This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
I've left a big red cross next to priority items that need to be fixed for this article to pass. My comments about re-structuring content aren't essential to this particular review, but are highly recommended; however, the nominator is not required to do anything more than address the red cross sections below. If the nominator wishes to restructure some of the content, moving the children's literature and awards and honors to separate sections might be the easiest to do first, followed by specific works or publications. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the items listed below have been addressed, except for the structural change recommendations, which are external to this review. I still don't see the need for duplicating links in captions next to the same links in the same section, but the nominator prefers this, and I don't think it's a big deal, I just find it odd. Since the major concerns about the prose have been addressed by the nominator, I'm passing this article. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Know when to use passive voice and when to eliminate it
No impact on this review per se, but I do find it annoying in some places. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid proseline
Not really a major problem, but some aspects of the article tend to read like proseline. I think this is because you are dealing with a large amount of content that doesn't have proper subsections. This is mainly due to the current structure of the article which attempts to contain the majority of the subject in a "personal history" when it's likely that much of the material deserves more appropriate subsections. Obviously, this is a matter of style and personal taste, but I can see several problems right away. The most glaring is the family and personal life material distributed throughout many sections instead of just one. This is, of course, not an issue for a GA review, but I'm noting it here because it was one of the things that prevented me from fully enjoying this article. A chronological approach works best for small biographies not large ones. More to the point, the current length of the subsections are not conducive to reading comprehension. There are many ways to handle this, but I don't see this impacting the outcome of the GA, however, if it was any worse that it is, I might object. Otherwise, take this for what it is, a personal opinion about my experience reading this article. Shorter subsections might help (perhaps divided by publication name or some other subtopic) but then you would have to rearrange the material. In some instances, you could convert some of the lists of publications to sidebars, but you would have to be willing to experiment to find what works. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rely on adverbs, rely on strong verbs. Eliminate weak modifiers whenever possible. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
At Russell Sage Junior High School, where he was an honors student, he produced the Mad-alike fanzine, Blasé
I don't think "alike" works well here. The source says it was modeled on Mad, in which case Blasé resembled it as it was Mad-like. I've never see "alike" used this way.[1]Viriditas (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"-alike" used in this way has the sense of it being a copycat publication (although it's difficult to Google, as you can't search for punctuation"—"-like" just means "similar". I've changed it to "Mad-inspired". Curly Turkey¡gobble! 20:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He traveled to San Francisco for a few months in 1967, and began the Wacky Packages series of parodic trading cards for Topps in 1967.
The only reason I know what "parodic trading cards" means here, is because I used to own Wacky Packages as a kid. And while "parodic" is the correct term for this type of humorous card, I'm wondering if there is a more natural description that can be used for someone who has no idea about these cards. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Real Pulp and Bizarre Sex, and were in an inconsistent variety of styles and genres as Spiegelman tried to find his artistic "voice".
The word "inconsistent" is not needed here, and is basically needless and redundant. Variety is defined as "the quality or state of being different or diverse; the absence of uniformity, sameness, or monotony." Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spiegelman tried to find his artistic "voice"...It was with this story that Spiegelman felt he had found his "voice".
Is there a good reason to quote the word "voice" here? One solution might be to link to writer's voice in the first instance, so that when you refer to it again in the second instance readers know what you are talking about. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess to ensure it doesn't come off as a literal voice. I've added the link at the first instance. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 23:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He wanted to do one about racism, and at first considered focusing it on African Americans, with African-Americans as mice and cats taking on the role of the Ku Klux Klan.
No need to repeat "African Americans" twice in the same sentence. You can easily rephrase and shorten it like this: "He wanted to focus on racism, with African-Americans depicted as mice and the Ku Klux Klan as cats." You can of course modify it in any number of ways, but there's no need for repetition. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary while in-progress in 1971... appeared in 1972 in Short Order Comix #1...the Apex Treasury of Underground Comics in 1974...The often-reprinted "Ace Hole, Midget Detective" of 1974... "A Day at the Circuits" of 1975... "Nervous Rex: The Malpractice Suite" of 1976
Although it has no bearing on the outcome of this review, you may want to give serious future consideration to using the parenthesis date format, such as Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary (1971)...."Ace Hole, Midget Detective" (1974)..."A Day at the Circuits" (1975)..."Nervous Rex: The Malpractice Suite" (1976). It provides a consistent format that adheres to existing conventions in the literature. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back and forth on this—the parentheses don't "flow" when read aloud (for example, by a screen reader). Curly Turkey¡gobble! 01:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avant-garde filmmaker friend Ken Jacobs introduced Mouly and Spiegelman, when Spiegelman was visiting, but they did not immediately develop a mutual interest.
That sentence is a bit of a speed bump. See if you can improve the flow somehow. For example: "While Spiegelman was visiting New York, avant-garde filmmaker and friend Ken Jacobs introduced him to Mouly, but they did not immediately develop a mutual interest." Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NAfter returning to the US, when Mouly ran into visa problems; the couple solved them by getting married at City Hall on 12 July 1977, The same year Spiegelman brought himself to admit to his father he had moved back to New York, and then remarried after Mouly converted to Judaism to please Spiegelman's father.
Holy cow! Something went seriously wrong, here. Incomplete sentence, semicolon, sentence ending with a comma; please fix this. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mouly assisted in putting together the lavish collection of Spiegelman's experimental strips Breakdowns that same year.
I expected, "the lavish collection of Spiegelman's experimental strips in Breakdowns that same year". Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Raw and Maus (1978–1991)
N You've got Auschwitz concentration camp linked twice in this section, once in the body and once in the caption. Please link only once. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spiegelman visited the Auschwitz concentration camp in 1979 as research for Maus; his parents had been imprisoned there.
A bit of a mouthful for a caption. I would just end it after "Maus". Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spiegelman began teaching at the School of Visual Arts in New York in 1978, and continued until 1987, teaching alongside his heroes Kurtzman and Eisner.
Only problem is, you don't explain and link to Kurtzman and Eisner until later in the article. Since this is the first instance, you should use their full name and link here first. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Breakdowns suffered poor distribution and sales, and 30% of the print run was unusable due to printing errors, an experience that motivated Mouly to gain control over the printing process
Yeah, but if we are still talking about 1978, why not move the Breakdowns material from the previous section here. As the reader, that would make a hell of a lot more sense and improve continuity and flow, even if it is not exactly linear. There are many ways to do this, but keeping the relevant material intact instead of expecting the reader to follow the bits from section to section is preferred. This sort of illustrates the problem I touched upon above. You're trying to keep a chronological narrative going throughout long sections in a biography, but the scope isn't really setup for that kind of treatment as the reader gets easily distracted. Try to keep material together as much as possible regardless of the linear chronology. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it eventually came to include work from underground cartoonists like Crumb or Griffith, Raw focused on publishing artists who were virtually unknown
Why Crumb or Griffith? Shouldn't it be and? And you forgot to italicize Raw here. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Raw focused on publishing artists who were virtually unknown, avant-garde cartoonists such as Charles Burns, Lynda Barry, Chris Ware, Ben Katchor, and Gary Panter
introduced English-speaking audiences to translations of foreign works by José Muñoz, Chéri Samba, Joost Swarte, Yoshiharu Tsuge,[23] Jacques Tardi, and others.
N You've got Maus linked six times in the article, twice in this section alone, once in the caption and once in the body. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section, "Raw and Maus (1978–1991)" suffers from many of the problems I have previously described up above. By focusing on a chronological narrative in one section, you have too much going on. From teaching career, to Maus and its background development, to personal and family life, this is way too much for the reader to handle. If this was a short biography, it would work, but considering its length, it makes far more sense to deal with all of this outside the chronology in its own subsections, such as teaching, Raw, Maus, personal life, etc. I'm not going to insist on these changes, and I will probably pass this article in its current form, but as the reader (and reviewer) I can tell you that the current format is not conducive to comprehension. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book found a large audience, in part because it was sold through regular bookstores rather through comic shops in the direct market through which comic books were normally sold.
Please fix this sentence. Even if you add 'rather than through" it still doesn't read right. "Rather through comic shops in the direct market through which" doesn't work either. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 1987, Mouly and Spiegelman had their first child, daughter Nadja Rachel. In 1988, Spiegelman, Mouly, and many of the Raw artists appeared in Comic Book Confidential.
This is a good example of several of the problems I've discussed up above. First, you've got the proseline issue, then you've got the mixing of the personal life and family with the chronology of his publication. These things are best treated separately, not together, but because you rely on chronology, they are all jumbled together like this. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NSpiegelman called Topps his "Medici" for the autonomy and financial freedom working for the company had given him. The relationship was nevertheless strained over issues of credit and ownership of the original artwork. In 1989 Topps auctioned off pieces of art Spiegelman had created rather than returning them to him, and Spiegelman broke the relation.
This is torturous prose. It would be best to read about this in a separate Topps section, so that all of the Topps material is treated in a single subsection. As for the prose, you could do several things. I'll provide an example based on the above: "Working for Topps gave Spiegelman autonomy and financial freedom, leading him to refer to the company as his "Medici". Several issues, however, strained their working relationship, including disputes over credit and ownership of original artwork. Spiegelman finally broke with the company in 1989, after Topps auctioned off several of his art works rather than returning them to him." Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 1990 Spiegelman was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship. The same year, he had an essay called "High Art Lowdown" published in Artforum critiquing the High/Low exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. In 1991, Raw Vol. 1, No.3 was published; it was to be the last issue. The closing chapter of Maus appeared not in Raw but in the second volume of the graphic novel, which appeared later that year with the subtitle And Here My Troubles Began.[54] Maus attracted an unprecedented amount of critical attention for a work of comics, including an exhibition at New York's Museum of Modern Art[56] and a special Pulitzer Prize in 1992. The same year Mouly gave birth to the couple's second child, son Dashiell Alan.
As the reader, I don't want to see all of these disparate things in a single paragraph like this. The only relationship these things have is their chronology, and this just doesn't work for long biographies. I realize I've said this several times already, but I wanted to say it again because this last paragraph drives my point home. As the reader, I want to know about his fellowship and awards separately from his publishing history, including the history of Maus, which should appear by itself. And I certainly don't want to read about these things in relation to the birth of their second child. While it might seem logical to put all of these things together like this, in general (and in practice), long and complex biographies deal with these things separately for a reason. For example, many artists will have separate sections about individual works where specific material is discussed, and separate sections about personal life and family. This is because handling all of these things together like this doesn't work unless there is a strong, underlying theme driving the narrative. Because the only thing tying these different elements together is the date, it doesn't hold the interest and it doesn't tie the biography together, making me think I'm just reading glorified lists sorted by date (proseline) rather than thematically-linked narrative. Personally, I've discovered (and I've written about this in several previous reviews) that if you start out by keeping all of this material separate, you will find that the thematically-linked narrative emerges from the text and begins to link itself together as you complete the structure. In this particular article, you've got the opposite problem: everything is mixed together. I suspect that if you make an effort to separate out this material, you will find some of it coming back in focus and linking together naturally, not by date, but by significant elements in his life. But the fact remains, lumping all of this material under "Underground comix (1971–1977)" in one huge section doesn't hold my interest as a reader. If I was the nominator, the first thing I would do is completely eliminate the "Personal history" section heading, as it is useless. Then, I would think about subdividing the longer sections and splitting related material out into new sections. Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The New Yorker (1992—2001)
Spiegelman's first cover appeared on the February 15, 1993 issue, for Valentine's Day, and showed a black West Indian woman and a Hasidic man kissing. Spiegelman intended it to reference the Crown Heights riot of 1991 in which racial tensions led to the murder of a Jewish yeshiva student. The cover caused much turmoil at The New Yorker offices.
Comma goes after the year. Also, you need to be consistent and choose New Yorker or The New Yorker, but not both. It's also totally unnecessary to refer to the date when you already refer to Valentine's Day. Just refer to the year. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spiegelman edited David Mazzucchelli's graphic novel adaptation of Paul Auster's City of Glass in 1994. The same year, Voyager Company published a CD-ROM version of Maus with extensive supplementary material called The Complete Maus, and Spiegelman illustrated a 1923 poem by Joseph Moncure March called The Wild Party.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with The New Yorker, except the date. Instead of reading about Maus in every section, you should have one major section about Maus. As for his other work, if it is notable to discuss it outside of the cited bibliography, then discuss it, but this again, reads like proseline. I don't really want to read about these things in a section called The New Yorker. I realize you are speaking more in terms of an era, but to hold the interest of the reader, you need to focus on specific material. You did that just fine in the first paragraph, but the next four paragraphs have nothing to do with it, but other publications published within and after that time frame. Of course, this isn't the first time this kind of structural problem has arisen. John Barrowman was plagued with this kind of issue for quite some time before a decision was made to restructure it and focus on one topic per section. you may want to take a look to see whether it succeeds or fails. Many different editors had a go at it. I think I see a similar issue here. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-September 11 (2001–present)
N There's really no reason to link to the September 11 attacks in the caption and the same section twice. One link will do. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NSpiegelman was vocally critical of the Bush administration and the mass media over their handling of the September 11 attacks.
Please remove "vocally". As for his "criticism" of the Bush admin, please specify the criticism. Just about every fair and reasonable commentator was critical of the Bush admin over their handling of the attacks, and history records this criticism as legitimate. Unless Spiegelman's criticism is notable in some way, I'm not sure how it is important to his bio. This is almost a "water is wet" statement. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spiegelman did not renew his New Yorker contract after 2003. Spiegelman said he left not over political differences, as had been widely reported...
This entire paragraph and the one before (two paragraphs) is about The New Yorker. All of this should appear solely in a section aboutThe New Yorker, just as all of the material in many different sections about children's comics should appear in one section about children's comics. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you've got New Yorker and The New Yorker. Please choose one consistent style. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spiegelman said his parting from The New Yorker was part of his general disappointment with "the widespread conformism of the mass media in the Bush era".
I don't know why you are linking to George W. Bush within the quote here and when you can easily link to Bush administration in the above paragraph. It's best to leave quotes alone unless absolutely necessary. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 2005, Time magazine named Spiegelman one of the "Top 100 Most Influential People" and France made him Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres.
I would like to see this in a general honors/awards section. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the June 2006 edition of Harper's Magazine Spiegelman had an article published on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy; Islamic law prohibits the depiction of Muhammad. The Canadian chain of booksellers Indigo refused to sell the issue.
If it is notable enough, it could use its own section. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spiegelman played himself in the 2007 episode "Husbands and Knives" of The Simpsons with other comics creators Daniel Clowes and Alan Moore.
Reads like trivia in this section. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To promote literacy in young children, Mouly encouraged publishers to publish comics for children...
I would like to see this material in a section about work for children, including his publications for that demographic. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 2008 Spiegelman reissued Breakdowns in an expanded edition including "Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!"[83] A volume drawn from Spiegelman's sketchbooks, Be A Nose, appeared in 2009. In 2011 MetaMaus followed—a book-length analysis of Maus by Spiegelman and Hillary Chute with a DVD-ROM update of the earlier CD-ROM.[84] The same year Spiegelman won the Grand Prix at the Angoulême International Comics Festival.
I want to see this material in relevant sections. The Breakdown material should be grouped in a section about that work; anything Maus related should appear in that section; and all awards should appear in an award section. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Library of America commissioned Spiegelman to edit the two-volume Lynd Ward: Six Novels in Woodcuts, which appeared in 2010, collecting all of Ward's wordless novels with an introduction and annotations by Spiegelman. The project led to a touring show...
I would like to see this in a relevant section about his touring projects rather than plopped into a general section by chronology. Again, as the reader, I want to be able to find information easily by looking for it bey topic, not by date. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NThe American Academy of Arts and Letters name Spiegelman a member in 2015.
Named, not name. However, again, instead of plopping all of this in one section, you should add all of his awards, fellowships, and honors into one section. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NThe same year, after six writers refused to sit on a panel at the PEN American Center in protest of the planned "freedom of expression courage award" for the satirical French periodical Charlie Hebdo following the shooting at its headquarters earlier in the year, Spiegelman agreed to be one of the replacement hosts.
This appears to be trivia. I'm not sure it belongs in this article. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N"All comic-strip drawings must function as diagrams, simplified picture-words that indicate more than they show."
I think this kind of leading, centered quote is somewhat deprecated or non-standard, with quote boxes more common. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt it's been deprecated, and floating boxes have their own issues that I prefer to avoid. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 05:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N"Time is an illusion that can be shattered in comics! Showing the same scene from different angles freezes it in time by turning the page into a diagram—an orthographic projection!"
Two exclamation points is a bit much. You're also missing a citation directly after the quote per best practice. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not about to change his own punctuation. Added inline cite, though I should point out that, while it's a common practice, the MoS does not actually require a citation to immediately follow a quotation (and there are editors who openly oppose doing so). Curly Turkey¡gobble! 05:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's news to me. MOS has nothing to do with requiring a citation for a quotation, that's Wikipedia:Verifiability, and it's implicit in GA criterion 2b. I'm curious, which editors oppose this policy in practice? Which good or featured articles lack citations after direct quotes? See also: WP:MINREF. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's come up in a couple of FACs I've reviewed, but I can't remember which specifically—but I called in SandyGeorgia to verify, and she confirmed it was more or less standard practice, but not technically mandated. The objection is that the text could become a sea of redundant inline cites when multiple quotes come in a row, all from the same page of the same source. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 06:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NSpiegelman has stated he does not see himself primarily as a visual artist, one who instinctively sketches or doodles. Lacking confidence as a visual artist, and has said he approaches his work as a writer.
This is unintelligible. Please copyedit. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His dialogue and visuals are subject to constant revision—he revised some dialogue balloons in Maus up to forty times.
Again, seeing Maus mentioned everywhere except in one single section annoys me to no end. As the reader, I want to know where to go to find about a topic. This means a single section within an article. The reader should not have to read multiple section to find out something about one topic. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NSpiegelman makes use of both old- and new-fashioned tools in his work. Sometimes he prefers to work on paper on a drafting table, while at other time he draws directly onto his computer using a digital pen and electronic drawing tablet, or mix methods, employing scanners and printers.
N Please link to woodcut and Frans Masereel only once. You have it linked in the section and in the caption. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NHarvey Kurtzman has been Spiegelman's strongest influence as a cartoonist, editor, and discoverer of talent.
I'm not sure exactly what that means. Kurtzman influenced Spiegelman as a cartoonist and editor, I get that. But as a discoverer of talent? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are known for introducing new talent through the publications they edited and through mentoring. I've changed "discoverer" to "promoter". Curly Turkey¡gobble! 05:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spiegelman acknowledges Franz Kafka as an early influence, whom he says he has read since the age of 12
If Kafka is such an early influence, why do you mention him in the last paragraph when the entire article is sorted by chronology? If it's because you are trying to play up the art angle, remember, some of the greatest people in history are directly influenced by those outside of their field of expertise. This is a historical truism. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and the makers of The Twilight Zone
Do you mean writers, or are you getting at something else? Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beliefs
He believes the medium echoes the way the human brain processes information.
I would like to know more about this and why he believes this. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the beliefs section suffers from the mixing of different elements I talked about up above. For example, I talked about creating a separate section to discuss only his work in education. In this section, you once again have material about his teaching, just as you do in the "Raw and Maus (1978–1991)" section, and his work with comics literacy in the "Post-September 11 (2001–present)" section. Instead of having all of this related material split across three different sections, you should have it in one section. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While not religious, he told Charles Schulz that he identified with the "alienated diaspora culture" of Kafka and Freud, what Stalin called "rootless cosmopolitanism".
Please go back to the source material and pay close attention to the context of the entire paragraph. The central thesis here, is Mendelsohn's argument that Spiegelman, as an American Jew, espouses the ideals of Jewish Universalism. Further, by citing the Stalin part of the quote but leaving out the pejorative use part, it makes it seem like Spiegelman is a Stalinist, when the quote in context shows that's not the case. I think it would be much better to paraphrase and attribute the argument of Mendelsohn instead of citing the quote. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to get to these (hopefully tomorrow), but I have to speak up about the linking issues: It's standard practice to link anything anything in the body at its first appearance, even if it has already appeared in the lead, as well as in captions—these exceptions are spelled out at WP:OLINK. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 05:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with that unusual interpretation of OLINK. Links should never be duplicated in the same section. That MOS stipulates that links may be duplicated in the body of an article, in different sections. For example, there are good reasons to link to important concepts outlined in the body and in the lead. I have never seen a featured article (or a good article for that matter) where a link is duplicated twice in the same section, regardless of whether it is used in a caption or not. The point is, a link may be duplicated in multiple sections, in a caption or any other type of body element. I understand, however, that links are often duplicated in infoboxes found within in a lead section, so perhaps that proves the case in your favor. Then again, infoboxes are quite different than captions. But, I'm curious, why would you want to duplicate a link in a caption and a link in the same section that uses the caption? I can't quite figure that out. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Links should never be duplicated in the same section.: right, which is why I removed the one instance of Maus when you pointed it out. Images are a separate issue, as they are not part of the main text, nor are they necessarily read in tandem with it. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 05:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm a member of the "less links the better" school, as research studies show that online reading comprehension goes down as links increase. There are several reasons for that, but I won't go into them here. Do what you can to address the review and I'll pass the article. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Hello! I work for Art Spiegelman's publisher. Art would like to update his author photo. As a member of his team, i know I am not supposed to edit, but might I be able to connect with anyone who could help me make the change? I have two potential photos, either of which he'd be happy to use.
Prhjclancy: Is there a rationale for why the proposed photos would be an article-improvement over the existing 2007 photo? Also, are you the photographer? Photos proposed by someone who is not the photographer are possible, but complex. As proposed, your request will be denied. First, you have to clear the copyright issue for a specific photo and post the photo at Talk. Keep in mind that images free of copyright mean that anyone has the ability to use the photo, anywhere, not just at Wikipedia. Lastly, see WP:PAID for how to declare your paid connection on your User page. David notMD (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is more recent and more accurately reflects how Art looks today (his appearance has changed quite a bit since this picture). The photo was taken by Art Spiegelman's daughter and given to us with express permission to use for this purpose. Is there any proof that I need to submit to show this is indeed the case? Or can i upload the file and click the ok button for the copyright, given that the photographer has given explicit permission.
I've added a paid connection to my User page. Thank you for advising! Prhjclancy (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prhjclancy, the easiest way would be for his daughter to upload the photo herself to Wikimedia Commons. Only the copyright holder can freely license a photo. This is a legal transaction that cannot easily be delegated to someone else. Cullen328 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The steps are for her to create a Wikipedia account, then search Google (or other search engine) for Wikimedia Commons. Scroll down. Under Participating, select Creating/Contributing your own work guide. Step 4 Uploading/the Upload Wizard. David notMD (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. On her User page, she should identify herself as Spiegleman's daughter, as that is a COI. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you! I will pass this all along. I appreciate your help. Prhjclancy (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what else there is to do here... Marking this request as answered. Thanks! ---Another Believer(Talk) 15:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Fail
Don't know
On hold
After returning to the US, when Mouly ran into visa problems; the couple solved them by getting married at City Hall on 12 July 1977, The same year Spiegelman brought himself to admit to his father he had moved back to New York, and then remarried after Mouly converted to Judaism to please Spiegelman's father.
