Talk:Little Annie Fanny/Archive 2

Feedback

 * a comics series created by Harvey Kurtzman and Will Elder: is "creator" used here in the sense of "comics creator"? My understanding was that Kurtzman originated the series and Elder was his main partner (correct me if I'm wrong).
 * No, you are correct. I used it this way as this is exactly how the billing appears in the book cover, its facing page, and (last but not least) on the splash panel of every comic. It makes it clear who consistently did almost all of the work. So I believe it's okay, then?
 * No, because it's ambiguous—it can be read that Elder was co-originator of the strip. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate when you and I are at odds; thankfully it doesn't happen very often and you know how much I respect you; but I'm sorry, every single time this comic was published the comic was credited to both men in this way. The Infobox has it the way you want it (and I like it that way too). Prhartcom (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * John Stanley was credited for every Little Lulu story from 1945 to 1959, but he didn't originate it---Marge Buell did. I think it'd be better to rewrite it as something like "written by Harvey Kurtzman and illustrated by Will Elder", which is factual and unambiguous. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead should be expanded a bit---without getting too wordy I'd mention:
 * Kurtzman's earlier relations with Hefner
 * Mad and Goodman Beaver
 * The method of creation (or at least mention in passing it was elaborate)
 * Elder's chickenfat
 * Hefner's interference
 * Good idea; I will do so promptly. I have never heard the term "chickenfat" and don't remember it from the sources; what do you mean? Remember, it's not "interference"; that's a matter of opinion; Hefner was doing his job and no doubt knew better than Kurtzman what the readers wanted; we just need to type out that Hefner did what he did (I know you were just using shorthand; that's fine).
 * You'll come across "chicken fat" in Buhle & Kitchen's book. "Interference" would of course be an inappropriate word to use, but the situation should be described—all his career Kurtzman was looking for artistic freedom, and Hefner was increasingly demanding with changes to the strip.  Robert Crumb always griped about what Hefner "did to" his hero, and many critics consider Annie to have compromised Kurtzman's vision because of this—that Kurtzman and critics felt that way should be mentioned. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned, covered heavily I feel, in the Reception section. I read that book and never came across the term. Since you didn't tell me, I checked the Will Elder article and found it there (the article gives some other source). You're talking about the visual gags Elder worked into the holes in Kurtzman's layouts. The book you mention uses the term "eye pops". Really? I didn't think that was lede material. It's covered in the article body. I will have the completed lede out there by tonight. Prhartcom (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, some detail about Elder's style should be mentioned. I can't access it, but Google Books suggests there's mention of the term "chicken fat" in the second Dark Horse book. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still need to expand the lede. I will do so in my next session. At that point I believe all of these comments are addressed and my work for the time being will be done. Prhartcom (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there's a way to indicate in the infobox that Elder was the primary illustrator
 * There isn't; this particular Infobox template is pathetic (it inappropriately assumes multiple authors, publishers, and genres (displaying these labels with an "(s)") but a single illustrator, it forces the user to use [[File:]] and to supply an image size (otherwise it expands to the width of the image), it should not have "color" parameters, and it should have an alt parameter). Someday I may fix it myself.


 * knew he was seeing extraordinary work: this kind of wording won't fly---something less POV like "was impressed by what he saw". As it's worded it implies the work was objectively extraordinary, and Hefner happened to know it.
 * Fixed; point taken; I see now you are correct. The source explicitly communicates that Hef knew the work was extraordinary, which is why I typed such a phrase. I understand now, however, that my mind must edit out such editorializing I read in sources that is allowed by their editors but not by ours. As you say, there is still a way to neutrally type such a thing if it is truly supported; I have now done so.


 * Hefner also hired cartoonists: can you double-check if Hefner actually hired them, or whether they worked freelance?
 * It says "hired", surprisingly, and elsewhere says they worked at the Chicago offices.


 * who saw the inherent genius in Kurtzman's work: same thing with POV
 * Fixed; I now have "also impressed" (it is backed up by the source).


 * had to be justified: this should be elaborated
 * Fixed; thankfully, the source provided elaboration.


 * for artwork he drew himself: this as well
 * The source says exactly this with no elaboration, but does add that he effectively abandoned his solo efforts, which is true. I want the paragraph to end with a "chord" as it currently does (this is something I attempt to do in my writing). I could add the phrase "and abandoned his solo efforts", do you think? Here's another idea: "As with most things Kurtzman attempted," said Kitchen and Buhle in 2009, "he had great vision, but was too often out of step with his time."(Kitchen & Buhle 2009 p.160)
 * I can understand, but this communicates things to those in-the-know that will go over the heads of those who aren't—that Kurtzman's artwork was not to everyone's tastes. He had the same concerns with his Christmas Carol adaptation, where he had a sample page sone up by Jack Davis in case publishers were put off by his own style.  I'll see if I can find a source to expand this—Kitchen and Buhle can assume their readers know something about Kurtzman and his artwork, but Wikipedia editors cannot. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * collaborator Will Elder: their relationship should be elaborated---this makes it sounds like they had always been a pair.
 * Fixed; they were, they had known each other since high school (according to the sources), but I'd rather not use the space to say that; I changed it to "friend and collaborator".


 *  Help! furthered the adventures of Goodman Beaver: not really---only four of these stories appeared in Help!
 * What, but the source says that it did. I don't have Help! as you do, but after the source introduces it, it says, "It's highlight was a series of five new Goodman Beaver adventures" and "In the new incarnation, Goodman [did this and that]". (Kitchen 2000 p.208) The article needs to stay on the topic of Goodman Beaver if possible; we're about to do the big reveal.


 * Hefner especially found amusing "Goodman Goes Playboy": is "especially" supported by the sources?
 * Fixed; no it isn't.


 * suggested to Elder an "outlineless" style, but expressed a preference for a fully India inked outlined style with flat comic book color behind it: this seems contradictory. Was this meant to say that Elder and Kurtzman had different preferences?
 * We're trying to say (as the source does) that, at first, Kurtzman thought of the style with no outline (it gives a Sgt. Bilco Camel cigarette take off in Trump as an example) but then Kurtzman said out loud that he wanted the opposite (so Elder tried drawing Annie in ink and the drawing is reproduced for us!). Hefner didn't choose the inked style but chose the style Kurtzman thought of initially. I suppose this didn't come through in the article. If you think it needs it, can you offer an edit that improves the clarity?
 * I'll see what I can do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * in the comic strip format, but multiple pages in length: I'm not sure this would be a "but"; short multipage comics (such as Crumb's) are normally called "strips".
 * Fixed; I see what you're saying; the "but" wasn't backed up by the sources anyway; good catch.


 * I'm going to take a break for now. I'd recommend reading WP:EDITORIALIZING in the meantime. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think have now fixed all cases of WP:EDITORIALIZING in the article and have assimilated that advice into my brain; thanks for the suggestion and thanks especially for the valuable feedback. Please keep it coming. Question: By any chance would you like for me to nominate the article for GA before you continue? Prhartcom (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, "stability" is one requirement for GA, so the article should be settled before then. GANs often take months to find a reviewer, though, so it might not hurt if you went ahead, but don't take that as an endorsement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your heartless honesty. Prhartcom (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Uh oh. The domain for toonopedia.com expired yesterday and the website is permanently down today. Prhartcom (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we'll be able to find anything important enough that was in there elsewhere. I wonder what'll happen to the info, though—surely Markstein didn't want it to vanish. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope it comes back soon; I quote heavily from it here. I sent an email earlier today to the email address provided by the domain. Let me know what you think of my question about five lines up. Prhartcom (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a reason to prefer paper sources to online ones---that book on your shelf'll never expire. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The website is back. Prhartcom (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For a visually-oriented article I'd sure like to see more images. Here's a crappy (but free) photo of Hefner in 1979 (the only one on Commons contemporary with the strip), and "Goodman Goes Playboy" is in the public domain.  The Little Orphan Annie logo is probably PD as well under US copyright law—as it's mentioned in the body it might make a good addition. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We could run the Hefner image. I checked and the Little Orphan Annie logo isn't public domain until 2038. I notice that it does appear in its Wikipedia article (under fair use); we could consider running the Annie logo here under fair use and the readers could click and compare. We could perhaps run one small PD Goodman Beaver image, but seeing his face here wouldn't accomplish very much and his image is readily available on his article also. What we need is more images from Annie (or of Kurtzman). But you know how nigh impossible that is with Wikipedia policy (otherwise I would have added more to the Tintin articles by now). I believe we could get away with maybe only one more free use Annie image—an un-retouched panel of a nude Annie, preferably with logo above, to accompany the respectable Annie? Let me look into it. Prhartcom (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The old DC Comics logo is uncopyrightable.
 * LIttle Orphan Annie itself will be under copyright for that long, but logos are not copyrightable in the US if they are made up only of typefaces or simple geometric shapes. That applies to both the Orphan Annie and Annie Fanny logos, which are no more than stylized typeface and thus don't meet the threshold of originality.  Check out WP:LOGO. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's good to know, thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed; I have added more images. I think we are at the limit. I was not able to include an image of the logo but I'm glad it is in the Infobox image. Prhartcom (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll have to track down a reference, but apparently Kurtzman had Robert Crumb try to help out once in th 1960s---though things didn't turn out (I'm not sure if his work ended up in print or not). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how to handle this: you've got a source from Buhle, another from Kitchen, and one from both, so you introduce an evaluation from Buhle, then one from Kitchen, then "continue Kitchen and Buhle". Most readers will not be paying attention to the sources, so this can come off as confusing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Prhartcom (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Salinger Fiengold": Is that "Fiengold" or "Feingold"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I double-checked, and I have it spelled correctly ("Fiengold"). Prhartcom (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for completing your copy edit and providing this feedback; this is very valuable. I have a few more sources to add and will look into these suggestions. Thanks again. Prhartcom (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo
Does a photo of Denis Kitchen really "increase the reader's understanding of the subject" of Little Annie Fanny? I think the picture needs to be removed. 24.149.45.52 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care either way, but I should point out that Kitchen is probably the most prominent authority on Kurtzman's works—he's reprinted many of them, continues to edit new reprints, and has co-authored what is so far the most extensive biography on the man. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit
, I can't thank you enough for your copy editing on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors. I have always said how much I greatly respect this group, especially as it is so valuable for an article to receive scrutiny from a skilled editor who is not close to the article. Naturally, I don't have room to list the numerous improvements I see your copy editing has done (such as observing it would be helpful to insert the word "male" before the introduction of the character Goodman Beaver, as this is the very point the article was trying to make!)(and thank-you for the "alt=" parameters!), but I do want to offer my sincere thanks here, because when I read the article now I see definite improvements that are truly exciting to me. As well, I feel it is important to raise a few thoughts for your consideration and I greatly look forward to reading your response: Everything else is looking really great. More later, as you continue working. Thank-you again. Prhartcom (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "comics", when used in this context, is actually singular. The word "comics" here is a noun, not an adjective. I know, it's very unusual, but it is actually correct to say "comics feature" and incorrect to say "comic feature" (we are not using a synonym of the word "funny"). We need to restore the grammatically correct word "comics".
 * I always try to push the boundary of neutral writing to be as close as possible to "brilliant" writing, a feature required by FA. Therefore, I resist some attempts to "water down" my writing, changing strong words and phrases to weak words and phrases, as long as the neutral requirement is kept. However, I realize it is often controversial to do so among my fellow editors and I could very well be wrong in some of my choices. Having said all this, I wonder if I can convince you that "culmination of his career" is better than "late in his career" and "insisted that the material was not right for Playboy" is better than "thought that the material was not right for Playboy".
 * Feel free to restore whatever you'd like; my copyedits are just an opinion of how an encyclopedia article should read (hence our slight disagreement about "brilliant" prose which seemed a bit essay-like to me), and I certainly defer to your greater knowledge of the subject. In the end, it's up to the FA reviewers; I've done my best.  Mini  apolis  23:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thanks again; it's really good to get an unbiased eye. Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Title punctuation
Placing the title "Little Annie Fanny" in italics is at odds with WikiProject Comics MOS. Features within a comic book or magazine are in quote marks, and comic-book or magazine series titles are italicized. For example, the feature "The Human Torch" ran in Strange Tales. "The Adventures of Phoebe Zeit-Geist" ran in the magazine Evergreen Review. It's directly analogous to songs being in quote marks and albums in italics, or short stories in quote marks and book titles in italics. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * After no responses whatsoever for more than a week, I've restored WikiProject:Comics MOS. We don't deviate from MOS without a clear consensus reason for making an exception. The title remains italicized and that needs to be addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Tenebrae, sorry that I missed this earlier. I also went to Curly Turkey's page to ask about this, as I am not convinced of the merit of this argument. I agree with him that this is a misinterpretation of the MOS. Little Annie Fanny is a comics series. Another example is The Adventures of Tintin, originally published in Tintin magazine. I was waiting for a self-revert but have now done so myself. Best, —Prhartcom ♥ 12:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your revert is absolutely OK — I'm a big fan of discussion and not edit-warring. I do think, in fact, it might be good to get a larger discussion going at the main WikiProject:Comics talk page, since the distinction might be between features in comic books and features in magazines. For example, this paragraph from Ernie Hart
 * "Hart also worked on "Pookey the Poetical Pup" and "Ding-a-Ling the Little Bellboy" in Krazy Komics; "Wacky Willie" and "Andy Wolf & Bertie Mouse" in Terrytoons Comics; "Skip O'Hare" in Comedy Comics; and the heroic-adventure feature "Victory Boys" for Timely. Other Golden Age comics work includes "Egbert and the Count" and "Marmaduke Mouse" for Quality Comics' Hit Comics..."


 * would be highly confusing to the average reader if rendered
 * "Hart also worked on Pookey the Poetical Pup and Ding-a-Ling the Little Bellboy in Krazy Komics; Wacky Willie and Andy Wolf & Bertie Mouse in Terrytoons Comics; Skip O'Hare in Comedy Comics; and the heroic-adventure feature Victory Boys for Timely. Other Golden Age comics work includes Egbert and the Count and Marmaduke Mouse for Quality Comics' Hit Comics..."


 * Does that make sense? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae, it does indeed; I always understood exactly what you meant. Are "Pookey the Poetical Pup" and "Ding-a-Ling the Little Bellboy" comics features that lasted several decades, widely discussed outside their respective comic book worlds, and "took on a life of their own"? There must be a middle ground; perhaps, as you said, the magazine vs. comic book is the key difference. Maybe the discussion you mentioned can identify those comics that "transcend" smaller titles. Best, —Prhartcom ♥ 21:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for the thoughtful discussion. It's a tough one, alright, since "took on a life of their own" isn't quantifiable. I'm concerned that without some objective criteria that we'll be hard put to distinguish the "Nicky Fury, Agent of SHIELD" feature in Strange Tales from the Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD comic-book series. I know "feature in a magazine" vs. "feature in a comic book" sounds arbitrary, but at least it's objective. (I also don't think it's the best, since there were ongoing features in Marvel's 1970s black-and-white comics magazines.) Any brainstorming ideas? I'm reluctant to start an RfC without two or three possible alternatives to offer.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, I don't really have any brainstorming ideas, as I am honestly finding a punctuation discussion a little bit pointy. Generally speaking, I don't believe it is a problem to have one established comics title appear in italics and another short-lived, more unknown, title appearing in quote marks, as I think people will hardly notice and will intuitively understand the reason. Best, —Prhartcom ♥ 14:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yet "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD" was not "short-lived [and]... unknown." And I'm a bit surprised at your accusation of pointy-ness when I do believe punctuation is an important part of grammar. For example: "I love cooking, my dogs, and my family. vs. I love cooking my dogs and my family."?


 * Not wanting to have arbitrary punctuation is a good thing that can only help provide clarity, which is one of an encyclopedia's missions. I'm sorry you don't agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me Tenebrae; that didn't turn out right. I should have clarified that I was not making an accusation. I was trying to say that we both should avoid pointy behavior. Yes, grammar is important. But to go to the trouble to set up yet another rule to follow applicable only within the comics world makes me want to invoke WP:IAR. Best, —Prhartcom ♥ 14:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)