1. The Creation section seems to be very tangential to the topic at hand. It reads more like an article on the career of Harvey Kurtzman than it does the history of this work. While the two are definitely linked, I think this section could be pared down a bit.
Hmm ... I see little information that could really be dropped, but I think the prose could be tightened if the first paragraph were rewritten. I'll take a stab at it—ping me if I forget. Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You got at least seven days so don't feel too rushed. I agree, I think the main problem is that first paragraph needs to be tightened up a bit. Maybe think about a {{See also}} or {{Main}} that links to Harvey Kurtzman as a lot of the information is important to the life of Kurtzman but a little more trivial to Little Annie Fanny. Wugapodes (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes, thank-you very much for reviewing the article! I have been waiting a while for this moment. By now I assume you have read my comments in the section you started at Curly Turkey's talk page.
I see your point, there is a lot of material there, although I already tried to keep the pace moving as quickly as possible. It is humorous that you are essentially saying too much research was undertaken as opposed to not enough. I'm afraid I essentially disagree with your observation as I believe it is important that we establish Annie's roots in Goodman Beaver, Kurtzman's desperation, and especially his working relationship with Hefner that lead to Little Annie Fannie. I like the idea of a See also template here but I don't think it would work in practice as there is no "History of Harvey Kurtzman" article; the template would just say "See Harvey Kurtzman" and his name is already linked. I have managed to trim a little bit more and I hope you agree to accommodate the result. Prhartcom (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is weird to be saying that there's too much information. The revision is definitely better, and after a few more readthroughs and your comments, I realized my initial impression was a little harsh. I left it unstruck as I think that some thought should still be given to maybe incorporating more of that into either Kurtzman's article or perhaps its own article if Goodman Beaver is independently notable. None of that needs to be done or decided immediately, but it's definitely something that should be given thought, especially if that section starts to grow. Wugapodes (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see a couple of issues: was Hefner "forced" to fire anyone? According to the Fantagraphics Humbug, Trump sold well, and Hefner may have had other reasons to fold the magazine. Also, I don't think it's necessary to list all the cartoonists Kurtzman took with him to Trump, aside form Elder, obviously. I can see some other details that should be included: Humbug was edited out of the Playboy offices, which Hefner provided to make up for canceling Trump. I'm going to take a stab at this paragraph and post what I come up with here. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's my first crack at it:
Little Annie Fanny began as a male character. Harvey Kurtzman founded the satirical Mad in 1952. An early fan was Hugh Hefner, a one-time cartoonist who founded the men's magazine Playboy in 1953. He offered Kurtzman a place in the Hefner empire, which Kurtzman took after leaving Mad in 1956 over an ownership dispute. He took most of the Mad artists with him, including frequent collaborator Will Elder, and began adult-oriented humor magazine Trump. Though it sold well, Hefner ran into financial problems in 1957 and shuttered the magazine afer only two issues. Hefner provided office space for the artists from which they self-published another satire magazine, Humbug, in 1957–58. It failed to find an audience, and a dejected Kurtzman worked on a variety of projects over the next years. In the book Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book (1959) he introduced the innocent and idealistic Goodman Beaver, a character who continued to appear—with artwork by Elder—in Help!, another satirical magazine Kurtzman founded in 1960.
Kurtzman had continued to correspond with Hefner and with Playboy executive editor Ray Russell, who was interested in Kurtzman's suggestion of a comic strip that would appeal to Playboy's audience. Single-panel cartoons were an established part of Playboy, but a comic strip was not yet considered respectable and had to be justified. Kurtzman submitted some Goodman Beaver strips and was surprised to receive a favorable response from Hefner, who liked the "fresh and eager" character, and enjoyed "Goodman Goes Playboy", which depicted a boisterous romp in the Playboy mansion. Hefner nevertheless insisted that the material was not right for Playboy, but aked for an explanation of the character and suggested, "Maybe there is a way of launching a similar series ... that can somehow be related to Playboy". Kurtzman replied, "Goodman Beaver's reason for being is ... a character who could be foolish and at the same time wise ... naive yet moral. He innocently partakes of the bad while espousing the good. That way, I can simultaneously treat foibles and ideals. He's a lovable, good-natured, philosophical idiot. He's restless. He wanders and can show up anywhere. He's young and can get involved in sexy situations. (That last sentence was for you.)" A week later, Kurtzman wrote Hefner again: "What would you think of a girl character ... whom I could apply to my kind of situations?" After six weeks, Hefner replied: "I think your notion of doing a Goodman Beaver strip of two, three, or four pages, but using a sexy girl ... is a bull's eye. We can run it every issue."
I guess it's a bit of a radical change, but not as far as I'd like to go (I'm not a fan of the quote-heavy style). It's a bit shorter, yet contains some details that I think are significant (like the Humbug guys get Playboy office space, which emphasizes the contnuing relationship between Hefner and Kurtzman). By the way, Prhartcom, I think I predicted to you that Kitchen was going to reprint Annie Fannie as part of his Dark Horse Kurtzman series. He hasn't said he wouldn't, but it looks like what's next on the plate is even better: he's going to bring Trump back in print for the first time since 1957. I don't see preorders yet, but the quote is that he is "actually starting Trump shortly for Dark Horse". Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes, I have returned from some RL and am working on this offline again. I also like much of what Curly Turkey has written as well. I am inventorying what was added and what was deleted, and I am adding back a little bit of what was deleted. We need to provide reliable sources, page numbers, etc. to any fact that was added, Curly Turkey, can you provide this? I have returned to working on this offline Wugapodes, and I do not expect to delay you for very much longer; thanks for your patience. Prhartcom (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course—there's nothing in there that's not already sourced in one of the Kurtzman-related articles (most of it's already in this one). The stuff about Hefner giving them office space is in Benson & Groth, p. x, the self-financed bit Benson & Groth, p. viii. Just ask me for anything else you don't see the source for and I'll slap it in for you.
Wugapodes, I have completed editing this section. Curly Turkey, you were right about going easy on the quote-heavy style. This section now reads quicker, the information flows easier. I had to take a break to take care of business in RL but also to allow the new writing that was not my own to grow on me. I now see how this edit improved the article and I am grateful for the assistance of both of you. Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Curly Turkey, that is exciting news about the upcoming republishing of Trump. I will definitely buy a copy. Keep me in the loop as you hear more. I found Humbug on Amazon, I didn't know it was available, and even used is pretty expensive, unfortunately. Prhartcom (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that $100 version on Amazon is actually the signed and numbered version—I don't know why the regular version isn't showing up in a search, because accoerding to Fantagraphics, it's still in print. Keep in mind, it's a two-book hardcover set in a slipcase, so the suggested retail price of $60 isn't that bad—somehow I managed to snag a copy a few years ago (still in the shrink wrap!) for $20. You should keep an eye peeled—Fantagraphics really knows how to put together an archival collection. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. When it came time to name the feature, Kurtzman's suggestions included The Perils of Zelda, The Perils of Irma, and Little Mary Mixup, until finally Little Annie Fanny, the title (and logo) a take on Harold Gray's Little Orphan Annie. Feels awkwardly worded. Is there a better way to phrase it?
3. Her character remains sexually innocent, however, oblivious to the worldliness around her. She is the morally upstanding Goodman Beaver character who came before her, a modern Candide, remaining above the story's corruptions and temptations. Unlike Goodman, however, Annie is never shocked or offended; she remains blithe. There are two problems with these sentences that I have:
A. It uses "however" in two sentences in a row that makes it sound awkward.
4. The Reception section needs to be modified to comply with WP:Inline citation and criterion 2b. The source should be cited immediately after a direct quotation so that it is clear where the quotation comes from.
There are those who vigorously dispute that interpretation of the MoS (it's not explicit); I'm an adherent to that interpretation, though, so I've gone ahead and vandalized the article with "redundant" citations. If Prhartcom doesn't like it, we'll just have to editwar over it. Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for the observation; this is fine with me. I removed two of the new redundant citations as the quotes they cite are actually two quotes from the same person that are adjacent to each other, therefore both can be acknowledged with one reference. Prhartcom (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Comics expert Don Markstein professes the comic "reached a high point seldom achieved by cartoon art." I'm wary of the term "Comics expert" especially since the sentence isn't cited. Does any source call him such? If so it should be cited, if not it should be removed.
Here I am only identifying the professions of the source authors as I introduce their names to the reader, such as comics commentator and comics editor, but I can see that comics "expert" could be problematic (although I have used that term in an FA). Markstein was indisputably an expert, but I like Curly Turkey's more accurate comics "historian" better and have made this change. No, I have no source that identifies him as either. Prhartcom (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think historian is better, as that's rather apparent from his body of work. Also that similar language has been used in an FA is telling that it may not be too much of a problem in the future. You may still think about looking at Don Markstein's Toonopedia for sources that call him a historian or expert just in case it does become a point of contention. But I'm fine with the wording as it stands now. Wugapodes (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Curly Turkey. Wugapodes, I put together this reference, but then stopped short of adding it to the article. I just don't think it is important to add another book to the bibliography just to prove Markstein's profession. That would almost be like another article saying, "And actor[5] Tom Hanks said ..." or "Chancellor[5] Angela Merkel remarked ...". It's good to know we got it right calling him as a historian; let's just leave it at that.
6. Art agent and publisher Denis Kitchen[...]. Underground cartoonist Robert Crumb, whose career Kurtzman helped launch, scorned both Playboy and Annie. The focus of ire of these devotees, continues Kitchen, is on Kurtzman's employer Hefner... The second sentence breaks up the continuity of the first and third, and doesn't seem to add much where it is, especially since the third goes back to what the first sentence was talking about. I recommend moving the second sentence elsewhere so that the Denis Kitchen quote and "Kitchen continues" are adjacent.
This is an excellent observation; the Crumb sentence is indeed in the wrong place and the Kitchen sentences do need to be adjacent. I have moved the Crumb sentence immediately after the earlier Spiegelman sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'm not quite sure that the photo of Denis Kitchen is in line with WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. He's not the subject of the article, or the author of the subject. I can understand it as he handles the author's estate, and that the section discusses him. I guess the question is What information does the image convey that would be lost without the image? I'm not entirely convinced there is any, but I'd be willing to hear arguments for inclusion if anyone has them.
The article wouldn't suffer without it, but it is rather sparsely illustrated. It would be much better if we had free images of Kurtzman and Elder. But having the image of Kitchen (who has played a prominet role in Kurtzman's legacy) is better than the expanse of whitespace that would be the option. I've uprighted the image to make it a little less in-your-face, though. Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your comment down here because this seems to be the comment you were addressing (hope you don't mind). Anyway, I'm still not 100% on keeping it in, though I do agree an expanse of white space is worse than having a tangential image. Perhaps a {{quote box}} would be useful in breaking up the white space? The image mostly serves as a means for conveying the quote in its caption, so this way we get the best of everything, I feel. Give it a thought. Wugapodes (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I struggled to illustrate this article. Admittedly, a random reader made your same observation on the article's Talk page (or perhaps this is where you got the idea?) I truly do understand and would like to agree with this observation, but please consider: Other articles on Wikipedia have illustrated the Critical reception section with the image of a critic (i.e. here). I could argue that an image of anything else would not be appropriate. This particular person is the most important Annie Fanny critic. These images do exist, if this is helpful. I wish I could find a free image of someone reading or discussing Annie Fanny but I have looked and can find none. As for the quote box idea, sure, I have used that before, I could completely give up and do that (I don't see how it is the "the best of everything"), only if you very much insist. Prhartcom (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Kitchen at NY Comic ConHmm, I'm still not entirely sure. If we are going to keep a photo here, I think a different photo would be better. Looking at Tintin in Tibet which you linked, the critic has a microphone and the photo contributes to the idea of critique and reception. I think if the photo at right were used, it would be better. The current photo looks like a dust jacket photo, and makes me think of him as the author. The photo linked makes him seem much more like a respected critic and thus contributes more to the article. What are your thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean; I dislike the "dust jacket author" look this image has and I like the "respected critic with microphone" look. (But note how the Goodman Beaver article has an image in its Reception section that is rather a mixture of both.) Curly Turkey, do you think the image to the right would look okay in this article? Prhartcom (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(optional)The article uses "women's lib" to refer to the Feminist movement. Is this because that is how it is referenced in the comic or source? If not I feel it may be better to change it to "women's liberation" or simply "Feminist Movement" so readers can understand it without needing to click the wikilink.
"Women's lib" is too informal, but I've stuck with "women's liberation", as that's the term associated with the age (it wasn't referring to suffragettes, say). Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine. FYI, "women's lib" is the term used by the source, and I even remember it was the term widely used to refer to this topic at the time, but I see this is never mentioned in the women's liberation article and agree that it is certainly informal (in the same way that the term "Obamacare" is informal but is the term widely used for that topic). Prhartcom (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Optional)You will probably want to be consistent with your quotation style, sometimes the punctuation goes inside the quotation mark, other times it is outside. I'm not partial to either one, but it should be consistent.
I am a huge fan of consistency. However, I believe logical quotation, which we use here on Wikipedia, does not demand consistency, but states, "include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the original quoted material, but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks."(Notice I used LQ just then.) I have reversed the one LQ error that Curly Turkey just introduced. I see that Peer reviewer does not report this so I believe we have caught them all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the letter but not the spirit of LQ. The question to ask is whether the punctuation logically is punctuation the enclosing sentence, or the quotation. If you'r providing a full, gramatically complete quote, it makes sense to provide the punctuation that terminates that quote. If the quotation is a sentence fragment, you have to ask what you are conveying to the reader by including the terminal punctuation: why are you telling the reader the sentence fragment ended here in the original? for instance, take the quotation: "I thought it was wonderful." You could quote it as: He said, "I thought it was wonderful." Or you could write: He found it "wonderful". In the second case, you're incorporating the word "he" used, but the punctuation logically belongs to the enclosing sentence. It would be "correct" in a hairsplitting sense to quote it thus: He found it "wonderful.". But why are you telling the reader that the original quotation ended there? After have excised the entire rest of the quote, why include the punctuation? Certain not for "fidelity" to the original—particularly if it were a quote from an interview, in which case the interviewee never would have "said" the period; it would have been added afterwards by an editor or somebody. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On Hold Overall, this is a very good article, though there are a number of changes that I think need to be made before it is promoted to GA status. I'm placing the article on hold for 7 days to allow time for edits, which can be extended depending on how work is progressing.
(In case anyone's wondering why Curly Turkey's responding above, it's because Wugapodes asked me to pitch in as I've contributed to the article and Prhartcom appears to be on break). Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed editing this article (see my latest comments above) and await further comments from the reviewer. Thanks very much for your reviewing efforts. Prhartcom (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listed Congrats on such great work. I think this article is well on its way to WP:FA status. I'd recommend a proper copy edit before an FA nomination because, while the prose is good, it could still be improved to make it more compelling. Thanks both of you for being so responsive in the review process, and be sure to keep up the good work! Happy Editing, Wugapodes (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
