Wikipedia:Peer review/Dream of the Rarebit Fiend/archive1

Dream of the Rarebit Fiend
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the last while greatly expanding, reorganizing and fully referencing it with the intention of submitting it for FA.

Thanks,  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 07:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is fascinating stuff, and well-written too.


 * "24-year-old McCay had married 14-year-old wife": We'll have to say "a 14-year-old woman". It would be nice if we could name her and discuss, however briefly, how they met or the circumstances of their marriage, given that her youth makes it seemingly unusual.
 * Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Originally, McCay had conceived" --> "McCay originally conceived" works a little better, I think.
 * Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I recommend putting a period after this bit where there's currently an em dash, separating it into two sentences.
 * Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "in the originally proposed strip, a "dope stick" fiend finds himself at the North Pole, unlike to secure a cigarette and a light.": Recommend removing "originally" to avoid repetition. Also I think "unlike" should be "unable".
 * Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Typically, the strip would begin": Recommend converting this and what follows to the past instead of the past conditional, so "Typically, the strip began" ... "which progressively became" ... "Some situations were merely silly" ... "Other times, they were more disturbing" ... "characters found themselves" ... "a child's mother was planted and became a tree" ... "In some strips, the Fiend was spectator". Also, there's a period where one isn't needed after "dismembered or buried alive (from a first-person perspective)"
 * In these cases, "would" is not the conditional but the Imperfective aspect (describing something done habitually).  —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "In 1905, McCay would have the character" --> "had the character" etc.
 * Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "with characters sometimes referring to McCay's alterego "Silas", and (more rarely) to the reader": Rephrase per WP:PLUSING. Easiest way would be to make it a separate sentence.
 * Done. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Background" section I think should include the number of strips McKay drew.
 * I'm not sure if there is a count for this—he did a lot of one-shot and other short-lived strips. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The rest of it looks ok. Now some broader comments:


 * We don't discuss in too much depth how the strip was received at the time of its publication. It may be good, if possible, to get in some of that. We get that it was a success, but given its unusual themes I thought maybe there were some more detailed reactions to include. Was it shocking to audiences of the time?


 * I think it would be nice if the Overview section had a firmer chronological footing. Did the strips evolve and become more surreal/bizarre over the years? When were the strips discussed in this section published? Also, are any of the strips cited as McKay's best or most significant? If so, I think it would be useful to include a description of these.
 * I've seen a couple hundred of the strips (they're all out of copyright and are available online), and the strip seems to have been pretty bizarre from the get-go. I can't say that it got any weirder, and none of my sources say anything on the subject.
 * There are many sources that talk about specific strips, but (in the sources I have access to) none of them are really referred to as "best of"-type strips. McCay is typically seen as being prolifically full of ideas, producing multiple strips simultaneously as well as his animation and "chalk talks".  It always seems to me that different strips are used to illustrate articles on Rarebit Fiend, so there don't seem to be any that are "canonical".
 * I'll see what I can do about some of the dates. —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article looks to be in good shape. I think with some massaging it should be ready for a GA review and eventually FA. If you want to get to FA, I think it's going to have to be a bit more comprehensive, i.e. it should contain more granular detail about the history of the strip's publication and which of the strips were most important. I also think the "Legacy" section could go into more detail; it seems at the moment that its influence is mostly indirect. In other words, the producers of King Kong weren't directly inspired by the strip. But perhaps there were other cases where it was cited as an influence. I hope this helps.


 * The influence does appear to be mostly indirect. McCay's Little Nemo was a far greater success, appeared (in full colour!) in a newspaper with a far greater circulation, and has been comprehensively collected many times.  Most people who are aware of Rarebit today found out about it through Nemo.  As a result, it's something of a connoisseur's strip, for people already well familiar with McCay's other work.  Of course, I'll include anything I can find, but Rarebit doesn't tend to receive quite as in-depth scholarship as Nemo does (with the exception of Merkl's $140 book, which I am unable to get my hands on.  I've asked at WP:CMC about it, but have gotten no response).  —Curly Turkey (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

--Batard0 (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)