Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Annie Fanny/archive1


 * 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2015.

Little Annie Fanny

 * Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the innocent and alluring Little Annie Fanny and her comics creator, Harvey Kurtzman, one of the greatest cartoonists of the twentieth century. The comics series was unique for many reasons: It didn't look like a typical comic strip (it was fully painted in lush colors, no ink was used), it was the first strip to appear in a major American magazine (comics had a bad reputation at the time and were not showcased in this way), and its writing was genius satire of the American sexual revolution. However, as you will see, not everyone praised this comic. I hope you enjoy reading it. It is a Good Article, it has been given a virtual stamp of approval by a comics expert/respected member of the Wikipedia community, and it has been copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors. Prhartcom (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceradon

 * I'll make some notes below. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 14:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "Kurtzman created the series at the culmination of his career" -- you should probably mention that he was a cartoonist, just to be sure.
 * You are so right; everyone else is introduced in this article by their profession. I have changed it to "Kurtzman, a cartoonist and editor, created the series ..." Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hairsplitting, but I might drop "editor" as it's irrelevant to the context. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Prhartcom (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Creation
 * This section could profitably be rename "Conception" rather than "Creation"
 * I like it; I have made that change. Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "place in his empire" -- a bit much. "Enterprise" might do well.
 * I was wondering about that (especially being only a couple of years into his business venture), so I absolutely agree. I have made this change. Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Little Annie Fanny began as a male character." -- this sentence seems a bit stranded. Please move it to a place where it is more relevant to the sentences after it. (Maybe, though, after reading the entire section, you should leave this sentence out entirely)
 * Crisco made the same comment. I have axed it (sadly). Please see my comments to him below, and feel free to reply either here or there with the question I brought up. Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's something I don't understand; if Hefner offered Kurtzman a job, what was it? Is/was Trump owned by Hefner. If so, you should make that clear. If not, what did Kurtzman do for Hefner?
 * You're correct, it was Trump owned by Hefner, and you're right that it shouldn't take two long sentences before that is clear. I have changed it to: "Hefner offered Kurtzman an opportunity to conceive a new humor magazine for his enterprise, which the cartoonist accepted when he left Mad in 1956 in an ownership dispute. Kurtzman took most of the Mad artists with him, including frequent collaborator Will Elder, to create the adult-oriented humor magazine Trump." Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "It failed to find an audience" -- I wouldn't say something failed to find an audience. If two people go to a show, that's an audience. Whether they liked the show or not is a different matter entirely. The sentence is, in my opinion, too vague. Perhaps: "Humbug failed to gain a significant following," or something like that.
 * Agreed; I have changed it to "It failed to gain a significant following". Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "and a dejected Kurtzman began pitching feature proposals to Playboy, all of which were rejected. However, he received a note from Hefner: "I bow to no one in my appreciation for H. Kurtzman." -- I think this can be tightened up a bit, and I don't think we need the quote. Perhaps: "and a dejected Kurtzman began pitching feature proposals to Playboy. His pitches were rejected, but Hefner expressed his continued faith in Kurtzman in a note to him."
 * I had been laboring under the misconception that quotes provide authenticity and an ideal storytelling vehicle, which I thought should be used wherever possible. I see now that, while there is some truth to that, mostly this technique should be saved for the most powerful quotes and I had been overusing it. I certainly appreciate your note that sentences should be tightened; I fully agree. I checked, though, and your replacement text is almost no tighter than what is already there. I decided to keep the full stop after "all of which were rejected" as I like the chord it sounds. I kept Hefner's short quote of encouragement at the end as I think his own words could not be improved and they are short and tight, where your words are longer. Please re-read the paragraph and tell me if this reads well or if it still needs tightening. Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Encouraged, Kurtzman met with publisher Ian Ballantine" -- Perhaps: "Hefner's praise encouraged Kurtzman to meet with publisher Ian Ballantine, with who he created Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book (1959)." I think you can stop the sentence there as well, and continue with: "The book featured the innocent and idealistic Goodman Beaver, a male character who continued to appear—with artwork by Elder—in Kurtzman's Help! (1960).
 * "with who he created"? Slight problem: It may not be encyclopedic to say the book "featured" Goodman Beaver, as Jungle Book is four stories and only one of them features Goodman. How about "introduced" instead? I like the rest of your suggestion. I changed this to the following two sentences: "Hefner's praise encouraged Kurtzman to meet with publisher Ian Ballantine and create Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book (1959). This introduced the innocent and idealistic Goodman Beaver, a male character who continued to appear—with artwork by Elder—in Kurtzman's Help! (1960)." Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "and enjoyed "Goodman Goes Playboy"," -- you should probably begin a new sentence here with: "Hefner especially enjoyed..."
 * Agreed. This is the way I had it before the Guild changed it. I have separated into two sentences. Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "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.)" -- This quote is incredibly long. According to MOS:QUOTE, quotes with over 40 words should be put in a blockquote or a quotebox. You may also fancy paraphrasing though. Here's my whack at that: "Kurtzman replied that Goodman Beaver "could be foolish and at the same time wise," and that he "innocently partakes of the bad while espousing the good." He further stated that Beaver's innocent, restive and charming nature allotted him especial creative freedom."
 * Brilliant work; I could not say it better! I see what you mean: We must translate some of these quotes for the reader rather than burden them with the task of figuring them out (unless the quote says it better than than anything we could paraphrase). I have replaced the text with this sentence exactly the way you wrote it. Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The next sentence might be: "Kurtzman suggested a female character of a similar calibre for Playboy. Hefner called the idea a "bullseye," and stated that they can publish the strip in "every issue."
 * I see what you mean, but here is my thought: I prefer the sentence ending with Hefner's bull's eye quote, which I think provides a surge of excitement to the reader and has a climactic ring to it that I don't think we should lose. His quote is not too long; please re-read this paragraph and tell me if you agree? Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Production
 * You said that Kurtzman collaborated with Will Elder often, but don't introduce him to the reader into this particular collaboration. Perhaps: "Kurtzman recruited his [long-time friend/colleague/long-time collaborator/whatever] Will Elder to work on the strip's illustrations. He suggested to Elder an "outlineless", painted style, but later thought the strip would be better suited by an India-inked, outlined comic book style with flat color behind it would be."
 * You are absolutely right; I had not properly introduced the reader to their collaboration for this project; great observation. The wording of your suggestion is a much better way to open the section. I have changed the text to be exactly what you suggest (leaving out the last two words; not sure what they are). Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * link "India-inked"
 * Yep. Crisco fixed that omission for me. Both of you: Good observation. Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "They sat on Kurtzman's back porch for hours, while he acted out every detail" -- this is extraneously detailed, and can be reduced to "Kurtzman acted out every detail of the strip"
 * Agreed. Done. Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "holes in Kurtzman's layout" -- do you mean literal holes, or something else?
 * Ah, I see that I should be clearer. I have changed it to "background gags worked into blank areas of Kurtzman's layout" Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "a three-ply illustration board. The white board works as white paint. With oils you can pile things on; you can pile the light colors on top of the dark colors. In watercolor, you leave the white board alone and you hit the dark spots first ... This was always a job of painting." -- Quote is too long. You can either paraphrase it or use a blockquote or a quotebox.
 * You're right, and it is not important enough to blockquote; paraphrasing is in order. I also returned to the source to ensure I was capturing the magic of Elder's explanation. The passage now reads, "Elder explained he would 'pile on' his tempera paint, light colors over dark colors, but with his watercolors he would allow the white illustration board to work as white paint. 'The colors were like gems to me,' he said. 'I worked very hard to give them iridescence.'" Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Deadlines were tight" -- could you expound on what this means?
 * It means the deadlines were drunk. Just kidding, I know you are pointing out the importance of writing in clear, encyclopedic style. I have changed this to: "The work was labor intensive and deadlines were often difficult to meet" Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Little Annie Fannie was the most unique, lavishly produced cartoon cum illustration feature ever. Each panel was a miniature masterpiece that Willie glazed and re-glazed in brilliant watercolor until he reached the level of 3-D-like translucence that he wanted. I know from first-hand experience what went into this project." Again, quote is too long.
 * Okay, I know it is, but I really like this quote. It sums up in just a few sentences how we should appreciate Elder's artwork. Can I leave it? Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Overall, it looks good; more to come soon. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 16:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you so much for your detailed examination of this article, Ceradon! As you say, there is more of the article that still needs your review; I greatly look forward to it! Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's go...
 * Characters
 * "Like any young woman appearing in a Playboy pictorial, Annie is beautiful and often unclothed." -- a bit rhetorical. Try this: "Similar to other young women in Playboy pictorials, Annie is beautiful, and often finds herself unclothed."
 * I see what you mean and I agree. I have fixed it. I think the rhetorical problem was "like any". Inspired by your suggestion, I have changed it to "like other". The other words you suggest changing are wordier for no good reason; remember we need to keep the simple dichotomy so we can compare Annie to the other young women. And we can't have the redundancy of a comma followed by an "and". Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Annie is a morally upstanding character like Goodman Beaver; she was conceived as a modern Candide and is above the story's corruptions and temptations. Unlike Goodman, however, Annie is never shocked or offended; she remains blithe." -- Perhaps: "Like her forebear Goodman Beaver, Annie was conceived as a modern Candide, above the story's corruptions and temptations. Unlike Goodman, however, Annie remains blithe in the face of normally shocking or offensive happenings."
 * Your first new sentence is a terrific improvement; thank-you, I have made that change (other editors and I have been fiddling with that sentence and yours is the first to get it right). I don't see how your second sentence makes any improvement, though: "normally"? "happenings"? I believe it strikes more of a chord to end with the word "blithe". Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "According to the authors of Icons of the American Comic Book, Annie "glides through a changing world with an untiring optimism, despite the base desires of many of her admirers ... she remains untainted; a buxom blonde whose own good-natured lack of desire insulates her from the pitfalls of others." Quote too long. I'll try my hand at paraphrasing: "Annie approaches the carnal nature of those around her with unremitting cheer, and remains thoroughly pure, as the authors of Icons of the American Comic Book state. "A buxom blonde whose own good-natured lack of desire insulates her from the pitfalls of others.""
 * As I have learned, you are right, it is too long. Yet we don't want to lose parts of the quote succinctly said better than anything we could arrive at; as well we want to keep the best vocabulary, such as their word "glides"—beautifully evocative, "changing world"—well-said important reminder, "untiring optimism", and even "base desires", although your "carnal nature" is a good replacement. We are going to steal the word "insulate". We are going to move "buxom" to her description earlier and we must live without the word "blonde". We can lose the redundant words "untainted" and "admirers"; certainly we can lose my words "According to". I realize we can also segue into the next few sentences one sentence earlier, as you correctly observed I am trying to do; hopefully the segue is now clearer; as well, I am introducing the next several characters. I have changed this to: "The authors of Icons of the American Comic Book say Annie 'glides through a changing world with an untiring optimism' and a 'good-natured lack of desire'. She is insulated from the carnal nature of those around her, who explain the new rules of society to her each episode."
 * "These others explain society's new rules, which are introduced each episode." -- I'm not sure what you mean. I think this was meant to be a segue into the next few sentences. Nonetheless, I think it could be made clearer. (see next point before actioning this)
 * Done; see above. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sugardaddy Bigbucks, Annie's surrogate father and a powerful, manipulative capitalist, derives from the Daddy Warbucks character in Gray's Little Orphan Annie; Bigbucks' mysterious assistant, the Asp, becomes the Wasp in the Playboy strip and bodyguard Punjab becomes Punchjab." -- This is confusing me. Perhaps you mean: "A number of the other characters in Little Annie Fanny are derived from Gray's Little Orphan Annie. Sugardaddy Bigbucks, Annie's surrogate father and a powerful, manipulative capitalist, is based on Daddy Warbucks; Bigbucks' mysterious assistant, the Wasp, derives from the Asp character in Little Orphan Annie, and Punchjab, Bigbucks' bodyguard, comes from the character Punjab." In fact, I think that could replace, "These others explain society's new rules..." as a segue.
 * The description of these characters would not replace the segue in any way whatsoever. I really like how you devote a sentence to introducing the characters coming from the Orphan Annie strip. I appreciate you telling me about the link to Warbucks. I have replaced the text with almost your exact wording here, making just a few improvements. I also moved this just a little lower in the section and even added a paragraph break before it. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ralphie Towzer, Annie's nerdy-but-hip do-gooder boyfriend, combines actors Mickey Rooney and Robert Morse and the look of Goodman Beaver (with playwright Arthur Miller's eyeglasses and pipe), as straight-laced as ever." -- this really tells me next to nothing about Towzer. Could you clarify please?
 * Thank-you for the constructive feedback. I'd like to keep the hyphenated, parasynthetic phrase and the appearance comparison to Goodman Beaver and Arthur Miller but jettison the unhelpful comparison to Rooney and Morse. I also returned to the source. I have changed it to: "Ralphie Towzer, Annie's nerdy-but-hip do-gooder boyfriend, has the look of Goodman Beaver (but with playwright Arthur Miller's eyeglasses and pipe) and the temperament of a straight-laced, chastising prude." Please note that, considering your "tells me nothing about them" advice, I went back and added "mother hen" to the description of Annie's roommate Ruthie. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "ad man" -- I think "advertiser" is better. "Ad man" just seems off.
 * This doesn't sound constructive, as I just found several uses in the written English language of the term "ad man" (here is only one). It evokes a 60's male with this occupation much more than "advertiser", a word that conjures up more of a corporation. Anecdotally, my dad was one. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "ad rival Huck Buxton" -- Perhaps: "and Battbarton's rival Huck Buxton". I don't know if that's correct, but...
 * It's correct, you have fixed it, I'm using it. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could take some of the bracketed text out of the bracket. Maybe: "(his name taken..." -> "whose name is taken..."; "resembling" -> "who resembles" and so on. Also, I think you should use semi-colons instead of commas.
 * I have made the two improvements you suggest. I agree they are an improvement but I'm not sure why you said this takes some of the bracketed text out, as it adds additional text in. I don't see a need to replace the punctuation marks of a comma-delimited list with semicolons. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Synopsis
 * "latest hip" -- Perhaps: "latest popular"?
 * Done. I think I was getting caught up in the 60's lingo. Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "edgy politics, or society headline" -- Maybe: "or political or social headline"
 * I'd like to keep the items in the list autonomous entities. You're right for pointing out "edgy"; it is not an encyclopedic adjective; I have changed it to "national". Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "who have eyes for Annie" -- what does this mean?
 * I landed there when wrestling how to neutrally describe how they lust for Annie (without her noticing, of course). I think I'll just say that. I even returned to the source and found those exact words: They "lust for Annie". Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "poking fun at miniskirts, LSD, free love, and bra burning." -- I think this can be split into a new sentence. "Throughout its run, the strip pokes fun at miniskirts, LSD, free love, and bra burning"
 * Well, it sounds like you haven't read further to see that the structure of the section is to describe each decade, not describe what happened throughout its run. However I understand you feel the sentence has run its course and needs a full stop there, which is good advice. It would apply to the descriptions of the other decades as well. I have made this change. Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "prissy-but-powerful" -- I think you can delete this.
 * Without a good reason? It's in the sentence is because this is exactly the way this personality is portrayed in that episode of the strip, which was a bold move by the creators. Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * link "shock rocker"
 * Ah, thank-you; done. I just considered linking to consumer protection and to World Chess Championship but discarded the idea. No shortage of links in this section! Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * "and Little Annie Fanny achieved at least the latter." -- I'm not exactly sure what this means. Please clarify.
 * "The latter" means the the second of the two items. So the quoted source mentions "storytelling but also production values", then refers solely to the production values. It used to say "the latter of these" but the copy editor struck the last two words; maybe I should put them back to help clarify we are talking about "these"? Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Comics historian ... comics commentators, etc." -- Should really be "comic historian", "comic commentators", etc.
 * No, "comics" (an uncountable noun here used as a noun adjunct) refers to the medium, and "comic" can be confused with "comedic". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The way it was explained to me, which helped, is it's "comics" when referring to the medium, "comic" when referring to a single manifestation of the medium. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "According to cartoonist Art Spiegelman, the more interesting Goodman Beaver "devolved into Little Annie Fanny" -- there is really no need for a quote here; just: "Cartoonist Art Spiegelman called Little Annie Fanny a devolution from the more interesting Goodman Beaver."
 * Okay, no quotes, and I like how you reversed it like that, but I'll say "said [it] devolved from" instead of "called [it] a devolution from". Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Underground cartoonist" -- no idea what that means.
 * Should link to underground comix—"underground" has a fairly well-defined meaning in a comics context. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Linked. Crumb is the definitive underground cartoonist. I'm glad you pointed out that this term is not well-known. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Underground cartoonist Robert Crumb, whose career Kurtzman helped launch, scorned Playboy and Annie." -- why?
 * Good question; I'm sure he's wrong, is probably sure he's right, so don't ask us. The sources say Crumb harbored a distrust of the establishment, and Playboy embodied the establishment. I don't believe the "why" is important here; what I think is important is communicating that Crumb is on the side of those who feel Kurtzman was wasting his time for a quarter-century. I believe that is stated clearly. (In researching the answer to your question, I have added another source to the article.) Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find a source, but I believe it had to do with Hefner's intrusiveness and the effect it had on Kurtzman. There's an interview somewhere ... Oh, and I'd forgotten that Crumb actually did some rendering work on Annie (I don't know if it was ever printed). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This wasn't the interview I was thinking of, but:
 * I followed Kurtzman’s career as closely as I could, while he was still doing comics and magazines. He was such a colossal commercial failure, it was so tragic what happened. He ended up working for Playboy, doing that Annie Fanny thing, which was OK but nothing like his earlier stuff. He was really hampered by Hugh Hefner, who interfered in that Annie Fanny strip constantly; butted in and made all kinds of changes on tracing paper over the penciled roughs that Kurtzman had done. Very demoralizing. After we became friends I was with Kurtzman one day and he was weeping with vexation over all of these corrections that Hefner was demanding. It was a terrible sight to behold and I resolved to never let that happen to me.
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading that, it doesn't sound so much like "scorn", does it? I checked the Holm source, and there doesn't appear to be anything like that on those pages.  I'm pretty sure it's something I added (or perhaps came from the Kurtzman article)—in which case, sorry about that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , no apology necessary my friend, it was me. I greatly appreciate you finding this source above; I thought I had read about Crumb's attitude in the sources, but I spent an hour looking and couldn't find it. It knew it was true, however, and this proves it, is a good source, and I'm adding it now. If you find the other one you were looking for I will add it as well. Prhartcom (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "who handles Kurtzman and Eisner's estates" -- shouldn't this be "handled"?
 * No, Kitchen still handles Kurtzman's estate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "who "was often a punctilious taskmaster with a heavy red pen who often had very different ideas about what was funny or satiric" -- regardless of whether his is a quote or not, it's too not-neutral to be stating it so directly. Perhaps: "Kitchen placed the onus on Kurtzman's employer Hefner, whom he called "a punctilious taskmaster with a heavy red pen"." Next sentence might be: "Kitchen further ridicules what he saw as Hefner's overemphasis on nudity."
 * I'm not sure I understand you. This gets to the heart of why the dissenters agree that Kurtzman's Annie is not brilliant work. The fact that it's a quote makes it all the more authentic. The point is made succinctly and the quote itself isn't too long. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's about it. Good work,. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Other media
 * "The December 1978 issue of Playboy mentioned a "world-wide search for the actress" who would "portray Little Annie Fanny in a live-action movie". In 2000, Playboy TV approached Mainframe Entertainment to create a CGI animated television series based on Little Annie Fanny." -- mention should be made of why/how these attempts became unsuccessful.
 * I do not know. I used to explicitly say that these attempts were ultimately unsuccessful, but without a source I now just trail off feebly. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Dark Horse Comics collected all episodes of the series in two volumes, with annotations by Denis Kitchen and others, which were published in 2000 and 2001." -- the sentence structure here is a bit odd. Perhaps: "Dark Horse Comics collected all episodes of the series, and published them in two volumes, one in 2000 and another a year later, both with annotations by Denis Kitchen and others." Not sure if that changes the meaning. Modify as you see fit.
 * Thank-you for this observation; you got the meaning right. I changed the years to a parenthetical aside "(2001 and 2001)" but otherwise I have changed it according to your suggestion. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for the wonderfully detailed review, ! I really appreciate your kind attention. I await any responses and your ultimate decision. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work and your responses, . I support promotion. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 22:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco

 * It appeared in 107 issues of Playboy magazine from October 1962 to September 1988, - Ambiguous (107 printed issues per month, with the rest Fanny-less, or 107 months worth of issues). Should be reworded.
 * If I follow you, you are saying it needs to be clearer that some of the monthly issues contain Little Annie Fanny and some do not. That's a good point; the article clarifies this further down. I have inserted the phrase "one to eleven times per year". Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "It appeared 107 two- to seven-page episodes in Playboy magazine from October 1962 to September 1988."
 * Done. So much better and clearer. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The series was collected in two volumes in 2000 and 2001 by Dark Horse Comics. - Not sure this deserves the prominent position it's given. Reissues (in my experience) have tended to be included later on.
 * Oh, okay. The cover of the reissue appears immediately to the right of those words, and the reissue is the only way any of us could possibly read the comic, so I was thinking the reissue is important. (Each Tintin article has the same statement prominently located in their leads, and I thought those were correct.) I have deleted that sentence from the lede per your observation; it remains in the last sentence of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd keep it in the lead, but not in the third sentence. Towards the end of the second paragraph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What a relief; sorry about misunderstanding; I have replaced it as the last sentence of the lead to match the last sentence of the article Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A fundamental difference between the Dark Horse collections and the Tintin collections is that the Tintin books were designed to be stand-alone volumes, the permanent receptacles via which Tintin was to be consumed. The Annie Fanny collections were never conceived that way: they're not standalone books, and they appeared years after Kurtzman died (which was years after the series finished) and were marketed to collectors rather than the millions who read Playboy or any other general audience.  They're more akin to a Penguin Complete O. Henry collection than to a Tintin album.  I question whether the collections merit mention in the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good analysis their comparison. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Little Annie Fanny began as a male character. - this comes out of nowhere, and the rest of the paragraph doesn't seem to follow it; I think it can safely be nixed. Also, isn't her name Annie Fanny?
 * Ceradon made the same observation (above). My intention was to start the section off with an interesting statement that is resolved by the end of the section, and I thought doing so would be considered good writing (I got the idea from one of the sources that did the same thing). But now you both have convinced me that this opening sentence must be deleted, and I can agree that the section will not suffer greatly because of it. I have one minor concern; may I ask advice from (both of) you: This explicitly stated fact about Kurtzman starting Annie as a male character was the hook of the DYK (see the article talk page). Do you think deleting the sentence and leaving the fact just implicitly stated would not be good in that case? Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already explained that Annie was based on Goodman Beaver, a male character, so that wouldn't be an issue. Also, sometimes DYK hook facts are removed after the fact. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks for that. The out-of-nowhere opening sentence has been deleted. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph of "Creation" uses the word "Playboy" six times. Might want to reduce that number.
 * Good point. It is now down to an irreducible three; this is much better. Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The cartoonist began submitting story ideas for the multi-page comic strip to Hefner for approval and was allowed (with Playboy substantial budget) to travel for research, photography, and sketching. He followed this with a preliminary script for Hefner, who always revised it. - Seems to shift from "How it began" to "How it always was" in the same sentence. Worth reworking?
 * This is a good observation, and in fact I had been aware that this transition needed to be skillfully handled, and I see that the Guild's copy edit to combine two sentences may have undermined this challenge. I have changed it to the following, what do you think? "The cartoonist began submitting story ideas for the multi-page comic strip to Hefner for approval. [The transition happens here.] He was allowed (with Playboy‍‍'​‍s substantial budget) to travel for research, photography, and sketching. He followed this with a preliminary script for Hefner, who revised it. Kurtzman then worked out the story's composition ..." Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add a time clarifier, similar to "Over the twenty-six years he wrote the character, he was allowed (with Playboy‍‍'​‍s substantial budget) to travel for research, photography, and sketching. He would follow this with a preliminary script for Hefner, who revised it; Kurtzman then worked out the story's composition." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. This is now done exactly the way you suggest. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Annie is the morally upstanding Goodman Beaver character, conceived as a modern Candide and above the story's corruptions and temptations. - Better not say she "is" the character in Wikipedia's voice. Should be reworked.
 * I see what you mean; for the encyclopedia to use the word "is" means this is an irrefutable fact. However, I can honestly say that the sources demonstrate how the one character became the other and (I thought) this was reflected in the article, and so I thought saying "is" here would be appropriate. But you don't think so? I suppose we could instead say, "Annie may be ..." What do you think? Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Is" could imply "Annie exists as / is the same character"; though she has similar characteristics, she is a different character, and as such "is" feels like a metaphor. "Annie, a morally upstanding character like Goodman Beaver, was conceived as a modern Candide and is above the story's corruptions and temptations." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see what you mean; thanks for clarifying that. I have changed it to: "Annie is a morally upstanding character like Goodman Beaver; she was conceived as a modern Candide and is above the story's corruptions and temptations." I really like it; it is finally very clear. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bigbucks' mysterious assistant, the Asp, becomes the Wasp in the Playboy strip and bodyguard Punjab becomes Punchjab. Wanda Homefree, Annie's wild and shapely best friend, first appears in an episode-10 beauty contest as Miss Greenwich Village and is seen at Annie's side throughout the remainder of the series. - Shifts between talking about Orphan Annie as the subject and Annie Fanny; might be worth reworking, as the "Wanda Homefree, Annie's wild and shapely best friend" could also be (mis)understood as Orphan Annie's best friend.
 * Good one, I hadn't noticed that. Do you think it would solve it to, just before the "Bigbucks' mysterious assistant ...", change from a full stop to a semicolon? Then one big sentence talks about Little Orphan Annie, but all the other sentences are normal character discussions. Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd use "Annie Fanny" instead of just Annie — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well duh, we could do that too. It is now: "Annie Fanny's wild and shapely best friend" Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Humble Oil's "Put a Tiger in Your Tank" ad campaign - Per WP:EASTEREGG and to standardize how you mention homages to real-life companies, we should probably nix the link and add a parenthetical about Exxon.
 * I see what you mean; I had felt good about it because the Exxon article mentions Humble Oil before the end of its second sentence. I have changed it to "and the "Put a Tiger in Your Tank" ad campaign of Humble Oil (which became Exxon).". Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We can link to Humble Oil as well, assuming it was still extant at the time of publication. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes of course it was, Kurtzman was satirizing its existance. Done; Humble Oil is now linked. Much better mentioning both and linking to both. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "reads today as an amusing look at the evolving mores of the sexual revolution". - does anyone discuss exactly what those mores were, as presented by the comics?
 * Do you mean, do any of the sources discuss it? Yes, and the article cites Duncan & Smith further down when it talks about "society's new rules, which are introduced each episode" and the synopsis gives several examples. Please allow me to continue this discussion in your last note below. Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * but no film was made. - is this also in the source? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm busted; no it does not. It states that a search for an actress for the upcoming movie is underway. Today, it is clear from the absence of evidence that the movie never came out, but I checked again and there are zero sources that say it never came out. My intention was to comprehensively report on the adaptations of the comic. What is your advice? Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to do short of a statement from a reliable source. I don't doubt it's true, but right now it's not in the citation given, and perhaps not in any citations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured out what to do: I moved the citation from after "but no film was made" to before, so that it cites only the actress search statement. Prhartcom (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the statement that no film was made needs a citation—the big problem here, though, is your source. You're using Playboy`s search ad itself as a source, which I'm afraid is WP:OR.  The fact that no film was made (in fact, the fact that they were searching for an actress) is not cited in an accptable WP:RS. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of Playboy for the search. Agree that we still need to find a ref for them not finding anyone. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the offending phrases. Please check the paragraph and see if it makes any sense; I have my doubts. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Two unsuccessful attempts" is still implicitly unreferenced. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Prhartcom (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jstor has 15 results for "Little Annie Fanny" in their archive; have you checked these for useful information?
 * I'm checking right now, thanks for that. (I have not used JSTOR before but I just acquired a JPASS just now.) I do indeed want to ensure this article is comprehensive. Prhartcom (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked, and am disappointed but not surprised to report that there is no good information in these 15 citations. Most are mere passing references to the title of the strip while discussing some other subject (one in Spanish), one is a Kurtzman obituary, one is a review of one of my already-in-use sources. Only one has possible encyclopedic content, it is a review of a Kurtzman interview in which he states, "It takes a month of man hours to do a single page and the research is a hell of a lot of fun", but I think I already cover the research and the difficulty of the effort. I now have more confidence that the books and other citations I currently reference provide comprehensive coverage of this subject. Prhartcom (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The month of man hours is a good concrete piece of information, assuming he meant it literally. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the surface it sounds like good information but I really don't think he meant it literally, considering the fact that the four- or five-page Annie was coming out about five times a year. Here is the source; I just can't see using it: A typewritten newsletter that has a two-sentence review of a lost interview. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mention in the article that Annie "innocently finds herself nude in every episode"; do any of your sources mention how?
 * Yes, in the Reception section, we quote a source saying that each episode has to include Annie disrobing and another quote states how this was occasionally done awkwardly. Elsewhere we say that this was required because of the magazine's editorial style. Perhaps I should add a sentence or a phrase to the Synopsis section, which allows primary sources, that gives one or two examples how. For example, Annie once tried on see-through clothing (that was all the rage at the time), another time she won the Boston marathon—not by a nose but by a nipple, and on another day she was paid by an adult toy manufacturer to impersonate a naked sex doll (see the image illustrating the article). What do you think? Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be useful, yes. Even just a sentence, so that readers can see (not be told) how "forced" or "natural" the nudity was. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand now what you are asking and, and I especially understand how this could illustrate the answer to what you are asking in your last note below. This could really help the article. I will get back to you. Prhartcom (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Overall, I'm not getting a very clear impression of the narrative style of the comics, except for the fact that they were episodic. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are making me concerned that the article isn't clearly stating that the narrative style of each episode of Little Annie Fanny was to hold society's latest hot topic up for ridicule by having other characters in the comic introduce it to Annie and allow her to experience it in her innocent way. I thought the article says this, but if it does not, can you please offer a suggestion where and how I can make an improvement? Thank-you very much for your review, Chris, it is an honor to work with you! Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is that, but, and this is my concern, how this satire was done (its "satirical style" as it were) isn't clear to me after reading the article. The satire of, say, Bored of the Rings is very different than what we'd find in The Onion or even Mad; the same goes for comics. She watches A Clockwork Orange, for instance, in her innocence. How does this serve as satire? Is it satirizing the moral outrage over the violence of such films (maybe she gets upset that someone would dare depict such acts on film), the human "car crash gawker" mentality which makes us take pleasure in this violence (maybe she finds a strange pleasure in it), or even both, or...? I'm not saying that all such references need explanation, but it would be good to know the manner in which they satirized things, and the position which they took (assuming this is discussed). It's like the question of "the evolving mores of the sexual revolution"; the artists and writers certainly presented their own POV regarding the mores, but what this POV was (pro-, anti-, guarded, etc.) isn't clear. If there is discussion available in the sources, something about their views, the themes permeating the comics, should be included. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now what you're asking me to do. To answer your question off the record, it is closer to "she gets upset that someone would dare depict such acts on film" while her friends are more accepting of it. As both Kurtzman and Playboy leaned liberal (vs conservative), there was no shocked condemnation but more progressive acceptance. I now agree that, if this is discussed in the sources, it must be included in the article. I will check the sources and get back to you. This is a really, really good note Chris, one that could really improve this article and make it FA worthy; thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kurtzman critics have dissected his storytelling techniques in detail (like the essay in The Comics Journal on "The Big If" which is longer than the strip itself). By the time they get to Annie a lot of this is taken for granted, so I think it'll be harder to find a lot of detail on storytelling techniques in the strip—the focus is rather on how Annie differs (the painted art, the boobies).  I wonder if it would be WP:SYNTH to throw in a paragraph talking about Kurtzman's general approach (his storytelling approach is pretty consistent throughout his career).  Kitchen & Buhle would be a good source for that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In a paragraph introducing Kurtzman, quite possible. I've done it with September Morn before. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha. You said "boobies". Still checking. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still checking (and getting some real life done; aplogies for the delay). Prhartcom (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to gain consensus for promotion after being open for over a month—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  13:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.