Paul Kane

I think this is ready. Got a good suggestion in the peer review that I complied with as good as I could. Maybe a true art historian could have done better... Anyway, I believe this article is way more comprehensive than the Feature at The Canadian Encyclopedia, and might even rival Harper's entry for Kane in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. I would normally have given it more time before placing it here, but I'd like to get this done before I have to return the books to the library. Lupo 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a very good article, and well worth holding up as an example of good practice. Although I have only been able to get hold of two of the referenced books, I can readily see that the source material has been used appropriately. I personally found the use of pictures to be both illustrative of the text and indicative of the scope of this painter. Well done, please do forward for a front-pager. --HasBeen 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two books would be the Eaton/Urbanek and the Garvin one, I suppose. Those are the two I have. I have not been able to lay my hands on Harper (U of Texas, 1971), which is why it's listed under "further reading" only. The other ISBN just gives the full source where the on-line version of the Heirloom thingy came from. What really bugs me is that the ROM has apparently taken down its great online exhibition on December 31, 2005! I'm leaving the link; it's still accessible of sorts through the Wayback Machine. Lupo 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not only does the article set a good example for a Featured Article, the images in the article are excellent examples of correct copyright tagging as well.SoothingR 11:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Actually, tagging was easy, as all but one are ((PD-art)), and I always give the source as precisely as I can. Mentioning the museums where the originals are located is common courtesy. Lupo 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well done. Rlevse 13:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yes, nicely done, and quite an interesting topic, too. Thanks for sharing this element of Canadiana with Wikipedia. jengod 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Seems a good page. Aspern 21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent article: a comprehensive biography of his life and legacy. Well researched, well written, and from what I could see, well formatted for Wikipedia. My only comment (not strong enough for an objection) is that there is very little information on what his contemporaries thought of him, and perhaps where he "fits" in terms of other well-known Canadian artist (did any of the Group of Seven artists have any thoughts about his work, one way or the other, for example?) And by the way, you may be interested in knowing that the new gallery of the First Nations at the Royal Ontario Museum which opened last week has put all of the works they have together in a single display, possibly a couple dozen paintings or more. Captmondo 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Kane's exhibits were highly successful at the time and lauded by several newspapers, and he dominated the art scene of Upper Canada throughout the 1850s. I can add something to that effect (with sources). (Done. Lupo 08:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)) On the Group of Seven, or rather, placing him more in context in Canadian art history in general, please see Renata3's excellent suggestion in the peer review and my answer to that. I'm neither Canadian nor an art historian, nor do I live in Canada, and thus it is very difficult for me to find the sources that would be needed to do that. Perhaps a Canadian could help out? (Again, see the peer review for a book I think would be helpful for this.) The comment on the ROM is interesting; maybe they will put up a new online exhibition with some info on Kane, too. Lupo 08:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per my comments on peer review. Very very nice. Renata3 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]