Talk:Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Comics was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-01-14
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article was a former Comics Collaboration of the Month. (10/10/2005–25/10/2005)
To see how the article improved click here.
Comics is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Please add new topics at the bottom of this page.

Contents

[edit] Related articles

I don't think we really need a list of Related Articles here. Most of the articles listed are already ref'd in the body of the text, so the links are redundant. The remainder (European comic, List of... articles) are I think of secondary interest to this article specifically, and they are linked to (one hopes) on the ref'd pages (e.g., comic book links to list of comic books). So I think the Related Articles section can (and should) be removed. -mhr 21:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The reason I thought that the related links section would be helpful...I think some readers don't entirely understand that this article is just the most general article on the subject. By making that clear, I hope to keep the article free of issues specific to comic books, strips, etc. I don't know, maybe it's redundant but I think it's a useful map to get readers to the information they are interested in. Let's have a few others comment on the list before axing it. ike9898 21:38, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
If we end up keeping it, I think we should pare it down a lot. Probably to just comic book, comic strip and sequential art. But in general "Related articles" lists strike me as being contrary to the spirit of hypertext systems like Wikis, and in this particular case I think the intro paragraph makes it pretty clear that "comics" is a superset of comic books and strips (I would rather keep working on the into to make this more clear, rather than falling back on a list). -mhr 21:49, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Writing at the same time you were, haven't read your comment yet)

I've massaged it a little more. I think it shows the relatedness between the concepts in a slighly different manner than the text does. I'd like to let this table mature a little longer. Then if there's some agreement that it's not very helpful, I won't object to it's removal. ike9898 21:52, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A complete mess ?

I have started a discussion about merging in some way this article Comics and Comic books, in this latter talk. Go and see there if you feel like saying something.

[edit] Fumetti vs Fotonovelas

If Fumetti is the english term for comics based on photographics, and fotonovelas another word for the same think, shouldn't it be wise to have one single page (Fumetti) with redirects from fotnovellas to it ? Lvr 14:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds right. Rand

[edit] Singular or Plural?

Boy howdy, the usage "Comics is" does not correspond to what I've read and heard for going on three decades of comics reading. But Tverbeek thinks it's smart, and helpfully explains it in the article:

"Note: Although it takes the form of a plural noun, the common usage when referring to comics as a medium is to treat it as singular."

It may be a common usage, but if so the plural usage at least as common, therefore describing _A_ common usage as "the" common usage is inaccurate. I'd also question if certain usages can't be mistaken, or whether popularity is infallible.

One way to settle a common usage question is the way dictionaries do, by finding citations by representative authors. Both "comics is" and "comics are" exist. I'd expect the "is" camp follows the eccentric lead of the underground "comix", which used slangy mispellings in the same ostentatiously unconventional way heavy metal bands and packaged comfort foods do.

There are terms denoting topics that are both singular and plural, "physics" -- nobody says "physics are", but nor does one hear "movies is".

Other singular and plural terms like 'physics': 'civics', 'ethics', 'semantics', 'food', etc.

Terms like 'movies': (the) 'talkies', 'videos' (as in 'music videos'), 'morals', 'books' (in the sense of a literary medium), and so on.

I'd say any usage with a logically implied singular noun where 'comics' is its virtual adjective, are OK. Example:

 "comics is such a visually-oriented medium"

...because 'comics' means 'the medium of comics'. But Tverbeek's own:

  "Comics is called manga in Japanese"

...is wrong, because there's nothing to hook 'the medium' on to -- nobody says 'the medium of manga'.

Generally 'comics' is short for 'comic books' or 'comics strips' -- the actual collective whole thereof; making it short for 'the comics medium', (the ideal abstract of anything the medium might contain), is an ambitious novelty.

How goofy it would sound if 'cars' were used to denote the 'medium of cars as a form of human expression in industrial design'. 'Cars is called kuruma in Japanese'. Yech!

Before reverting some of the 'comics' text, I'll wait at least few days, to see who cares to refute this.

-AC 11/1/04

Gee willikers, I've been reading 'em longer than User:AC, if that matters.

I can live with either approach; I was aiming for consistency within the article, which is something Wikipedia policy encourages.

I was also aiming for consistency with how other creative media are referred to. Painting is singular; cinema is singular; fiction is singular; poetry is singular; graffiti (a plural form) is singular. (Heck, even media is commonly treated as a singular noun, even though it's not.) You will also find that topics such as ethics, forensics, and physics - when discussed as abstractions like we're doing with the medium of comics - are treated as singular nouns. (e.g. "Physics is the study of...")

Cars are not generally regarded as a creative medium; they're things; automotive design is the corresponding creative medium. While comic books and comic strips are things, the medium they use (that whole "juxtaposed pictorial and other images..." concept) is not. There are separate articles for comic book and comic strip; they are not the topic of this one, which is (as it says up in the disambig comment) about the medium or art form. I'm sorry that a word ending in s has become the popular term for that medium, but there is it. Personally, I do kinda like the idea of distinguishing between the things and the medium by spelling the latter as comix, but I'm not going to shove that down anyone's throat here.

Finally, whether common usage is "mistaken" or not is not for Wikipedia to judge. Take any arguments about how things ought to be elsewhere; I try to.

Tverbeek 01:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dunno "Tv"... "ought to be" is pretty much the whole comics article, it's a patchwork of controversy. AC

Regardless, the very name of the article assumes that "comics" is a singular noun, since Wikipedia article titles aren't supposed to be plural. Tverbeek 01:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's kinda begging the question. "Since we do it, therefore it must be right, or we wouldn't do it."

Which might be a moot point. What does this sentence mean:

  "Comics is called manga in Japanese"

1) Comic books are called manga in Japan. 2) The Comics medium is called manga in Japan. 3) The Art form of Comics is called manga in Japan. 4) Both comic books and strips are called manga in Japan.

I think you meant #2, but the back cover of Schodt's book says:

   "Manga means "comics" in Japanese. In Japan, manga are read by young and old and are a monster publishing phenomenon with annual sales in the billions of dollars."

That looks as though Schodt meant #1.

I certainly wouldn't know if #2, #3, or #4 were correct. Calling any Manga experts...

AC

I agree that there's a need to clarify that point (it might be that in Japanese "manga" refers to both the medium and comic books) but the use of the singular with the term "comics" (meaning comics the medium) is as far as I'm aware standard practice - I'll check up on McCloud and Eisner tonight and should report back within the week — Kwill 15:44, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, Manga could mean all of 1#, 2#, 3# & 4# as well as meaning "Cartoon", although I heard there is also a particular word for comic strips.
All kinds of comics and cartoons (including animation), as well as the medium or the art form (although manga are generally viewed as a medium to tell a story rather than an art form), can be referred to as "manga" in Japanese. The specific word for comic strips is "yonkoma manga" ("yonkoma" means "four panels").

McCloud's definition of "comics" specifically classifies it as a noun, "plural in form, used with a singular verb". Agree with him or not, his book set the vocabulary for pretty much all serious discussion of comics since. It may not have any bearing on everyday conversation (McCloud admits as much in the book), but this isn't a conversation; it's an encyclopedia article. Tverbeek 21:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Art form vs. medium

Anyway, here's something else to chew on that I'd sort of noticed before but hadn't quite managed to articulate:

   "Comics (sometimes spelled comix) is an art form..."

Now, is the first thing that people should know about comics is that it's an "art form" or a "medium"? Sure it can be BOTH, but which is primary?

That is, an "art form" alludes to the good stuff, the canon, (or canons), while a "medium" also refers to the other 99%. The telephone is a medium, but few would call it an art form -- and yet conversation can be an art and some telephone conversations probably are too.

Of mediums and art forms, 'medium' is the more abstract term. Whereas art forms are the quintessence of "ought to be". Surely we comics buffs prefer the art form to the medium, or is there some sort of McCluhan style meta-esthetic going one here, where mediums are like musical instruments each with their own special moods...

Also I'm thinking parts of the present article should be moved to Wiktionary definitions. British usages, for example.

(BTW: I wrote "going on 30" but meant "30+". D'oh!)

AC -11/12/04

  • OK, I've edited it to say both. Tverbeek 01:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But should it say both? Which is primary?

AC -11/13/04

I would suggest that "comics" refers primarily to the medium, and that "art form" is a subset of medium (i.e. worth discussing in this article) — Kwill 15:44, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


I think it's still contentious that comics is the art form, as opposed to the art form being sequential art or graphical narrative, and comics being a medium, and I think this page should be edited to reflect that and also the sequential art page reinstated to reflect that. I don't think the use of art form and medium for the term comics are established in the public consciousness as well as supporters of the view that comics is an art form believe. Steve block 07:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other "comics"

  • AC commented: Reverted to 'stand-up'. Googling for "comics the performers" showed no other online usage.
  • What does that prove, except that it's not a widely use phrase? (Did you google for "comics the art form" or "comics the medium"?) It's a meaningful way of distinguishing that kind of "comic" from the other kind of "comics" being discussed in this article. (Tjough on further consideration, I think "entertainer" would be a better distinction.) Stand-up comedy may be the most common variety, but not every comic does it. This is why the phrase "stand-up comic" exists: to distinguish the variety of comic who gets up on stage and tells jokes, from the kind of comic who does improv, or slapstick, or talk shows, or sitcoms, or movies, etc. Tverbeek 01:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I'd bet money those three words "comics the performers" were never before strung together. Perhaps not coincidentally the phrase "entertainers known as comics" has 0 Google hits as well. They are original.

Your examples are either vague or aren't in wide usage enough to bother making a distinction over. An 'improv comic' (e.g. Robin Williams, at times) usually is a stand-up comic, not an actor. A 'slapstick comic' is a rare breed nowadays. A comic turned talk show host, (e.g. David Letterman), is a host who does stand-up. Comical movie and stage actors are comedians -- they act in a comedy, which is a branch of drama, hence the "ian" suffix indicating their subordinate status as part of a team that tells a story. Whereas comics tell jokes, do bits, schticks, or just ramble.

I appreciate the thought behind trying to do the right thing by being as general as possible, but it's too much of a good thing. Generality costs -- it slows prose down, as does pointless novelty. Abstraction assigns one's facts as little branches in a particular "tree of knowledge". If the tree falls, the prose becomes incomprehensible. This unfortunate point is itself probably too general for a talk:wiki.

In closing: "Tv" your prose corrections are, at present, overprecise. I dearly wish you'd refrain. It's nothing against your unique knowledge of the world -- keep those facts coming. And I like comics! It makes me sad to think that somebody curious about comics might read a wiki comics article and be repelled by its erratic and dorky style. So I'm trying to hack away and change that, but the forces of dorkiness may prove too potent for a lazy man.

-AC 11/13/04

[edit] Links to other Languages

Danish and Norwegian spell the word tegneserier, not tegnerserier. These links doesn't work, and this should be fixed.

  • I've changed them to Tegneserie (the form preferred on the Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias. Next time you see a typo, why not just go ahead and fix them instead of commenting about it? Tverbeek 12:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought I needed a login name for that. I might get one later...

[edit] Pamphlet or Magazine?

I am at a loss at the claim that describing the traditional comic book format as a "pamphlet" is disparaging. It seems to me like a value-neutral description of the format, and more accurate than "magazine." Indeed, in the history of the US comic book industry, the distinction between coimic books and magazines is important (re: the applicabilty of the comics code, postal rates, and distribution networks). I suggest that the decription be reverted to "pamphlet," unless somebody can find a still more precise term. In any case, I'd appreciate it if the person who so quickly reverted that would explain why he or she thinks "pamphlet" is disparaging--maybe there's something I'm missing.--BTfromLA 04:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, the term pamphlet in reference to comic books got started on the Warren Ellis Forum (I don't know if Ellis himself introduced it or not; it wouldn't surprise me) where it was used to emphasise how thin and ephemeral individual issues are. It's a propaganda term used mostly by people who prefer the graphic novel format and think of the chapter-a-month format as a sad little holdover of an obsolete publishing model. Publishers and retailers do not use the term in describing their own product; on the contrary, some of them have objected to it, precisely because they feel it's pejorative. I've never met a comic book reader who was offended by magazine, but I know a bunch who dislike pamphlet. Meanwhile, comic books and "regular" magazines are substantially the same format: paper covers, usually (but not always) staple-bound, and published periodically. The only format difference is that comics usually have different dimensions from a standard magazine. Other than pamphlet failing to capture the periodical nature of most comic books, either dictionary definition could apply to them. And as a practical matter, which term is the average Wikipedia-reader more likely to recognise and understand the meaning of? I'll bet nearly all of them know what a "magazine" looks like, but most couldn't describe a "pamphlet" in concrete terms. Tverbeek 13:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I had no idea that there are bunches of people who object to "pamphlet" when applied to comic books. Still, I'm unpersuaded about its use here. I think the internet discussion you cite is pretty esoteric, and in any case it sounds like the objection has to do with the word's effectiveness as a marketing term, which really shouldn't bear on "NPOV" encyclopedia articles, should it? I don't have a citation handy, but I'm pretty sure that I've seen "pamphlet" used by comic historians to describe the comic book format (and I wouldn't be surprised if librarians use it). Pamphlets have a long and distinguished history (think of Thomas Paine), and if the word suggests "thin and emphemeral individual issues," isn't that accurate? (I assume we're trying to describe the "classic" mid-century comic book format--Superman or Archie, say--the many exceptions, variations and hybrids are more properly discussed in the comic book entry.) "Magazine" is misleading, both because of the history that I allude to in my post above, and because of what the word conjures up in the head of that hypothetical Wikipedia reader you invoke; in a US context, I'd suggest the "average" reader is likely to think of magazines like National Geographic, Vogue, Playboy, Scientific American, The New Yorker--none of which are in the format of a comic book. If pamphlet suggests smaller, fewer pages, cheaper paper... it does the job. You can easily enough add a line about the periodical nature of many comic books if you think it needs it (I don't--again, there's a seperate comic book page for a more detailed history).--BTfromLA 22:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it isn't a marketing term; it's an anti-marketing term. It represents the POV of those who think they're too short and inconsequential, not those who actually publish or read them. Citing Paine as a pamphleteer just underscores why the GN crowd uses it: pamphlet makes it sound quaintly old-fashioned. Look, I happen to agree with the opinion that they're mostly too thin and ephemeral... but I hear my fellow travellers sneering "pamphlet", and I watch friends who (for some reason) still love the things bristle at the word, and I see that it's not the neutral term you assume. As for history... while you think you've seen "pamphlet" used, "magazine" has at times been the standard industry terminology for them. (Read DC lettercols in the 1970's, and it was "this mag", "that mag", "Superman's hot new mag", etc.) The U.S. Library of Congress describes the publication format of comic books as "magazines". [1] As a matter of fact, the USPS classifies them the same for rate purposes. (But really, how are distribution methods and the Comics Code relevant to a simple description of their physical format?) Frankly, I don't understand at all how you declare categorically that magazines and comic books are not the same format. Here on my dinner table I have new issues of InfoWorld (business computing magazine) and Lackluster World (indie comic book), and here's how the latter compares to the former: width 87%, height 98%, thickness 100%. It also has two staples instead of three. The cover stock is a little thicker. How is that fundamentally different? I see far more variation within "magazines" than between them and comic books. "Magazine-format" is an easily-understood, inoffensive, traditional, shorthand description of the class of comics that fall between "strips" and "novels". I've explained why some people object to pamphlet as POV terminology. What exactly is the problem with magazine, that it cannot be used instead? Tverbeek 01:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We've expended more than enough energy tussling over this word. Briefly, I think "anti-marketing" and "marketing" mean the same thing for these purposes--they are part of the marketing discourse, and my understanding of what Wikipedia is for has nothing to do with honoring (or dishonoring) the wishes of an industry under discussion. In other words, the idea is to provide accurate descriptions, not to flatter or attack the object of a given description. Thanks for that LOC definition, it is shockingly inept ("comic books are periodicals of pictorial fantasy"), though they do indeed use the word "magazine" (I think they actually categorize them as "serials." I've also seen them kept with "artist's books"). I think "pamphlet" is more precise for reasons I outlined above, but if you feel this strongly about it, magazine it is.--BTfromLA 02:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More about Manga

Do you think this page should link to japanese "Manga" or not ( since that IS the main word for all sorts of comics in Japan?)

The japanese page seems to be all about japanese comics, though, (although the japanese Wiki has pages about Amekomi (American Comics) and BD (French Comics) as well...)

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%BC%AB%E7%94%BB - (Manga) http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A1%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9F (Amekomi) http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.D. - (Bandes Dessinées)

I think this usage is a little weird, when one sub-style has grown so popular it has become an alternative style all over the western world. Uh, hope you understand me... (Hook)

I'm not quite clear what you mean about the weird usage, unless you are reacting to the fact that one style of comics (called "Manga" in the west) is referred to by the Japanese term for all styles of comics. But that is the standard usage, like it or not. My first response to your question about the Japanese links is no--I think that links to non-English language sites should be very rare, since they are unintelligible to most readers of the English Wikipedia. I suspect there is a policy about this, though, if you poke around or ask some of the more involved Wikipedians at the community portal. --BTfromLA 18:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that was what I meant... What do you mean by "rare"? Only one link per language or what? (Hook)
I guess by "rare" I mean that it should be limited to special circumstances--maybe you'd link to Japanese sites in an entry about the Japanese language, for example. There may well be some wikipedia policy about this; I'm just responding off the top of my head. But my 2¢ is don't include any such links; it's an English language encylopedia. --BTfromLA 01:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I thought abot the links to other language Wikipedias at the side.

[edit] WikiProject on Comics

Hello, everyone. I've just created a project called WikiProject on Comics in order to establish consensus on the organization and content of articles related to comics and sequential art. See the main project page and please leave comments on the Talk page. Thanks! -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eisner, Sequential Art & Comics as Art Form

I've altered the comment which stated that Eisner called comics sequential art, because I can't find the reference in either of his books. He does however call comics a form of sequential art. I think it is worth having the sequential art page back as a seperate page, because the vocabulary that is being defined on this page still isn't defined as such outside of this page. Eisner's Graphic Storytelling, which was issued after McCloud's Understanding Comics still doesn't refer to comics as an artform, but rather a medium, preferring instead to cite the artform as being Sequential Art.

I've amended the text to make it clear that the idea that comics are an art form rather than a medium within which art takes place is not as clear cut as it was first presented.

I've also added references to Eisner's books, so people can check what I've added. I'd be grateful if people could also add references likewise. I'll add a reference to Understanding Comics anon. Steve block 12:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

There is something I can't puzzled out.
At one time, you said "Will Eisner called comics a form of "sequential art" ", which means to me taht comics are an artform. Later, you said "Eisner's Graphic Storytelling ... still doesn't refer to comics as an artform, but rather a medium"... I'm not sure to undertsand Eisner's position !! If we say that comics is a medium, do we mean that comics is a sort of generic name for all the physical mediums (comic books, web comics, ...) ? Aren't we back to the confusion between the medium (comic books, for me) and the art form (comics) ? Nice job, tough. Lvr 11:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Good catch. I was editing between doing other things and missed it in a further read through. What Eisner says is that "comics employ a series of repitive images and recognizable symbols. When these are used again and again to convey similar ideas, they become a language - a literary form, if you will. And it is this disciplined application that creates the 'grammar' of Sequential Art." That seems a bit bulky to fit in the page, I'll have a think and see what I can come up with. Okay, I've amended the text, and also amended McCloud's definition to better reflect what McCloud said after checking my copy of Understanding Comics. I think that it's McCloud's equating of the word comics with that of Sequential Art that creates the whole problem over the form and the medium, and a skim of Understanding Comics in the last two minutes leads me to believe McCloud preferred the term Sequential Art as the defining one for the art form. Steve block 13:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Comic Collecting

I reverted this edit because I think the information is not best placed on this page, and is covered better on Comic book collecting Steve block 20:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artistic Techniques

With the related articles part, I know we have a page on the speech bubble already, and a damn good one it is too, but with the other techniques, my feeling is it would be better to have one page detailing all of them all of them. The only problem is, what is the best name for the page? Comics Devices? Comics Techniques? Comics Terminology? Thoughts appreciated. Steve block 18:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, browsing the French wiki, stumbled across fr:Naissance d'un album de Tintin, which is basically the creation of a Tintin album from start to finish. Is it worth having a similar article on the comic book here? Steve block 18:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Creating a Tintin album" is a much more specific topic than "creating comics", and therefore far easier to write a "this is how it's done" article. Although the comic book industry has some typical production methodologies, they don't really apply to how the strip industry works, and when it comes to the indie and GN auteurs out there... fugeddaboudit. I'm not sure Wikipedia should be getting into "how to" articles in any case, just because they're so prone to difference of opinion over what method is "best" (e.g. full script, or plot-art-dialog?) A primer on the basic vocabulary/grammar/elements of comics sounds a little more practical, though. Tverbeek 20:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, a section or article discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each method, giving prominent users and products of said methods as illustrative examples, would be informative, as long as it didn't cross the line into original research or POV. -Sean Curtin 21:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't meaning to say we should have one on creating comics, per se, rather that the french article is following the creation of a Tintin album to show how comics, well, bande dessinee, are created. So it could be done with a specific comic book or work, if we could find a reference work to break it down. However, a page that examined all approaches wouldn't be a bad goal in the long term, expanding off the info here under artristic medium perhaps. But I'll kick it back into the long grass for now. No thoughts on a name for a vocabulary page yet? Comics vocabulary/Comics grammar? Steve block 06:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] História em Quadrinhos

"História em Quadrinhos" is the term used on my country - Brazil. The Portuguese people use the term "Banda desenhada", a translation of the french "Bande desiné". --Marc Sena

[edit] Transwikied Content from b:Comic

In his classic book "Comics & Sequential Art", Will Eisner defined comics as "sequential art". This definition was later expanded to "juxtaposed pictorial or other images in deliberate sequence" by Scott McCloud in his book "Understanding Comics : The Invisible Art".

In a nutshell: an artwork that uses the progression of space to indicate sequential progression is a comic. Note that this definition expanded understanding of the term "comics" to incorporate a number of artworks not commonly thought of as comics, such as the Bayeux tapestry.

The term "comic" originates from a colloquial shortening of the adjective "Comedic" as early newspaper comics tended to be comedic in nature.

It is common for modern comics to utilise a combination of pictorial elements with text, although this is not a requirement.

Over the past century, comics have generally been created for mass consumption. An interesting side-effect of this is that, in order to speed production in the larger comic companies, the job of applying ink to sketches has become separated from the job of drawing them and is commonly performed by a dedicated 'inker' rather than by the original artist. Independent comic artists, and artists from smaller companies often ink their own sketches, however.

Comics reputation as cheap mass entertainment has been reinforced by the fact that comics have historically been produced using comparatively poor quality paper and inks. However, comic production standards have risen dramatically since the early 1990s, resulting in a matching increase in cost. As a result, their status as mass entertainment has decreased, and they are increasingly valued as collectibles.

The American comics industry is largely dominated by superhero comic books and the newspaper "funny pages". However, there is a niche market for comics of other genres (ranging from science-fiction to historical to biography). In Japan (where comics are referred to as 'manga') all genres are widely available and manga make up a sizeable proportion of all paperbacks sold.

[edit] Transwiki History

00:16, 19 December 2004 203.113.235.149 (wording tweak)
09:07, 9 December 2004 203.113.235.149 (Clarified that inking often isn't a separate job in smaller independent works.)
01:44, 9 December 2004 203.113.235.149 (Modified to distinguish comics as an artform from common comic genres.)
18:49, 29 November 2004 DanHoelck

[edit] How to improve the article

There was recently some discussion about this article over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, and I thought I'd post the suggestions I made there also here: Okay, just from the first couple of sections:

  • Why is there a logo for comics?
  • I personally prefer the explainaition from Comic over the first sentence of Comics, because comics don't necessesary need text.
  • The paragraph about comics in different languages might be more fitting in the Etymology section.
  • What's so signifacant about Gary Groth renaming The Nostalgia Journal to The Comics Journal?
  • In the Definition section, a little explaination of what Will Eisner's Comics and Sequential Art actually is would be nice, before saying that it doesn't define the term.
  • The 20th Century sections seems pretty much focused on US comics.
  • Several sections use Capitalisations that should be avoided (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalisation)
  • The article needs more images

As I said before, I didn't read the entire article yet, I'm sure there are some more things to improve. --Fritz Saalfeld 09:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sequart?

This is the first and only place in the world where I've seen such a word. I am sure after discussing it with some friends that, yeah, nobody uses this word. I propose that the "sequart" thing be removed from this entry. Unless someone can point me and the rest of the world to a serious article written by an authority on the subject of comics that states that "sequart" is an appropiate way to address comics. 168.243.222.168

Right here in a major column[2]... or here in Comixpedia[3]... or here as noted by The Comics Journal[4]...
I remember when Sequart was first suggested and am somewhat amazed it's still being pushed as a serious thing. It's probably worth keeping in the article though, if only as an illusration of how unhappy many aficionados are with the innacuracies of "comics" and "graphic novels", though they tend to get over it in time. Peteashton 15:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It's rare but I have heard it, especially in certain circles where comic book fandom combines with academic interests. It is a good illustration of the debate, if nothing else. Hawaiiancomics

[edit] Collaboration of the Fortnight

Any thoughts on how to improve the article? Steve block talk 19:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

From the first glance, the last three points from the How to improve the article section above still count. Especially images (the one in the section Artistic Medium is ridiculous!), I think. Also, the history part in the lead seems out of place and to a certain extend even contradicts the History section.
Artistic Medium needs to be expanded, possibly into something like the sections Stages of filmmaking and Film crew of the film article.
I also think some of the stuff under Related Articles could be omitted, especially if it's not directly related to comics (several of the Genres, for example)
All in all, the article seems pretty much focused on comics in North America, and might need a wider perspective.
List of comics collections should in my opinion be moved to Comic book collecting, as it's more related to collecting, and basically just a list of links, anyway.
Then there are some minor Wiki standards: Bibliography and Endnotes should probably be merged into one References section (see Wikipedia: Footnote3 for example) and Related Articles renamed See also.
--Fritz Saalfeld 20:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The amount of references and notes need to be drastically reduced. There are examples of paragraphs that have one (sometimes even two) notes per sentence. Using this many references actually makes the article less verifiable, since using too many sources makes it that much harder to check out. Most of the information in the article can most likely be found in less than ten separate sources, be they printed media or websites.
The amount of notes should be kept to a minimum, since things like footnoting quotes that are already cited in-text (notes 5, 51, 7, 9-11, etc) or extremely obvious or easily references fact statements (notes 20, 23, 25, 31, etc) don't add much except a lot of footnotes that break up the prose.
Personally, I think most of the discussion in "Definition" is overly specific. The section really only concerns itself with quite extreme minutiae. "Sequential art" and other POV:ed buzzwords intended to propel comics as a "serious" form of art and literature (instead of improving the reputation of the existing term) should be integrated in other sections or removed altogether.
I'm also growing more and more skeptical to keeping comic strip separate from comics. The two terms don't differ except as dictionary definitions. EB even keeps the main article at "comic strip". Encarta has its main article at "comics", and only keeps "comic strip" as a dicdef. And, mind you, both these examples are of online encyclopedias, one of which is by now a pseudo-wiki, so this is not merely a matter of paper vs non-paper. As encyclopedic concepts they are for practical purposes identical.
Peter Isotalo 09:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I'm in favour of keeping a comic strip article seperate, for two reasons. Firstly, there's enough material to warrant a seperate article, and secondly it seems this article is more geared towards the art form rather than the publication format. However that said, I think the article should summarise the comic strip, the comic and the comic book. I'm not sure how important it is basing our article on how Encarta or Brittanica do it, I believe Kunzle wrote the Britannica article and I'm not sure if it predates the shift in terminology that happened with McCloud. I don't mind either way what happens to the footnotes, I'm still unsure of what the conventions are in that area so I'll happily follow on from what people do, although I think all the works should still be referenced somehow since they are all references.
I'm not sure the definitions section is overly long. The debate still rages over what the correct term is, with some scholars preferring Eisner's Sequential Art to McCloud's comics. I think it has research value and it isn't point of view to say McCloud took Eisner's term, that's what he does in Understanding Comics, he details it himself. I think the section offers up a good grounding in the ongoing controversy surrounding the term, and I believe we are supposed to cover and represent such controversy rather than take one side or another.
On the French wiki there's an article on how Herge created Tintin which it would be lovely to have translated and see if it would work herein. That might address the stages of comic creation somewhat. There'salso informatipon scattered in Comic strip creator and Comic book creator that could potentially be merged back in depending on people's thoughts.
As to images, it wpould be lovely to get better images that are wiki compatible. Anyone know where to get them from? Steve block talk 10:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Steve, what do you mean by "wiki compatible"? Aren't we free to use comic book covers and scans of strips or entire pages quite freely as fair use?
Peter Isotalo 10:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Comic book covers we are yes, but I thought Fritz was looking for images of comics creation and the like, which are less likely to qualify as fair use. As to scans of entire strips and entire pages, there's been a lot of debate on that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use and Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. It depends on the usage, and we've consensually tended to lean against entire pages so far. Steve block talk 11:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that comics and comic strip should remain split. Comics is more general about the art form while comic strips - as I understand it - is a term only used for short comics. (However, I think one should merge comic strips with daily strip and sunday strip - but here's not really the right place to discuss that). --Fritz Saalfeld 14:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The "art form"-defintion is as far as I know Steve's idea. I'm changing the disambig notice back to the non-commital wording I used before. It could very well be misunderstood as excluding the status of comics as a form of literature.
But as far as strips go, how do you define a "short comic"? The division seems awfully subjective to me, and I assume that's why EB and Encarta didn't make the distinction. If you want to insist on keeping them separate, you need to find support for it outside of dictionary definitions.
And merging comic strip with this article is definetly not a problem since a lot of content is very similar and this article really isn't that long when if you exclude all the lists which are going to have to be removed if we're to get up to FA standards. Also, the article appears longer than it is due to all the one-sentence paragraphs.
Peter Isotalo 19:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
You're right about the disambig notice, it's better your way. I just removed the "Comic redirects here" bit as it seems irrelevant in that context.
I think the lead of comic strip pretty much explain that the term refers only to "short strips" "published on a recurring basis", while comics takes a much broader approach. And generally, the term comic strip is only used for these newspaper strips (or similar strips published online, etc.) No one would call Maus a comic strip. If comic strips were to be merged with the comics article, comic book, graphic novel, comic album, webcomic or any other form comics could take would have to as well. --Fritz Saalfeld 20:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Fritz, all those examples are of physical mediums. What separates them from one another is that they are differing printed manifestations of comics. I can see no support for separating "comic strip" in this manner. I'm aware that "comic strip" used in speech or running text can refer to a single sequence of panels, but only confirms it's status as a dictionary definition. Technically, any comic contains comic strips, except that they differ in length. You need to support the separation of "comic" and "comic strip" as encyclopedic concepts with external sources, or the article will be hopelessly POV:ed. Both Encarta and EB believe the difference is purely linguistic, and the same seems to be true for dictionaries like AHD. Just have a look at the entries for comic and comic strip.
If you want to insist on the term "short comic", you need to establish the validity and reasonably objective notion of the term, which I really doubt is possible. I mean, where do you draw the line? One strip? A page? A few pages? Is Bloom County a short comic when it's just a row of panels, but not when it's a full one-pager? The difference is at best arbitrary.

Peter Isotalo 09:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't call webcomics a physical medium. Second, comic strip, the way it is used - as you said - "in speech or running text" and in the article comic strip, describes a certain form comics can take, that of a serialized set of short episodes (sorry for using "short" again), usually printed in newspapers or magazines. I listed the others because, in contrast to that, they are other, longer forms to tell a story as comics.
I think the equation that comic strips = comics made in many dictionaries comes from the way the term comics evolved from strips in newspapers (or rather, is said to have evolved from that. I read that actually "comic" for sequeantial storytelling comes from "comic page", which was used before "comic strip" appeared). In contrast to the encyclopedias you listed, I think most secondary literature that deals with comics, Scott McCloud for example, differentiate between comics and comic strips the way it's currently done here.
I can understand that you have a problem with the definition of "comic strip" because "short" is such a vague term (I personally would probably include anything up to one page), but I don't think merging the two articles is the right solution. These are two terms that describe different things, even if some dictionaries might not make that distinction, it is made in secondary literature, in the comic industry, etc. --Fritz Saalfeld 10:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Peter, it's not my idea that this page is about the artform, and a quick glance through the history of the page should quickly disabuse you of that idea. Note also Fritz supports that view, as do others in conversations above on this very page. As to what to do with comic strip and comics, I'm not sure it's cut and dried that Technically, any comic contains comic strips, except that they differ in length. Many scholars, Harvey amongst them, believe cartoons are a form of comics. Cartoons are not comic strips, since a comic strip is technically a strip, a sequence, and cartoons are standalone. One could publish a comic consisting of The Far Side cartoons, and these cartoons, technically, are not a comic strip.
Also, there's the thorny issue of language usage. In the United States a comic strip is used to describe a newspaper strip such as Doonesbury, whereas in the United Kingdom the term is used as a variation of strip cartoon, and thus the length does not matter, barring the minimum of two images.
If you accept the consensus that seems to have formed within this pages history and in the talk archives of WP:CMC that this article is regarding the form of art and literature, then it appears that it discusses a different thing from that which you believe it to do so, in that it does not discuss the comic, but rather comics.
I think I've also pointed out that Kunzle wrote Britannica's article, and it is dangerous to accept his voice as sole authority, especially as scholarship in the field has moved on. The terminology has evolved within the years that article was written, and I believe there is a page on Wikipedia somewhere which details areas where Wikipedia exceeds Britabnnica. Perhaps yu could detail where inpolicy it dictates that we should follow Britannica's article. As the article sources and shows, these terms are controversial and as policy dictates, we are behooved to discuss that controversy. Is it possible you yourself are following a point of view?
Also note the argument that You need to support the separation of "comic" and "comic strip" as encyclopedic concepts with external sources is flawed, since this article isn't actually about the term comic, but rather the term comics. The term comics is as distinct from comic as physics is from physic. As I have attempted to explain elsewhere, if you wish to write an article on the publication format comic, it is best placed at comic, and not at comics, an article discussing the art-form variously defined as detailed within the controversy section, where it is also well sourced externally. Steve block talk 11:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
As to the validity of having a seperate article on comic strip, it makes sense to do so if only to delineate the difference between a comic strip and comics as seems to be occurring here. Britannica probably makes a good external source to support an article oncomic strip, and how about this as further discussion on the term comics. Steve block talk 11:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From the lead

Is there a source for this claim? Originally used to illustrate caricatures and to entertain through the use of amusing and trivial stories, Topffer and Hogarth are usually regarded as one of the originators of comics, and I question the validity of the claim in the context of their work. Steve block talk 11:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume that "originally" here refers to the "American origin" of comics at the end of the 19th century, rather than Topffer and Hogarth... Maybe we should append it to the last sentence of the lead: "[...] originated in the United States in the late 19th century, where they were originally used to illustrate caricatures and to entertain through the use of amusing and trivial stories [...]", or something like that. --Fritz Saalfeld 14:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 21st Century

Um ... it's the 21st century now -- aside from the R. Crumb exhibit, is there nothing noteworthy fromt he last five years? I was about to split the 2005 entry off into a 21st century heading, but decided to wait, as Crumb's workis 20th century, even if the exhibit wasn't. Scix 05:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point. There's a bit that could be said about the rise of the graphic novel as a format, with book publishers coming into the field, and also the recent runb of films based on comics, but again that all happened in the latter part of the 20th and this forming period of the 21st. Steve block talk 13:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giulio Chierchini

Have somebody read the Donald Duck stories by Giulio Chierchini that includes the character Little Gum? These stories often have very special colors. How is these colors made? By using computer or is it done by hand? It is a long time since I have read some of the stories, and I can't find any examples of them on the net. One of the very few examples on Giulio Chierchini was this image; http://www.fumetti.org/img/chierchi.jpg .

I wouldn't be surprised if he first did a b/w outline with ink, (sketching out the rest of the page, like the tower and walls in the picture) and later painting the scenery with oil paint or acrylic paint or something. But that's just a qualified guess. 惑乱 分からん 19:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing: Comic book culture

I am impressed by the quality of the article - inline references are a good thing. With some expantion and copyedit I think we could push this article towards GA/PR/FA. But for now, there is one gaping whole: almost nothing about comic culture, comic fandom and comic store. See this excellent book for more info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've got Comic book collecting and Direct Market, which kind of cover similar bases, but yeah, I can see articles on those topics. Not sure about the POV of that book though. There's a few other good articles and works kicking about as well. Steve block talk 22:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have names/links to those other articles? I would be interested in reading them. Btw, do you know any good publications that can be used to expand the hobby shop and game club articles?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Tom Spurgeon has written on Team Comics a few times, one of his essays is up at the Comics Journal website, that's the best you'll get this time of night. There'll be more in the Journal, see also the comics research bibliography. Hope that helps. Hobby shop and game club I am clueless on. Steve block talk 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Tnx for the tips!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category talk:Comics

Comments on new category appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phrasing regarding definition

Can anyone rephrase the sentence "However, it is worth noting that both definitions are lacking, in that the first excludes any sequence of wordless images; and the second excludes single panel cartoons such as editorial cartoons"? As it is, it seems awkward. Most who use the words/picture definition are probably willing to admit that there are cases where words aren't necessary (Marvel's 'Nuff Said month, for instance). However, those who say comics are sequential often intend to exclude single panel cartoons. Thus, that statement comes off as something like saying the definition of a cat as a domesticated feline is lacking because that definition excludes dogs.

I can't quite understand your point. Why does it need rephrasing, if it is verifiable? The cats and dogs analogy makes no sense, given neither definition has primacy and given proponents of both definitions have made the criticisms presented against the competing definition. R.C. Harvey has clearly stated the flaws with both definitions. I can't quite see what is awkward, and I can't see that we can ignore stated flaws on the basis that maybe those supporting the definition believe as you state. On what do you base your view that whilst one side is rather fluid, the other is rather rigid in their respective definitions? Steve block Talk 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be really nice if we had a catagory or list for major comic book stores.

[edit] Trajan's Column

I was just wondering if Trajan's Column deserves a mention an a precedent for more modern comic form? The spiral reliefs certainly qualify as a sequential graphical story. Gaius Cornelius 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hieroglyphics etc.

I'm not an academic but I'm a long time comic reader and I took my share of art classes in college. I've read Understanding Comics, but I don't have any impressive citations; my opinions are mostly formed from my understanding of common usage and from what I've read in this and other articles on Wikipedia. What I'm about to comment on is in relation to a few different points brought up in different places, but wouldn't as a whole fit in response to any particular point.

It seems to me the entry for "Sequential art" should be revived and should be used as a collective term for all comic-like media. By "comic-like" I mean media that portray narratives through a succession of images. This excludes all single panel illustrations (e.g. many political cartoons, the Far Side) because they can only depict a scene- they're not really any more narrative than a traditional single-scene painting.

This definition emphasizes the narrative aspect of "sequential art" which I think is important. I'd argue that sequential art is primarily a form of literature. It's somewhat unique in that it relies on pictures as much as, or more than it relies on words. But if you plotted literature on a graph, you'd have a continuum between literature with all words, and IMHO literature with all illustrations. At one end you'd have lengthy books with unillustrated covers, then you'd have books like Lord of the Rings with a few illustrations and maps, then more heavily illustrated books with many pictures, most comic books which rely more or less evenly on text and picture, children's books which tend to emphasize the illustrations over the text, and finally at the other end you'd have stories told entirely with images.

Obviously the attention to the detail of the visual art inherent in most sequential art makes it an important part of the work, but I'd argue that visual art is subsumed into the larger literary work in the same way theatrical productions incorporate props, backdrops and costumes. And like drama (a form of literature) becomes a performing art when it is acted out, sequential art becomes a performing art when it is animated.

So if we revive the entry for sequential art, what happens to the entry on "comics"? In the US "comic" and "comic book" are synonyms. I think the two entries should be merged (someone already suggested on the "comic book" discussion page). And the merged entry should be described as a medium because like newspapers and magazines, comic books are a kind of periodical. This would require changes to the "comics" entry. For one thing, the reference to comic strips, 15th century Europe and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics need to be removed because they're not a kinds of comic books. I'll remove the reference to hieroglyphics myself, because (regardless whether you agree with me about reviving "sequential art") hieroglyphics are a kind of writing system, not a way of illustrating a story. If you're looking for a very early form of sequential art I suggest the Sumerian Standard of Ur or (as Gaius Cornelius mentioned) the later Trajan's Column. --24.115.80.11 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Although you've removed the hieroglyphics text, you're actually wrong to do so. Whith Wikipedia, we don't write according to our opinions and what we think, but we source what we write in other people's works. There's a lot of books on comics which make the exact point you've just removed, so it's a sourced and referenced point. For a quick read on our policies you might want to read the five pillars. I don't agree that this should be merged with comic book, the term comics is now used to define the form rather than sequential art. Whilst your arguments are appreciated, please note they can play no form in shaping the article, that's not how Wikipedia works, per our policy on original research. I'm no academic either, just someone who loves comics too. Steve block Talk 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history

It seems like the history section could be expanded a bit, particularly for the 20th century, since there doesn't seem to be a dedicated history article for comics. At least some of the major comic book publishers and when they really came into their own should be mentioned (when did comic books get really popular? at least one more sentence about the golden age would be nice), and editorial cartoons aren't mentioned in the history section. Just a drive-by comment... but nice work! -- phoebe 08:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How-to

Hey, I dont know if you want this so I am adressing this on the talk page first, but at my webcomic site I have a step-by-step on how I make a comic and other Behind the Scenes stuff. It applys to how most comics are made so i thought this might be a good EL. Obviously, I cant add it myself, becuase it would be self-promotion... but take a look: http://justoutside.smackjeeves.com/buffer/ --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 23:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 14, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Failure Point 2: The article has average prose; although it is comprehensible, the text is not "compelling" as WP:GA? requires.
2. Factually accurate?: No problem here: plenty of sources provided, and there appears to be no obvious errors in the article.
3. Broad in coverage?: Again, this is not a point of failure for the article.
4. Neutral point of view?:
5. Article stability?
6. Images?: Failure point 2: two images are nowhere near sufficient for an article of this length; in addition, the captions are quite short.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Anthonycfc [T • C] 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Since the article can't fail on the images, it basically failed because of your opinion that the text isn't compelling. Fair enough. I really think good articles is an idea whose time has come and gone, because basically this is a good article, it just isn't quite good enough for you. All these processes are getting far too subjective and filled up with ring jumping. Sorry to sound off, it's just becoming more and more bureaucratic and inane around here. It's probably best for this article to skip GA as well and go to FA in the long term, they at least give you pointers and attempt to help. Steve block Talk 21:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "It's just becoming more and more bureaucratic and inane around here...these processes are getting far too subjective and filled up with ring jumping". I echo your sentiments over the past couple weeks. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, and I usually find they happen when people act unilaterally than seek to discuss. However, I am perfectly happy to discuss any issues I have with Wikipedia, always have been always will be. Steve block Talk 13:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The artical may have well failed because of its length. Its too long, in my opinion. I'm going to check some external links that could shortin the page's quality. Unforgotten 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links consensus

If there is agreement that there are unnecessarily many Exlinks (in line with guideline ..should be kept to a minimum), and some can go, might we come to an agreement which those would be? Or do they all shine clear of WP:EL#Avoid and pass criteria:

  • Is it accessible to the reader?
  • Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
  • Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
    or
  • Contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article..
  • Have other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

What say you? MURGH disc. 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I would say that it is high time that the exLinks got cleaned up, here and everywhere, really. Without having gone through every link, two strike me as needing to go right away: Mobile and Digital Comics (commercial site, no encyclopedic value) and Silver Bullet Comics (added by a single-purpose account by the name of SBComics (Contribs) not long ago; although it does appear to be a established site with lots of info, it also has a significant commercial element to it). Keep up the good work. -- Antepenultimate 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The artical may have well failed because of its length. Its too long, in my opinion. I'm going to check some external links that could shortin the page's quality. Unforgotten 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Adventures of Tintin, a recent FA, was 10K longer when it was on the front page. There may be sections here that need shrinking or removal (just like others need expansion), but I don't get why this article doesn't get the GA label and something like Albrecht Rodenbach (an article with only one section!) does... Fram 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't have failed, realistically. It was just one person's opinion that the prose was average, and that was something it could be failed on. Length has nothing to do with it. That siad, the article could stand some work. I'll try to get to it and see if it can't get featured sooner rather than later. I think the body of the work is there, it's just dressing it that will be the problem. Steve block Talk 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's very close. That crit isn't too far off though, when pointing to the scarcity of imagery (in such a visual topic) and how it doesn't fully exploit its potential in that aspect to illustrate the subject matter. The main top bulk of text has an unfinished feel to it too, that will benefit from shape and text fine tuning. Maybe look into how the bottom half feels like it peters off into a glossary of many very short sections. Noone's giving up on FA I hope?
—MURGH disc. 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War II period

Research conducted by Charles Swanson shows that between 1939 and 1950, the comics were the most widely read part of the newspaper (excluding the World War II period).

This is an odd claim. World War II extended from 1939 to 1945, excluding about half of the stated interval. Is this meant to refer to the U.S. involvement in WWII, 1941-1945? That's still a significant chunk of time. Clconway 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is weird. No doubt an US exclusive, but "the World War II period" isn't a very precise way of putting it. The intent is to exclude December 1941-45? This Swanson research ought to be sourced. MURGH disc. 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7EComics_1aed.html"