Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
A silly thing to argue about, but I really think the initial image should be floated again. On widescreen monitors (by far the most common way that computer users access our articles these days) the current arrangement results in a huge amount of superfluous whitespace which gets worse as resolution increases. Conversely, on mobile devices, the mobile skin already copes perfectly well with the image without having to use {{wide image}} (contrary to the assertion in the diff that restored it, the image is shrunk to fit in this case rather than a scrollbar being added). The only use case where floating causes potential problems is on desktop browsers with a horizontal screen resolution of less than a thousand pixels, which has been a minority for well over a decade now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that with the mobile skin—I had my mobile browser set to display the desktop site, as I find the mobile site too limited for my needs. The only other issue is that it's recommended not to set the size of floating images because it overrides user settings. The image as-is is "unreadable" at the default size, so I'll try to find a better image that conveys both the idea of the medium's sequnetiality and looks nice a t the default size. Curly Turkey (gobble)20:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That recommendation does allow for exceptions where the image contains detail which would be obscured at lower resolutions. I reckon you're fine embiggening it back to 500px, but if you want to stay strictly within what the guideline says then 400px is permitted for lead images. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 15, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:
1. Well written?: Writing quality is good enough for GA. I'd watch for run-on-sentences, overusage of commas and semicolons, and stuff like that for future copyediting. Consider a peer review where you solicit input from previously uninvolved editors, and/or WP:GOCE.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. I very much like the citation style and formatting used.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all major aspects in detail and yet at the same time not overly-detailed. Quite accessible for the reader, I like this style.
4. Neutral point of view?: Neutrally worded tone, no issues here.
5. Article stability? No stability issues after inspection of article edit history and talk page history going back over one month.
Fine job overall. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
