Talk:Kake (comics)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 16:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi ! We actually crossed paths a couple years ago when I did a GA review for Bara (genre), another article you nominated. I saw this article pop up because I have Tom of Finland on my watchlist (I've been doing a fair bit of editing recently in the tangentially related area of physique magazines).

Overall, I think the article is shaping up very nicely. Below are some initial thoughts on potential WP:GACR concerns (in no particular order, though I'll number them for ease of reference):


 * 1) Currently the article is straddling two closely related topics: the Kake character and the Kake comic series. Structurally, I think it would be clearer if the article committed to being about one or the other. I would say the current headings ("Synopsis", "List of issues") suggest that centring on the series would involve the least change. (Basically just removing the character infobox, changing the wording of the opening sentence, and maybe removing a few categories). Of course that doesn't mean you can't still describe the character in the "Synopsis" section, or talk about the character's legacy in the "Reception and legacy" section.
 * I previously had the article structured to be more about the character, but I disliked how the character infobox is set up and felt the comic series infobox conveyed the information more effectively. I personally think it's fine to collapse both character and series into one article; unlike something like Batman and Batman (comic book), I don't forsee this article ever being split into Kake (character) and Kake (series), since the topics are so intertwined. Morgan695 (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't see this as being disqualifying wrt WP:GACR, though I still stand by my opinion above. Another food-for-thought argument on this: the fact that this arrangement is only possible because the character and series have the same name seems like a bad smell. i.e. if the series was called The Adventures of Kake, then in choosing a title for the article you would have to commit to it being centred on the series or the character (unless you used a really weird title like "Kake and The Adventures of Kake). In some ways, you kind of still have this problem, in that if you use an WP:ITALICTITLE directive, then that would imply the article is about the series rather than the character, and vice versa. But like I said, not a GA issue, just an extra suggestion. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) I think at least one additional piece of ToF art would be very helpful. (Possibly it could replace the photo of ToF?) I realize the Kake series itself is probably all under copyright, but a panel from the series might be acceptable as WP:NFC if it's the subject of sourced commentary. Alternatively, I know for a fact that the August 1961 issue of Physique Pictorial is public domain (published without a copyright notice pre-1977), so you should be able to freely use panels from The Tattooed Sailor (which is mentioned in the article) as they appeared in PP. I actually uploaded a couple to commons a while back: see commons:Category:Tom of Finland. Because the article is about a series of artwork, I think it's important to give the reader some visual references so they can get a sense of the art style and content. The infobox image is good, but it's from a book cover, so it doesn't give us a full sense of what the actual comics looked like. (Also, it's a very late example, and I imagine ToF's art style underwent some changes over the two decades that he worked on this series).
 * Replaced with the Physique Pictorial cover for now, but I'll look around for a comic panel. Morgan695 (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Replaced with a comic panel. Morgan695 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome! This helps a lot, especially in conveying the difference between the black line art used in the pages vs. the pencilled art used on the covers. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) I think the "Synopsis" section could use just a bit of expansion. Some things I'm left wondering as a reader of the article who hasn't read the comic series: Does Kake have any kind of backstory? Just how sexually explicit/pornographic is the content? What proportion of a typical issue is devoted to depicting sexual acts (vs. "plot"/setup)? Did the content undergo any changes over the course of its ~20-year run? Not saying you need to cover all this information explicitly (if you do choose to include a page/panel as illustration, it might help here.)
 * 2) Assuming the information is available somewhere in RS, I think it's important to say something about the distribution of the series. I'm going to guess it wasn't sold on newsstands. So was it sold via mail order? If so, where was it advertised? It would also be good to get some indication of sales/circulation. It's mentioned that Kake in the Wild West sold out its entire first print run, but do we know if that would have been 1,000 copies? 100,000?
 * Added a note about sales figures under Impact, and indicated that TOF Company was a mail order business. Morgan695 (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Though, if the information is available, it would be good to know how the series was distributed when it was being published by DFT. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Possible to give some info about the physical format of the series?
 * Added a section about how the format differed from his PP comics. The "Production" section already talks about how the comics were drawn as lineart for the purpose of cheap reproduction, and "Release" talks about how the TOF Company switched to the premium format. Morgan695 (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is helpful. I was initially thinking along the lines of physical dimensions with this point, though now that I think of it, that's probably excessive. Seems reasonable to assume it's the standard size used by most comics unless otherwise stated. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) This is nitpicky, and I don't claim to be an expert on copyright, but I think that File:Tom of Finland coffee (43594521032).jpg actually has invalid licensing information and shouldn't be on Commons. The artwork on the packaging is (presumably) copyrighted, and because it's the main subject of the photograph, that makes the photo a derivative work. So even if the photographer disclaims all their own rights over the photo, it's still protected by the Tom of Finland Foundation copyright. I recommend double-checking this, and if you agree with my analysis, removing the photo (or adding a nfcc template if you think it meets the non-free criteria). (You might also want to nominate it for deletions on Commons, but that's up to you.)
 * Removed. Morgan695 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Colin M (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Colin M (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for taking up this GA. I'll respond to your comments in the next few days. Morgan695 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quickly responding to the points I raised. At this point, I am fully satisfied that this meets the WP:GACR. There are a couple outstanding suggestions above regarding breadth of coverage, but they're more at the level of WP:FACR's "comprehensive" coverage requirement. I have a few further non-GA-required suggestions, but I'll add them to the talk page rather than here. Great work! Colin M (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you for another thoughtful review. I was planning to expand the article a bit more in the coming few days, and will move any discussion to the article talk page. Morgan695 (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)