Talk:A Contract with God/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll be reviewing these article over the next week or so. It looks really good, and I love the graphic novel and Eisner so I am looking forward to the review.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The first thing I am noticing is that the article has little discussion of the artwork, and no examples of it (other than the cover). I realize it is complicated with copyright etc. but I think that visual examples of the artwork is essential for an article like this to be comprehensive and well illustrated. It is possible to find ways of using non-free artwork in ways that comply with fair use - especially in articles like this were the artwork itself is the subject of discussion. I suggest looking at Jean Giraud for an example of how I have used small excerpts of comic art to support and illustrate discussions about the artist's style. I think that for example some illustrating examples of how Eisner uses text as part of the graphic expression, and how he avoids using frames would be very important for the article. And I think it is possible to do this with a well reasoned fair-use rationale and small excerpts of the artwork (e.g. not an entire page, but a single frame or detail scanned in low resolution). If in doubt I recommend consulting a copyright specialist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added an illustration with a fairuse rationale. Feel free to move or remove it if you disagree that it improves the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm something of a copyright paranoiac, in that I avoid using copyrighted images even when I know they're allowed.  I think I could live with the one you've added.  It'd be nicer if it were in the sepia tones it was originally published in, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a source where Eisner himself talks about the novel and its publication history. It might be useful or it might not. Interesting nonetheless.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Well-written:
 * 2) Symbol keep vote.svg the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
 * 3) Symbol keep vote.svg it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * 4) Symbol keep vote.svg Verifiable with no original research:
 * 5) Symbol keep vote.svg it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * 6) Symbol keep vote.svg it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * 7) Symbol keep vote.svg it contains no original research.
 * 8) Broad in its coverage:
 * 9) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * 10) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 11) Symbol keep vote.svg Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * 12) Symbol keep vote.svg Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 13) Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8]
 * 14) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * 15) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Regarding Criteria 2, I have a few concerns.
 * I think some of the important background information is missing or underexposed. FOr example the two main stories, A Contract with God and Cookalein, a specifically autobiographic. The article doesn't mention any of this either in the background or analysis section. I think this ought to be included. Schumacher has a lot of detail regarding how long for example the question of the contract being broken when good people suffer were on Eisner's mind (since his own daughter's death from leukemia), and he also describes how Cookalein contains many autobiographical elements. Eisner himself corroborated the autobiographical elements in all of the tenement stories, but specifically A Contract With God and Cookalein (which he says depicts his coming of age). The Super, and the Street Singer are also based on memories from his upbringing in the Bronx.
 * Actually, it's the subject of the second paragraph of the "Overview" section. Only "Cookalein" was outright autobiographical—"A Contract with God" was only autobiographical in that it drew from Eisner's feelings about the loss of his daughter (not adopted), but the plot itself is fiction. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what I meant was to give it a little bit more attention. I think most scholars take autobiographical to mean not simply representing the authors life but also the way it relates to details of their lived memory - both the Street Singer and the Super do so (not the plot but the characters). I think the especially situation with Alice's death and how it produced the thoughts that later created the graphic novel deserve more attention.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I also think the article good go into more detail with the books publishing and the difficulties in finding a niche for an adult comic. Both Schumacher and Eisner himself tells of being snubbed by Bantam Books as soon as they saw it was a comic book, and there is also a funny anecdote about how Eisner couldn't find the book in a bookstore that he knew sold the book and they said they had had to remove it both from the "religion" and the "comics" section, to put it in a box in the basement. I think this has bearings on the question of how innovative the work was in its time.
 * The Oscar Dytel/Bantam stuff's there. I've seen the stories in more than one source.  I didn't include them because I wasn't sure if they were really necessary to get the point across, or if they were trivia.  I've added the story now to the "Reception and legacy" section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt consider it trivia at all, it is anecdotal of course but Eisner himself and his biographers have commented on this as something that speaks to the relevance of the novel.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I also think that the question of "is this the first graphic novel" deserves more attention as it is often discussed in the literature. It seems to me that it was clearly the first work to promote itself as a "graphic novel" and also the first work to establish that term as a separate genre. This in spite of the fact that other grapic novels had been published earlier (not using the word) and that the word had been used earlier (but not for a similar work). I think it would be good to describe more how groundbreaking and influential a work it has been.
 * I've talked with peole who raise concerns about this—that the book has been attributed a greater "influence" than it actually had, and that other, forgotten books had more of a contemporary influence on kickstarting the whole "graphic novel revolution". I think sources would be hard to come by (rigour is not a virtue comics "scholars" tend to possess), so I'd rather sidestep it rather than perpetuate what may be a myth. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Eisner himself certainly considered it very groundbreaking and didnt sell it short, but I think the discussion is important to have and it is there in the literature. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the literature that discusses it comes years after the fact and doesn't demonstrate the claims with hard evidence—for instance, by stating that so-and-so was motivated to write graphic novels because of A Contract with God, or that so-and-so incorporated ideas from the book into such-and-such. Comics "scholarship" is rife with unbacked claims—for example, the decades-long claim that the CCA put to death EC Comics, supposedly one of the top-selling comic book publishers, and killed overall comicbook sales.  Well, Jean-Paul Gabilliet went to the trouble of tracking down hard figures, and discovered that (a) EC was never one of the top selling publishers—they didn't even make the top five, and in fact a single issue of Dell's Walt Disney's Comics and Stories had twice the sales of EC entire line for the same month, and (b) sales had begun to fall after 1952, long before the CCA was established.  Quote from Gabilliet: "And yet histories of American comic books have traditionally presented 1950–1954 as the age of EC."
 * That's just one example. Others include the idea that comics is an American invention—a view a "scholar" as prominent as Bill Blackbeard held up to his dying day, despite the mountains of evidence presented even in publications he contributed to.  I don't trust comics "scholarship", so I don't feel comfortable propagating these claims unless the sources can back themselves up.  The early 1980s "graphic novels" I'm familiar with show no trace of Eisner's influence, which isn't surprising when you consider they were sold through the direct market, which Eisner specifically avoided with his book, which by the early 1980s it was out of print anyways.
 * Obviously I have a lot of respect for the book—I wrote the article on it, right?—but I wouldn't be surprised if future scholarship downplays its contemporary impact. Tenebrae has pointed out the impact Sabre had on the development of the graphic novel format, an idea I resisted at first, but the more I look into it the more validity I see in it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur. The "Reception and legacy" section already calls the book "a milestone" in its very first paragraph, and says why, with citing, so anything more would be gilding the lily &mdash; "milestone" is a very significant word. And that same paragraph acknowledges that some have called it the first graphic novel, and that this objectively isn't so: Witness, aside from Sabre, the mass-market paperback Blackmark, or Steranko's Chandler: Red Tide (which used the term "graphic novel" for itself in 1976, two years before Eisner). The paragraph as it stands seems carefully balanced.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My point isnt so much about balance, but about wight. I think the discussion of whether the novel is as significant as Eisner claimed it was is important to the coverage of the work, because it is prominent in the literatyre. I think more views both against and in favor of seeing the work as "the first graphic novel" would be useful. I imagine Gary Groth have had something interesting to say about the issue for example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't come across anything Groth specifically has said, but the Comics Journal did put the book on their Best of the 20th Century list (with a half-page writeup by David Rust)—that's already in the article. And if you're talking about Groth, I wouldn't be surprised if he took a less-than-favourable view of the book—particularly it's melodramatic flavour.  Harvey Pekar didn't like the book—but then he didn't like Maus either.  I think his "analysis" is a little too casual to include in the article, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an archive of Groth's personal Top 100 list. The Spirit's on there, but no Contract. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In the Comics Journal he has a kind of retrospective review of Eisner's work called "Eisner: Chairman of the Board", I believe he mentions Contract there, but I can't access it where I currently am.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Issue #267—unfortunatley I don't have access to that one. It's referenced in Schumacher.  I think Hiding is supposed to have a nice collection of TCJ—I wonder if he's still around and willing to share.
 * I did track down the scathing review Schumacher mentioned that Groth wrote that made Eisner an enemy of TCJ: issue #119, "Will Eisner: A Second Opinion". He rips The Dreamer and The Building to shreds, and also tears down Eisner a couple of notches, but Contract is only mentioned in passing, and with no indication what Groth thought about it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for trying anyway. Maybe it will come eventually.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I also disagree somewhat with the summary of the Super which I think doesn't do justice to the way that Eisner does not simply depict Scuggs as a bad guy, the summary makes Rosie out as the hero, when in fact another reading is that she is the bad guy. The super's job afterall wasn't easy. I think the nuances in this story are lost in the summary.
 * Do you have any suggestions? I find it hard to see how a girl who offers a peak at her panties, poisons a dog, frames a guy for paedophilia, and steals his money comes off looking like a "hero", but as the guy who wrote the summary it'd obviously be hard for me to see where I've miscommunicated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is where I think that it could be good to include commentary by scholars or by Eisner himself on the character development - and the way he doesnt take sides. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I also think that it would be a good idea to include "analysis" and commentary in the same sections as the summaries of the individual stories. For example the authobiographical elements and Eisner's own commentary on the stories could be included with the summary. Then the final "analysis" section could focus on the analysis of the work as a whole. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble seeing how to do this: so much of the "Analysis" section compares more than one story at a time.  Do you have any specific examples of how you would do this? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would keep the analysis section as is, but then in the summary section add any commentary we can find that is specifically about each story. Again Schumacher has commentary on each of them. I am sure more can be found.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've now squeezed Schumacher for everything there is on "The Street Singer", "The Super", and "Cookalein". I think moving the material from "Analysis" would be awkward, but I'm open to suggestions. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd tend to agree, since "Analysis" discusses multiple stories and compares themes, etc. And it just seems handier to have the analyses all in one place.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I also still think that the article would benefit from some more illustrations, they should of course be explicitly discussed in the text, so perhaps expanding a little on the "style section" would allow the inclusion of more images. It would be great with a detail from each of the four stories.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that it would be "great"—obviously it would. I think an image per story would keep me up at night, though.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean for worries about copyrights? You may be right, but I really think there should be ways of doing this. A GA about a novel will of course have quotes, and as long as they are attributed and not excessive that isn't a problem. I think it is sad that comics can't get as good a treatment just because they are visual.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that I'm "worried" about copyright—I know it would fall squarely under "Fair Use" to have several—it's just that my way of thinking is that we should start with zero fair-use images, and only from there start adding images where not having them is a clear detriment. Call it my pinko Free Content politics, and imagine me with flowers in my unkempt hair. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But it is impossible to adequately illustrate the article without using fair use images. Right now there is only one no? I think not having them is a clear detriment - perhaps not one for each story, but there are more points to illustrate about his graphical style than his use of text and windows. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are three now: the infobox image, the image you added, and another I added of Rosie stealiing the super's moneybox. I may replace the last two with scans from my own copy later if I find the time (I'd like to see them both in sepia). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I hadn't looked at the recent changes to the illustrative side. It looks good. I am not completely sure that the Masereel image is necessary, it is a little confusing to have tangentially related art by another artist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think an image of an important precedent is appropriate, though one of Lynd Ward's would've been better. The Masereel is in the public domain in the US (although not in Europe), and Ward's are not.  This was there previously, with a note about Eisner's rôle in the early comicbook world.  Tenebrae removed it, but I'd already been considering replacing it with the Masereel.  What do you think? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's OK, it's just a little distracting to see it before seeing any of the work in question. I think the Masereel is probably better than the Wonder comics one. I'm not going to haggle more about the illustrations, but just note that I would personally like more from the book.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also it is mentioned that Eisner added a page in 2006. That was a year after his death, so either is must have been for a 2006 edition or the year is wrong. Just a minor clarification of wording needed here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed all instances to some permutation of "in the 2006 edition". Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also think that the list of editions is a little disrupting for the reading flow. I would suggest either make it into a table that can float to the right or put it at the end of the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was hoping having it in a subsection would make it as easy to skip as a float. Not the case? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the float, but I´ll leave it to your judgment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way these are not "demands" that you must obey for the article to pass, rather they are suggestions that I would like to hear your own considerations about. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Query: do either of you guys know if the DC or Norton versions were printed in black instead of sepia? My own copy is a Kitchen Sink one.  It just seems strange to me that almost all the images I can find online are in black ink, and I was wondering if it was maybe because the later publishers switched. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll check if I own a DC or Norton version. I can tell you about the original Baronet, if you need, since I have both the hardcover and trade paper. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Those must be worth a pretty penny! I assume they're in sepia, though, as that's what the sources state.  The preview of the Contract with God Trilogy at Amazon is in black ink, a review talks of the "stark, black & white artwork", and another says "The black-and-white illustrations are perfect for the stories", so I assume the book itself is in black ink—disappointing.  Is switching black ink for sepia such a burdensome expense? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This review confirms that the Norton edition, at least, is in black ink. I suppose I'd better add that, but first I'd like to confirm how DC's version was printed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This one says the DC version is in sepia, but many of the black and white images I'm finding are claimed to be from the DC version ...hmmm  Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Tenebrae, how are you with a scanner? I replaced the infobox image with one from the first edition, but I don't think it's the best scan—it's crooked, for one thing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad to give it a try tomorrow. Your scan doesn't seem crooked to me, but then, your eyes are almost undoubtedly younger than mine! : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll only see it if you blow it up and look at the top—there's a space open at the left side but not at the right. Not a big deal, but a nicer scan would be ... uh ... nicer.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Hope it looks alright. I've also added the back cover, for reasons given in the caption. (I pulled out my hardcover, which has no artwork on the cover, while I was pulling out the trade paperback, and was delighted to see something I'd forgotten -- that it's #800-something of 1,500 signed copies! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am very happy with the work th has been done on the article through this review, and I dont think I have the imagination to invent a good reason for wh the article shoudnt pass the GA criteria. SO I am going to pass it shortly. Well done!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Indentation
I've just been reading this useful and intelligent discussion...on my smartphone. It gets very hard to read when 10 or 12 or more levels of indentation compress the text into lines only 6 or 8 characters wide. And the basic problem is exacerbated by indenting by several levels at a time; please don't do that.

I've added several outdents to the discussion and reduced the subsequent indents accordingly. --Thnidu (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to keep in mind. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree and haven't taken offense. (Great username btw, and I love the Gasoline Alley illo!) --Thnidu (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's lovely, innit? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)