Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goodman Beaver/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Goodman Beaver[edit]

Goodman Beaver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another boring article about long-out-of-print comics by the ever-boring Curly Turkey, destined to spend two months worming its way to the bottom of the list before somebody finally feels guilted into giving it a peek. Luckily, you won't find its contents in the least enticing, otherwise it would tantalize you to learn that it has been 29 years since this material was last in print—and in incomplete form, at that.

Maybe you'd find it a little more interesting to learn this character had a cartoon sex change in 1962—and became the buxom, always-naked Little Annie Fanny for Playboy magazine, which Harvey Kurtzman wasted the last quarter-century of his life writing. But at least we have this out-of-print Goodman Beaver material to remind us how good he actually was! Or at least I do ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

  • Image use jumps out at me here. I think I know why you've placed images in this large, central format (to highlight detail), but I am having a hard time reconciling that with MOS:IMAGES. I'm also not sure what the Marlon Brando pic adds; the comparison is one of attitude, not appearance, yes?
    • Image Size: The one in "Reception and legacy" was entirely gratuitous, and gets its point across at standard size, so I've unbiggened it.
      I recall reading or being told that if you're going to override the default size, it's best to centre the image. I do think it's important to have those images large. It would be nice if the software could handle this—by floating the image on large screens, and centring it on smaller ones. With a large image, text can be squeezed into small columns if it's floated, which normally can be dealt with in user settings, but setting an image size overrides the user settings, as well (is that a bug in itself?).
      I'm open to other ideas how to handle this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brando: I suppose it's gratuitous, and wouldn't oppose its removal. For the record (though the sources don't mention it), Goodman does make Brando faces throughout the story. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overview: The transition back to Kurtzman from Bruegel seems abrupt (it's not immediately evident that "the stories" aren't more information associated with Bruegel). Is there a better way to word this passage?
  • Anything available from the sources about the production or art style for "The Organization Man in the Gray Flannel Executive Suit", considering that it wasn't inked by Elder?
    • I figured it was best handled in the Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book article. Disagree? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep. I think there's going to be a certain amount of overlap here, between the article on the book and the article on the character. I think if there's something we can say about the art style differences and so forth, we have to have it here ... even if we have some of it there, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I've added a paragraph. Tell me what you think. Tell me, I tell you! Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Goodman Meets T*rz*n'": I think one of these slipped past me earlier (which means it's either tolerable in the previous section, or I'm a bad copyeditor), but there are a couple of WP:PLUSING issues here that really jump out.
  • "'Goodman Goes Playboy'": "He has Goodman changed into a toga...." Did Goodman change his own clothes, or did someone redress him? This wording implies the latter, which might be correct. Regardless, this sentence might need rethought, as it stands out on cursory reading.
    • Reworded. Archer asks Goodman to change into a toga, and Goodman does. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last three story sections don't mention when they first appeared. These sections are also a little light on ... well, I'm not sure "plot summary" is the right phrase here, but we'll run with that. I'm not actually sure what "Goodman, Underwater" depicts from its description here, or what manner of corruption S*perm*n retreats from, or what the consequences are when Goodman returns to being unarmed.
    • Squeamish Ossifrage: sorry, somehow I overlooked this comment. My OCD didn't want me to fill these in without refs, but I don't think there's anyway around it, so ...they're now expanded, and I've included info about thier first appearances. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication history:
  • "The book sold poorly, but was a favorite among Kurtzman fans." Not sure the tense is right here. Was the book a favorite among fans on release? Was it a favorite previously, but is no longer? Perhaps something like "has since become" would be better, although I'm not just thrilled about that construction, either.
  • I'm not sure what I think about the structure in general. What determines whether you discuss a topic in the Stories section versus here? Some of the story sections discuss art elements, but we don't hear about the redrawn version of Goodman until here.
    • I figured the redrawn versions were part of the publiction history. I've moved them—tell me what you think. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Playboy ran a lot of cartoons, but a comic strip was something new." Perhaps it's just my ear, but that sounds rather informal.
    • Reworded to "Playboy printed many cartoons, but not a comic strip until then." Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception and legacy:

I've likely missed some wording and structure concerns, because prose editing is not my strong suit. Reference formatting seems okay. A quick review suggests the cited literature is a comprehensive survey of modern material; is there anything worth going back to 1960s sources for, or do the recent works summarize period reactions sufficiently? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't say with certainty, but anything written about it in the 1960s was likely in fanzines, which I doubt would pass the RS test—though I can imagine maybe reviews of the book collection (haven't found anything in Google News archives). If an RS from the time popped up I'd be thrilled to see it—I seriously doubt it would be in-depth analysis, though. Comics "scholarship" is a recent phenomenon. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I'd view period fanzines (especially those that have been historically well-regarded) as RS regarding period fan reactions, if not necessarily for a wider context. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Google's not being very friendly with me in this regard. I'm not greatly familiar with the fanzines of the period; I thought Squa Tront (an EC fanzine) might have something, but a blog listing the contents of each issue didn't turn up anything (I don't have access to any issues of Squa Tront itself to make sure). If anyone were able to point out something like this to me, it'd be great, but I'm not going to hold my breath. 06:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

I know nothing about comics, and my comments about prose are from a BE perspective, so may not be applicable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kurtzman did solo—I associate "solo" with performing arts, rather than drawing
  • Kurtzman—Elder— Why mdash?
  • Goodman Goes Playboy—You have italicised Playboy once only. I don't know whether it's correct to italicise or not in a title,but inconsistent as it stands
    • I've removed the one case of italics. I have no idea which is best. I guess italcs would be logical, but it doesn't seem like the sources do that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ire of the Archie's publisher, which threatened a lawsuit. —should "the" be there? Also, I think who threatened...
  • Kurtzman used his own personal experiences in this story to satirize—slightly ambiguous, perhaps, "In this story, Kurtzman..."
  • "Goodman Goes Playboy in the—missing closing quote mark
  • leads him into an Roman orgy underway. —the stray "underway" looks very odd to me, perhaps a clause needed?
  • pact with the devil, —give the poor old boy a capital letter
  • on-duty and off–.—please assure me that in AE hyphen-full stop is acceptable.
  • Covered the exposed nipples with white ink prior to publication—not clear if this is for legal reasons or a publisher decision.
    • I'm pretty sure it was a publisher decision—the sources don't make it clear. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After tossing ideas back and forth, —too informal?
  • Help! publisher Jim Warren received a letter on 6 December 1961 accusing Help! of copyright infringement and demanding removal of the offending issue from newsstands. — I thought parodies were exempt from copyright ? (I'm no lawyer, so just ignore if you wish)
    • I think I've clarified this—Warren's lawyer believed the case could be won, but the legal costs would be prohibitive. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates in refs—your dates in journals are a bit of a stylistic mix, eg 2004-05-05/September 1987. You don't need retrieval dates fro RL publications like magazines.
    • The "September" one is a cover date, which is not necessarily the publication date. Access date removed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy with the changes, and now supporting. For the orgy, "in progress" is better, but I think anything here is redundant. An orgy by definition is ongoing, I can't begin to visualise something that can be called an orgy, but isn't in progress. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merci bien, my friend—I've dropped the "in progress", and have also reworded the sentence; I just realized I had the orgy/toga sequence backwards. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ColonelHenry[edit]

SUPPORT Regarding the FA criteria--Curly Turkey has presented an informative and interesting article that is sufficiently neutral, well-written, comprehensive, focused, and well researched. The article's history appears stable. The lede is comprehensive, the structure is logical and covers the relevant scope of the subject, and the article employs an acceptable and consistent method of citations.

Image Review
  • Images seem to be sufficiently labeled for relevant free use or permissible use, with comprehensive explanations regarding public domain status.
  • Minor clerical issue: - File:Pieter Bruegel (1565) Fall of the Musician.jpg is undoubtedly public domain and free use, but is tagged needing clarification for its {{PD-Art}}

Just a few comments to be addressed:--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "degeneration"...clarify whether you mean social or moral (or another type). There are several types of degeneration and while I know we're not dealing with electronic, someone might think it might be the evolutionary decline of a function in an organism (and I'm sure this isn't Vonnegut's Galapagos).
    • I think it's both social and moral—people are corrupt and greedy, and society is falling apart. Should I go with "social and moral degeneration"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kurtzman says the character was inspired by Voltaire's Candide...how? That's a rather broad unspecific statement. While I can vaguely see some connexion, particularly in the naivete, a few more details about what in particular the character draws from Voltaire would be interesting.
    • The sources don't go into depth here, and I suspect it's because there really isn't any depth—it's been an awful long time since I've read Candide, but I don't find any parallels between the Goodman Beaver stories and characters and the ones in Candide. I think Kurtzman just found inspiration in the archetype of the Candide character as naïvely optimisitic in the face of situations that would normally leave one jaded—an basic archetype Kurtzman plays for laffs and social commentary. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry Curly but with no activity for three weeks, despite some notices at WT:FAC that might've generated further interest, this review isn't progressing so I'll be archiving it shortly. As you've done your best to resolve comments, I don't need you to wait the usual 14 days before renominating but I'd still prefer you leave it at least a week to give more people a chance to return from hols and hopefully review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Goodman_Beaver/archive1&oldid=1046367753"