiguity.htm Here's quite a decent resource. Once you start seeing them you will see them everywhere! Good encyclopedia articles don't contain them. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His father was not happy with his involvement in the hippie movement. When he bought a German Volkswagen, Spiegelman says it damaged their already-strained relationship "beyond repair"." Another weapons-grade ambiguity. Rewrite it so that it is completely clear who bought the VW, please. And who was the hippie?
      Done, though you may want to be more judicious with your "weapons grade" hyperbole. It beggars belief that someone could read that and believe that Vladek was unhappy with his own hippieness. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the semi-autobiographical Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary in 1972, a seminal work which inspired other underground cartoonists to take the lid off their psyches and produce more personal, revealing work" Is this a quote? If it is it should be justified as a key quote and enclosed in quotation marks. If it is not, we have to consider whether this is encyclopedic language. I say no, let's tone it down a notch. "Seminal" and "take the lid off their psyches" jangle for me.
      Done. Reworded, though I have trouble seeing the problem. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comics medium
    • "Comics was seen as a genre" Not "were"?
      No, "comics" (uncountable) refers to the medium (as in economics, politics), while "comics" (countable) is sometimes used as a shorthand for "comic books"—primarily American thin floppy periodicals containing comics content. Comics vocabulary is exasperating that way. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. I am still uneasy with this one. I've never seen "comics" listed alongside "ethics", "economics" in this context in style guides. We write for a general audience here and I think this will "look wrong" to a lot of people who read the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been thinking about this. It certainly isn't a mass noun; it seems to be more of a Singular Noun with an S Ending. I would need to be convinced that "comics" is a legitimate member of this class, and that this construction is the most elegant and felicitous way to express the meaning. I can't see either at the moment. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No, the term is long-established. Two books on formal issues in comics are Will Esiner's Comics and Sequential Art from 1986 and Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art from 1993. Both use "comics" as a collective noun—in their titles, no less! In the English translation of French comics theorist Thierry Groensteen's 1999 The System of Comics, there are numerous examples: "Comics is not a syncretic (total) art such as Opera", "'comics' is a term used to dewscribe works that take part in a variety of genres", "comics is not only an art of fragments", etc etc. A quick search of the web will turn up a plethora of examples. Here's a passage from a 2009 literary journal article by Henry John Pratt, "Medium Specificity and the Ethics of Narrative in Comics", in which he uses "comics" as a mass noun, a countable noun, and "comic" as an adjective:

      My strategy is to focus closely on one medium: comics. One of the twentieth century’s most predominant narrative media, comics is not only underrepresented in narratology, but there is also a long, well-documented history of condemning the comics medium itself (not merely individual comics or comic subgenres) on ethical grounds.

      Comics terminology is in flux, though. There is an increasing number of people who are using the term "graphic novel" to replace all instances of "comics", including the floppy periodicals (ironic–"graphic novel" was originally meant to distinguish book-form comics from the floppies). It appears that librarians are being trained to do exactly this. As I've already stated, trying to be both correct and elegant with comics terminology is a losing battle. "Comics" as a mass noun does have decades of usage behind it, though. I could replace all instances with "the comics medium", but that would get tedious to read. It's unfortunate that Spiegelman's "comix" didn't catch on.
      Going to the Comics, Comic book or American comic book articles won't help understanding any of this. They are masses of unreferenced OR and fancruft that will make your eyes bleed. I've been complaining rather insistently to WikiProject Comics about them (and have made fixes here and there), but nobody there seems seriously interested in helping to clean those articles up.
      I hear you. Too few of our articles are at a stage when they are actually useful rather than bweing placeholders. Mass nouns are things like "water" which don't take a plural. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is perhaps why I (and the textbooks and dictionaries I teach with) prefer the term "uncountable". Both the Genius (for Japanese-learners of English) and Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionaries clearly list words like "economics" and "politics" with a "U" eclosed in a square to indicate uncountability—obviously, they are not masses of anything in the way water is. Nor does there have to be a mass of anything for a countable noun to take a plural form—for example "zero dogs", or "I like dogs" (obviously not indicating a preference for masses of dogs, but for the abstract idea of dogs).
      I picked the Pratt quote above because it showed a variety of uses in a short space, but unfortunately it also shows the sloppiness that the term "comics" unconsciously invites. Even prefessional and academic writers fall into the trap of using "comic" as the adjectival of "comics"—that "s" just begs to be dropped. This is one of the problems Spegelman's proposed "comix" would have solved (can't drop an "s" that isn't there). There are plenty of examples of "comics" being used as a noun adjunct, as in "comics artist", "comics writer", "comics studies" (compare to *"posters artist", "comic writer" (a writer of humour!), *"novels studies").
      WikiProject Comics in its MoS requires "(comics)" to be used for disambiguation for comics-related articles.
      Words like "literally" and "ignorant" are far more often used with their "non-standard" informal meanings than with their formal definitions, but their informal usages would be totally unacceptable in academic (or even vaquely formal) work. As such, similarly widespread sloppy usage of "comics/comic" should be avoided, despite being widespread. In my own writing, I'm use "comics" to refer to the medium, both as a noun and adjective/noun adjunct, which has much precedent, and I am not aware of any widely used alternatives that are less awkward. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      I don't understand why this is marked "not done". I dispute the change, and have stated my reasons. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but even though you've explained your rationale for this, I think it breaks 1a. Even if this is a term of art, I think the way it is used in this article currently excludes the possibility that the article can reach the required standard. I may have a workaround though. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This may have highlighted a difference between the self-images of Israeli and American Jews—the image of the resistance fighter in contrast to the timid and weak diaspora Jew, a perceived self-hatred that one Israeli writer called "the diaspora sickness"" I am not happy with this; is it due weight?
      Given that it took two translations from different publishers to get Maus out in Israel, and User:Piotrus is saying I haven't said enough about foreign reception, I think it is. Please note that "the diaspora sickness" is a direct quote, taken in the context of Maus, and not just some random quote I picked up. Curley Turkey (gobble) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Was the "one Israeli writer" who held this opinion individually notable in the field? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The original was from the Hebrew-language academic journal Ketiv, and was at least notable enough to be qoted in translation by Reizbaum in Mapping Jewish Identities (2000). It's not being presented as a majority opinion, and the whole thing only takes up a single sentence out of seven on the Hebrew publication. In a 38kb article, I'd hardly call that "undue weight". Curley Turkey (gobble) 07:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      Again, why is this marked "not done"? I offered a rebuttal. Was it insufficient? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still not sure about it; even after reading your explanation I am still not happy that this is due weight. I am sure there will be a compromise wording we can agree on though. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--MarchOrDie (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also

I may have more thoughts, but that concludes my first pass. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've marked the items which I believe still to be outstanding, a week after my review. I am happy to haggle or debate any of these points, and some are more important than others, but as they stand I probably still oppose based on the cumulative effect of these. I do this without making another detailed re-reading of the article. Please annotate and/or justify. I think this article is almost there, but I just can't quite support at the moment. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for your patience. I think I've either dealt with or justified whatever's left in the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the instructions at WP:FAC and 1) remove the "not done" templates (they cause errors in archives), and 2) do not alter someone else's text ... if something is not done, add a note, and sign the note so we know who says what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) I will when I am done and 2) I didn't. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only places I've seen changes being made to text here are when MarchOrDie added a header to Maclean25's support, and when TBrandley moved his own comments to the talk page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a summary of outstanding issues as of 8 December 11 December, so I can remove the templates.
  • "comix" -> "comics" I need to see some kind of thought and consistency going into the choice of words. At the moment I see both spellings being used in what appears to be a willy-nilly way. Does not meet 1a.
    This is totally consistent. The only place the spelling "comix" appears is in the phrase "underground comix" (three occurrences) which is not only standard, but the spelling used in the Underground comix article (in fact, it was moved to "comix" from "comics"), and in one title (changing that is not even an option). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to link the first occurrence? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually did (and noted it above). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ???? I definitely had moved it up to the first occurrence. Maybe the change didn't save properly...sorry about that! Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant like this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am ok with how this looks now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comics was seen as a genre" As above, 1a again. Similar issue. Should be possible to choose a wording that avoids this.
    I'm open to suggestions, but I do have to affirm that my usage of "comics" has decades of precedence behind it, and I'm not keen on giving in to the forces that have made comics vocabulary as incomprehensible as it already is. It could use some consistency, and I'm not aware of any other widely-used term for the medium ("graphica", for example, would be shot down in mid-edit). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken care of this. What do you think? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That works well. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This may have highlighted a difference between the self-images of Israeli and American Jews—the image of the resistance fighter in contrast to the timid and weak diaspora Jew, a perceived self-hatred that one Israeli writer called 'the diaspora sickness'" Is this due weight for an article about a graphic novel? 1d
    The option would be to leave its poor reception in Israel a mystery. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there may be a third way. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to hear a solution, though I don't really see the problem (it was from a source talking about Maus specifically). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the source on this one and your paraphrase is far too close. Regardless of my 1d concerns, we cannot use this wording and this part will have to be rewritten. Do you think there are any other paraphrases as close as this in the article? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Source: "This passage signals the different myths held by and about each—Isreali and American Jews—myths surrounding, for example, the figure of the timid and weak diasporic Jew versus the resistance fighter."
    Mine: "This may have highlighted a difference between the self-images of Israeli and American Jews—the image of the resistance fighter in contrast to the timid and weak diaspora Jew, a perceived self-hatred that one Israeli writer called "the diaspora sickness"."
    I didn't think this was close enough (aside from the adjectives) to be considered "close paraphrasing" as I understood it. I guess it's one of those grey areas I'll have to work harder on spotting. How about:
    Proposed:"Marilyn Reizbaum saw this as highlighting a difference between Jewish communities' self-images, with the Israeli Jew as defender of their homeland, in contrast to the American diaspora Jew as feeble victim, a perceived self-hatred that one Israeli writer called "the diaspora sickness"."
    I'll find the time to go over my sources and make sure there isn't anything else that's this close and report back. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be great. These things are a judgement call of course but that is uncomforably close for me. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The new wording looks better. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited this to Marilyn Reizbaum saw this as highlighting a difference between the self-image of the Israeli Jew as fearless defender of the homeland, and that of the American Jew as feeble victim,[78] something that one Israeli writer disparaged as "the diaspora sickness".[79][f] --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "anguishes" -> "agonizes" No, no, a million times no. 1a.
    Maybe it's my eyes, but I don't quite see "agonizes" twinkling any more brilliantly than "anguishes". Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Does "mourn" work better? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any evidence that he did mourn his brother. Art's neurotic, and feels anxiety over the "perfect" brother he has never met. How about "feels anxiety over"? 22:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    Try "grieves for"? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't grieving the same as mourning? Either way, it's definitely not the feeling I get from reading the book. Richieu is someone he feels he can never live up to. Richieu can't piss off hisor disappoint his parents, but at the same time, he feels guilt because Richieu suffered through (and didn't survive) the Holocaust, while Art grew up safely in middle-class America. Mourning and grieving don't really come into it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean. I think this is grieving, though perhaps not mourning. Would "suffers distress" or "suffers anguish" work for you? I prefer the former. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I've changed it to "suffers anguish". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genre of Maus proved difficult to classify..." -> "Maus proved difficult to classify" 1a
    Well, I'm in a pickle here. My reviewers disagree with each other. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? How's that? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, "Maus proved difficult to classify" was my original wording, but I was asked to change it in a previous review (PR? GA? can't remember). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you dig it out? It'd be helpful to see the comment you are referring to. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I found it, it was User:Grapple X at the Peer Review in April. I think there will be a compromise on this one. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could've sworn their was another one in which we hashed out a solution before making the change, but maybe I imagined it. I think the original is more eloquent, but the latter possibly more accurate. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like this work for you? I took out the Pulitzer prize image as it wasn't doing anything but decorating. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a much greater insult in Polish culture than in American culture." Who says this? It sounds silly, but if it's really in the source I suppose we can go with it. Can you clarify what the sentence I highlighted is sourced to? I am definitely not interested in using this form of words to promote bloggish veiled allegations of racism against the author. 1d
    It was in Weschler 2001, published in Lingua Franca. It's also talked about in Hilary Chute's interview with Spiegelman in MetaMAUS. Harvey Pekar also talked about it in his criticisms of Maus. I suppose I could dig up the pages. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a citation from the Spiegelman interview with Chute in MetaMAUS. On page 122, Spiegelman is quoted as saying "[...]my metaphor was somehow able to hold that particular vantage point while still somehow acknowledging my father's dubious opinion of Poles as a group." "that particular vantage point" had to do with pigs being out of the cat-mouse food chain, as well as the Nazis' vision of Poles as being a race to be worked as slaves and then slaughtered. What's interesting about the quote is that it seems to me to strongly imply that Spiegelman was aware of the offensiveness of using pigs to represent Poles from the get-go, and used them in part to represent his own father's anti-Pole prejudices. I'd love to work this into the article, but I can't think of a way that doesn't veer near (or into) OR or synthesis territory, as it's not quite explicit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting, but what I need a source for is the sentence "He was made to understand that, in Poland, calling someone a swine was a much stronger insult than in the US" because this sounds so far out that it boggles belief. Calling someone a pig or depicting them as a pig is pretty offensive in most Western cultures, and the assertion that it is a much stronger insult in Poland than the US (particularly to an American Jew) is so eyebrow-raising that it requires a very good source indeed. See what I mean? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    From Weschler: "But, I asked, what about the issue of having portrayed Poles as pigs? Countless Polish publishers have told me ["me" is Weschler] that if the Poles in Maus hadn't been portrayed as pigs, there'd never have been the slightest problem about publishing the book." Later, quoting Spiegelman: "'The embassy guy nodded politely, but clearly he wasn't buying my explanations. "Mr. Spiegelman," he said gravely, at length, "the thing you don't seem to understand is that in Poland calling someone a swine is a much, much greater insult than seems to be the case here in America. Swine, you see, is what the Nazis called the Poles."'" The MetaMAUS interview basically gives the same story: "[The Polish ambassador]'s explaining that it's really a big insult to call Poles pigs and points out that Hitler called the Poles scwein!" Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. So it is according to the author that he was told that it was a bigger insult in Poland than in the US. So it definitely needs to be reworded to make this clear. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, first it was according to Weschler, then, in the same article, Spiegelman acknowledged that he was told so by a Polish official. The, in a separate interview, Spiegelman repeated the same information about the Polish official (actually, he's given the same story in a number of interviews). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And my feeling is that it is still highly dubious. I did find Steve Baker's book Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation (ISBN 0252070305) which, on p142 quotes a reviewer (identified in a footnote as being Marek Kohn, in "Paws and Whiskers", The Listener, 10 September 1987, p25) as saying "however you look at it, drawing Poles as pigs is basically an ethnic insult". We certainly can't just reproduce the author's view verbatim. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which isn't what's happening: "He was made to understand that, in Poland, calling someone a swine was a much stronger insult than in the US." The article relates what Spiegelman was told. It doesn't just state it as a bald fact. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What he says he was told, see the difference? Without getting too spooky about it, or using scare quotes or words like "claim", we need to make it clear that this is Spiegelman's version of events here. Otherwise the claim just looks silly. I'd like to include the sceptical book source I found as well.
    So would "He says he was made to understand that, in Poland, calling someone a swine was a much stronger insult than in the US" be sufficient?
    I've added in the "ethnic slur" source. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok with both. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. I've gone through the sources I have for the article, and I can't find any wording that's anywhere near as close as this one (I only checked in places that looked like likely candidates). Of course, that's in my own judgement. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as a Pole, I don't think there is a major difference, but perhaps a slight one. And if I start thinking about context, even that may be in doubt. I suggest attributing the sentence; should be good enough. Unless somebody can show any study with at least a semi-decent methodology, this kind of claim is really a "gut feeling" type one. And if the author is foreign, sigh, it's probably based on a second-hand story, too. Ugh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've substantially rewritten this section now as I just wasn't comfortable with the tone and the sourcing. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary My objections have now all been answered by the series of copyedits Curly Turkey and I did here. Before I can support, I need Curly Turkey to check my edits and sign them off, and ideally one other independent quality reviewer to approve this version of the article.--MarchOrDie (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only two small objections:
  1. "mourn", as I noted above This has been dealt with. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't know if you meant to revert "ethnic Poles" to "non-Jewish Poles". "Ethnic Pole" is used a few other times in the article, and I'm not sure if all "non-Jewish Poles" were depicted as pigs.
Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My dislike for "ethnic Poles" is probably related to my distaste for the word "ethnic" and indeed the concept of "ethnicity", which led to the events described in the subject of the article. We run a risk by using this language of appearing to endorse the idea that Polish Jews were not really Poles. See also my point earlier. If the sources use this terminology I suppose I can live with it. Do they? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would get sticky quickly. Do we start qualifying all the nationalities? "Non-Jewish Germans"? "Jewish Israelis"? The Jews seem to be mice no matter what their nationality—Czech-American Jew Pavel (the psychiatrist), Sweden-born American Jew Art, "ethnic French" Jewish convert Françoise. Americans are depicted as dogs, no matter what their ethnic background (both the "white" soldiers who liberate Dachau and the "black" hitchhiker). The only other ethnicity in the book that I'm aware of that isn't tied to nationality is the Gypsies (as moths).
I think it would be better to stop "anguishing" over the "correct" qualifier, and just follow what the sources do and use "Pole", as I originally was doing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I think this is important; Wikipedia should try to follow the sources but at the same time we are bound by policy constraints that an exernal source may not be. This is an important and sensitive one, and it's worth getting right. Third opinion please. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not there, awkward prose in the first two sentences, I didn't read further:

  • Maus is a graphic novel completed in 1991 by American cartoonist Art Spiegelman. In it, Spiegelman interviews his father about his experiences as a Polish Jew and Holocaust survivor.

OK, I skipped down to a random section (find a lot of scare quotes on words that I can't see why quotes are needed), and:

Is this what you meant by the scare quotes (MarchOrDie made the change)? Because if you did, I have to say I feel strongly that this change has done damage to the article. Compare:
Original: In the "present" portions, the pages are arranged in eight-panel grids, but in the "past" sections, Spiegelman found himself "violating the grid constantly" with his unique page layouts.
to:
Changed: In the present portions, the pages are arranged in eight-panel grids, but in the past sections, Spiegelman found himself "violating the grid constantly" with his unique page layouts.
This usage helps avoid confusion by signifying that "past" and "present" aren't being used in their literal meanings. Without them, this passage can be confusing. This is different from:
the 'The New York Times "praised" the book
where the scare quotes are used ironically (I've changed this). Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the words are not used in their literal meanings, how are they being used? --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To show their relative positions in the book. The "present" is only the "present" in its context as the frame tale (which takes place in 1978—1979), and doesn't cease to be the "present" even after the big jump in Chapter 8 to 1986. We "return" to the "present" after that postmodern timeslip.
Not using the quotes also introduces ambiguity. What does "the past sections" mean? Previous sections in the book? The quotes preclude the possibility of such an interpretation. It messes with the lead as well: what is "In the present frame tale timeline," supposed to mean? "In the frame tale we are now considering?" Is it at all clear to a reader reading that line the first time what it's supposed to mean? Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who calls them "past" and "present"? Who is being quoted? Is it the author? Does the originator of the terms use quotation marks? If it is not a quote, are there two better terms we could use? What two terms do the sources use when discussing these two parts of the book?--MarchOrDie (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wood 1997 uses the terms quoted this way. Others have used, for example, narrative present, narratorial present, "I-now" present, Past and Present, present and past-present. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, so let's use "narrative present" here (but without the quotation marks)? It isn't that unusual a literary device or a particularly new one so I'm not buying the idea that it needs to be carefully explained to our readers. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though I wasn't arguing that it had to be explained to users, but that the wording as-was was ambiguous and confusing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially, criticism of Maus showed a resistance to including comics in literary discourse, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: ethnic labels

What would be the best ethnic qualifier for those depicted as pigs in Maus?

  • "Poles": Vladek is a Polish national, but is depicted as a mouse since he's Jewish. This is what the sources use, but there are difficulties with it:
  • "ethnic Poles": as per MarchOrDie, it is this "concept of 'ethnicity', which led to the events described in the subject of the article" (that is, the Holocaust).
  • "non-Jewish Poles": as per Curly Turkey, this would require qualifying every race/nationality: e.g. "Non-Jewish Germans", "Non-Jewish Americans" (all non-Jewish Americans are depicted as dogs, regardless of race), etc.

Ethnicity is a sensitive subject. Is there a better way to handle this? —Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cryptic C62:

  • I see a number of one- and two-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. These should be expanded, merged, or deleted.
Done. I've left one one-sentence paragraph in the "Language" section, as it is quite long. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why Synopsis is nested under the entirely unnecessary Overview section. As far as I can tell, all of the material in the Overview paragraph could be placed inside Synopsis.
Changed to just "Synopsis". There used to be other sections under "Overview" that have since been moved out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "Spiegelman continues to attract academic attention and influence younger cartoonists." Are there any images available with illustrate this? The current image is just Spiegelman sitting there.
I suppose I could change the caption. I just wanted to use a photo of Spiegelman, but the only free one I found was from long after the book was finished, so I tried to tie it into the continuing interest in Maus. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, not a big deal. Just something to keep in mind in case a more specific free image turns up later on. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Criticism section seems to be about two different topics: academic research and literary criticism. The first paragraph, in particular, is not at all what I expected from a Criticism section.
Changed to "Academia and criticism". Curly Turkey (gobble) CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans. Some might suggest that the two topics should be given separate subheadings, but there is enough of a gray area between academic research and literary criticism that a single subheading is justified (in my opinion). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volume of academic work done on Maus" I suggest replacing "done" with "published", unless I've misinterpreted this.
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Re: nomenclature for the pig/mouse/cat ethnic distinction. :I would advice to do what sources that describe the comic do, instead of agonizing over making the least problematic of a series of problematic choices. In this way the responsibility is not wikipedia's but the responsibility of the sources. If it is necessary the statement could be given in-text attribution. If possible it would be great to find a source that explicitly discusses the way in which the pig/mouse distinction is problematic in that it accepts the notion that Jews as being by definition non-Poles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Overall it's pretty good, and an interesting read. There are two main problems I'd encourage you to review the article for. The first is that there are several sentences in the article that are quite long strings of phrases, separated by conjunctions, prepositions, and so on. Most of them are unnecessarily wordy and should be rewritten or broken up. I've mentioned a couple of them below. The second problem is that the Synopsis is difficult to follow and is lacking in a few key details, which I've also mention below.
  • Please make sure any image captions that are complete sentences have proper punctuation.
    Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epic sentences such as these can surely be rewritten or broken up: "Most of the book is divided between the frame tale of the narrative present, in 1978–79 in Rego Park, New York, in which Spiegelman interviews his father, Vladek, and the narrative past, the story that Vladek tells, beginning in the mid-1930s and continuing until the end of the Holocaust in 1945, when Vladek and his wife Anja emigrate to the US."
    Done. Changed to "Most of the book weaves in and out of two timelines. In the frame tale of the narrative present, Spiegelman interviews his father, Vladek, in Rego Park, New York, in 1978–79. The story that Vladek tells is depicted in the narrative past, which begins in the mid-1930s and continuing until the end of the Holocaust in 1945." Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vladek has married a woman called Mala in the time since the 1968 suicide of Art's mother, Anja."
    Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vladek begs Art not to include this part of the story in the book, and Art reluctantly agrees." This is oddly placed in the narrative, in the midst of your description of the narrative past. Is Vladek's plea actually in the novel, or is it simply described in Pekar?
    The book weaves in and out of the two main timelines. The story in the narrative past is frequently broken up by commentary in the narrative present. I think the reworded "epic sentence" above makes this clearer. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You gloss over how Art and Vladek went so quickly from being estranged to Vladek relating his experiences. You paint Vladek as a difficult character, one we'd expect to be resistant to reconciliation.
    It's not explained in the book. It appears to me that the estrangement was one-sided on Art's part. Vladek warmly welcomes his son, and constantly tries to get him to stay longer. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need consistency in punctuation in sentences like "In Srodula many Jews" and "In Sosnowiec, Vladek and Anja move"
    Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Vladek address Art as "Richieu" in the end of the narrative?
    I believe this is left up to the reader to figure out. I assume because he's become worn out from telling the story, and has become confused by all the drudged up memories. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Poland was the setting for the majority of the book, and Polish was the language of his parents and, he says, was his own mother tongue in infancy." Another sentence that needs rewriting or breaking up. Also, he spoke Polish as an infant? Infants aren't normally prone to conversation.
    Done. Cut up, and dropped "infancy". Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not far off. --Laser brain (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this is an exemplary piece of research and writing, and I am particularly impressed by the way it navigates the controversies and complex viewpoints with a lot of nuance. I am not going to give a comment on "brilliance of prose" because I basically think this is a ridiculous criterion anyway. What I can say is that reading it I did not stumble on wordings or phrasings and I felt the prose flowed well across paragraphs and sections. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Maus/archive2&oldid=1247409965"