Talk:Point the Finger/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 22:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 09:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I haven't thought about Crumb since my comics history class in undergrad... this will be interesting to review! I typically prefer to make simple prose edits myself and only make comments about trickier stuff, but of course you should feel free to revise or discuss any changes I may make in that way. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Viriditas, that was a very smooth review! The only thing tied to the GA criteria are two ideas to increase the "breadth" of the article and one bumpy bit of prose I wasn't sure how to smooth out; let me know what you think about those. The other notes have some optional suggestions. Looking forward to passing this soon! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

It's bit jarring to start with Robert Crumb continued to satirize... when we haven't heard yet that he had started satirizing. Maybe something like "In his extensive comics career starting in the 1960s, Crumb often satirized...". Otherwise, no issues with the prose. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I do love in medias res. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, I was making a joke. I will revisit. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done.[1] Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed the joke :) And the revised version addresses my concern, so I've marked the prose as good to go. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really wanted to find more detail for The comic received additional attention in 2016 but I couldn't turn up anything reliable! So even though it's pretty brief, I conclude this is as much as the article can feasibly say (no "breadth" problem). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I didn't write that. That was added by another editor.[2] Happy to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to stay -- this basic statement is clearly verified by its source. Bringing it up was just me thinking-out-loud and verifying that I'd evaluated this aspect of the "breadth". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about breadth: it would be nice to describe somewhere the basics of the comic's visual appearance. For example, it's black and white, it has Crumb's signature energetic and heavily-inked style, there are six (?) square panels per page... is there a source that spells out these details, which could orient readers to the basic facts of the comic? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will look into it. I think there is at least one. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this now. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No source found. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can just briefly describe it and point to the ISBN/OCLC. I don't see a problem with that as long as I don't deviate from basic, uncontroversial facts that anyone can agree with just by looking at the comic. It would be similar to citing how many pages it has, the publisher, etc. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this now. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added.[3] Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking for sources there, and I agree that the basic details you added are appropriate to source to the comic itself. Good find for the Alan Pipes quote on his signature style. This addresses my concern, which was the last outstanding one tied to the GA criteria -- I think this article is good to go! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the source check, I'm checking sources 3, 6, 7, and 8, as numbered in this diff.
- 3, 6, and 7 check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think you could use 7 (Hock 2020) for more than just a plot summary -- Hock critiques the story for promising "a broader consideration of Trump's role in American life" but falls short "in its focus on Trump the personality". Hock also says that because the comic "effac[es] any historical specificity to Trump's position, as well as any possibility of agency that could effect change," despite its negative attitude toward him, "Trump's wealth and power come across as products of his sheer personal magnetism. ... the story's narrative logic fits with Trump's own self-fashioning. This, then, is one of the dangers in crafting Trump fiction: the possibility that, in focusing on Trump, the text will fall into the trap of playing by Trump's rules". All of that stuff could add an interesting few sentences to the "critiques" section, since it's a different point being made than just the comments on sexism. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed. In progress. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Working on this now. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Just want to point out that Hock was wrong about the pagination. The comic is six full pages, not five. There have been several editions (as I've noted in the new publication history section) but this article says six pages because that's how many there were in the original. Working on the rest. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  "It’s just like th' fuckin' Roman Empire! Nothing's changed in 2,000 years". Note, this is Crumb's callback to Philip K. Dick in Weirdo #17 (1987) from two years prior.[4] Dick used the phrase "The Empire never ended" throughout Valis and it is part of the theme of Crumb's comic about PKD in '87. Unfortunately, I can't mention this without a source. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Added first pass on more Hock material.[5] Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, this adds a lot! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't able to fully access 8 (Worden 2021) but through strategic querying of the gbooks preview I am satisfied that the relevant material is verified. The quote is accurate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Nevertheless, I will check it again to make sure. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I have Worden 2021 in front of me. Let me know if you want me to email you a copy or want me to verify certain aspects. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the source check, I noticed that the shortened footnotes are done manually rather than using Template:Sfn! That means that when someone mouses over the short footnote (e.g., Miller 2022, p. 54) there's no link to the long footnote. I believe that still satisfies the GA criteria for referencing, since GA just requires that some system is used to organize the footnotes, but in future you may want to try using the Sfn template. I found it quite quick & intuitive to start using, and it's pretty slick in how it assists in source-checking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have another fix in mind. I tend to stay away from templates because when I took a long break, I returned to find all the templates in my articles broken. Since then, I've found plain text to be more reliable over time, however, the compromise I've developed involves the use of anchor tags, which gives the same appearance. I will fix this. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important to the GA criteria, and it you don't like templates you don't have to use them! Just wanted to mention it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed refs.[6] Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would be good to cite both Hock 2020 and Worden 2021 to the specific chapter rather than the whole book. It's not vital, since a page number is provided to simplify verification, but it would be good practice. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done.[7] Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate non-free-use rationale for the cover image. For additional images, anything more closely related to the comic would be copyrighted, but it looks like we have three different photos of Trump and Reagan shaking hands in the 80s which could be fun to include: [8] [9] [10] ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Obviously, I meant one would be fun to include, though part of me now thinks Crumb would improve of adding a gallery of all three...!) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will get to this shortly. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it now. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added one image. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a second image of another figure. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the Trimalchio image is a great idea! These look good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.