Talk:Goodman Beaver

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goodman Beaver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I'll be glad to review this one. I'll do a close readthrough of the text, noting any initial issues, and then begin the criteria checklist. Looking forward to working with you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

• "in which he crams every panel with as much humorous detail and throwaway gags as his pen will allow" -- is Elder still active? This sentence moves from past, to present, to future tense, which is a little disorienting. Maybe just lop off the "as his pen will allow", which is a bit metaphorical anyway (is he really limited by the capacity of his pen?)

  Done. He died in 2008, and I've fixed the tense and dropped "his pen would allow". Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• " throws a modern spin" -- modern is ambiguous here since it presumably means 1960s, not 2010s-- would "1960s spin" be an acceptable way to describe it?

  Done. Changed it to "modern 1960s spin". Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "which simultaneously satirizes Cold War tensions[16] and sets out to deflate the deluded ideals of do-gooders." -- is it the parody or the original show that does these things? The parody, I'm assuming, but it's a bit ambiguous in the sentence.

  Done. Rearranged the sentence. I think I gotten rif of the ambiguity now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Shortly after, Kurtzman began working for Hefner again, which some consider ironic in light of the Faustian theme of "Goodman Goes Playboy", as Little Annie Fanny is often thought of as a compromise—virtuosic in its visuals, but lacking in content in comparison to the Goodman Beaver stories." -- consider breaking up this long sentence.

  Done. I've broken it into three sentences. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• " They placed sixty-fourth " -- is "they" Elder and Kurtzman, or the GB stories specifically?

  Done. The GB Stories. Kurtzman actually place five times on the list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This article looks very strong on a first pass, so I'll go straight to the criteria checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Criteria checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall very strong. Spotchecks of available sources show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Great selection of relevant panels from the comic.
	7. Overall assessment.

Did "Goodman Goes Playboy" really lead to Little Annie Fanny?

I would like to get to the bottom of the question of whether or not Harvey Kurtzman's "Goodman Goes Playboy" really lead to his creation of Little Annie Fanny, as this article asserts. I'm not sure we can really say that. From Denis Kitchen, one of the only sources on Kurtzman I currently have (ref here), we know "Goodman Goes Playboy" certainly was created "well before" Hefner agreed to do Annie. We can deduce that Hefner read it mere days after that (Kitchen says Hefner green-lit "Annie "the day after Christmas" 1961; Hefner would not have seen the Goodman comic until the following month, allowing for it to appear on newsstands a month before its publish date of February 1962). Even if Hefner somehow saw his friend's comic a few days before he told him he would publish Annie, the two had been in discussions for years leading up to those crucial days closing 1961/opening 1962. Unless we have a source otherwise, I believe the Goodman comic and the creation of Annie are two separate things, one really having nothing to do with the other. Prhartcom (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misreading. It wasn't "Goodman Goes Playboy" that got Kurtzman the job at Playboy—he'd been negotiating with Hefner since 1960 (see the "Publication" section) to have Goodman Beaver as a regular feature in Playboy. The fact that Hefner thought "Goodman Goes Playboy" was funny is incidental. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, good. Then let's take out the two words "led to" that I have an issue with. (Meanwhile, the Little Annie Fanny article that I am focusing on says this too, and I will fix this same problem there.) Prhartcom (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Argh—that was stupid. Now fixed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's more information on this question that I only just this moment read. Nine years after writing the source I mention above, and after reminding us that "Goodman Goes Playboy" appeared in late 1961, Kitchen & Buhle in 2009's The Mad Genius of Comics state, "Hefner, the actual target of the satire, loved the piece, and his subsequent correspondence with Kurtzman led to Goodman's 'sex change' and the 1962 debut of Little Annie Fannie in Playboy" (emphasis mine). Dang. And they even say it "led to" Annie. Now it looks like I have to allocate space in the article to discuss "Goodman Goes Playboy" and write words saying that it was influential in the creation of the strip. Prhartcom (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I think it's a bit ambiguous, though. The correspondence had commenced before "Goes Playboy", and it says the correspondence led to the sex change, but it doesn't explicitly say that "Goes Playboy" led to the correspondence, just that the correspondence that led to the sex change idea happened subsequent to Hefner's having seen the strip. I mean, if you read the Goodman Beaver strips, there's nothing new in "Goes Playboy" that I can see influencing the idea of the sex change. I do think it's highly probable Hefner saw the strip long before publication, though—after all, Kurtzman was trying to sell it to him. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That a good observation; I see what you mean. Hmm. Well, I'll think about it. Maybe I should mention the piece anyway. I can just see some editor complaining that it wasn't mentioned. Prhartcom (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You could word it something like "Following the publication at the end of 1961 of the last Goodman Beaver story, "Goodman Goes Playboy", Kurtzman and Hefner reached an agreement to blah blah blah". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goodman Beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121211070744/http://walrusmagazine.com/blogs/2009/03/06/a-corrective-to-watchmenmania/ to http://walrusmagazine.com/blogs/2009/03/06/a-corrective-to-watchmenmania/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://toonopedia.com/goodman.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)