I am nominating this for featured article because it is an important ovelooked work in its field, far more influential than it was ever popular—the story of Kurtzman's life. Despite accolades from critics and peers, it goes out of print for decades at a time (twenty-five years and counting since the last printing). What am I to do when the binding on my own 1988 copy finally gives? Keep it in a bag, as Art Spiegelman did with his 1959 printing? Curly Turkey (gobble)03:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please check WP:image_resolution for non-free images (Done). The recommended size should be 100,000 pixel, unless there is a very good reason for a higher resolution image. Currently the first 2 fair-use images fail WP:NFCC #3b for minimal usage. As the images are used for identification and illustration of a certain panel layout, i don't see the need for a higher resolution here. GermanJoe (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear up any doubts about PD-US-not-renewed, Fantagraphics Books co-owner Gary Groth did an official check on the story, and found that Archie Comics had failed to renew the copyright. He took advantage of that by republishing it in The Comics Journal #262 in September 2004, and made a big deal of it by publishing a story about it on the website of The Comics Journal, along with a .pdf of the story that was left there for years, until the site was renovated and all of the old site's articles were taken down. Archie Comics has a reputation for litigiousness—it's how they won the story's copyright in the first place—and they've done nothing in the last nine years to contend the story's copyright status. The whole situation has been written up in more than one independent source. TL;DR—the story is clearly established to be in the Public Domain in the US. Curly Turkey (gobble)11:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jungle Book came about when Ballantine Books was looking for a line of cartoon humor books to replace its Mad series of paperbacks, - came about is slightly informal
to replace its Mad series of paperbacks, after the Mad books had moved to another publisher. - Bit after the comma is slightly redundant in repeating Mad books. better as just "which had moved..."
Whereas Kurtzman aimed his Mad stories at an adolescent audience, he intended Jungle Book to be for adults—nearly unprecedented in American comics at the time.[3] - which was nearly
How does this work? — "Kurtzman had aimed his Mad stories at an adolescent audience; his targeting Jungle Book at an adult audience was nearly unprecedented in American comics." Curly Turkey (gobble)22:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General: grammar is pretty bad throughout, needs to be run through with a fine comb. I'm picking stuff up as I go but my eyes are only so good.
Violence suffers the onslaughts of a thug who attempts to keep him away from her, but in the end it is revealed that the thug and Violence are partners in extortion.[1] - This sentence is too vague to properly explain the story.
Well, to be honest, the story's not exactly a clockwork piece of tight plotting; it's pretty much one gag after another, and ends with Violence suddenly and inexplicably deciding to become a pro wrestler. Curly Turkey (gobble)22:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It remained a favorite of Kurtzman's,[7] as he found it especially successful; - successful in what respect?
(a recognizable parody of James Arness as Marshal Matt Dillon from the popular Gunsmoke TV show)[13] - Most parodies are recognizable. That word should be excised.
and was thus Kurtzman's least favorite, as he had yet to perfect the style he had developed for the book.[14] - Could you describe this style in an adjective here?
No, as Kurtzman is referring to his overall apporach to the work: drawing, pacing, page layouts, word balloons, etc. were quite a departure from those of his earlier works. He'd never had the amount of space to work with that he had in Jungle Book, and the space gave him the opportunity to do a lot of things he coulnd't have before. Curly Turkey (gobble)21:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"You cain not truss[a] a man who reads!"[5] - Needs a {{sic}}.
The town sheriff overlooks the lynching, despite the presence of a "Northern" reporter[15] (actually, from the northern part of the state).[1] - This actually part would be better as prose or as a footnote. Should not be in parentheses.
The story appeared when Hollywood adaptations of works set in the South by writers such as Tennessee Williams and William Faulkner were being made. - Very chunky sentence, needs revision.
Harris-Fain 2012 is used 10 times. Surely all of this info is coming from different pages on that source, so I really feel you should put in the effort to be more precise and use the page numbers. Every other source uses them!
What makes Doree, Pete (2009). ""Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book". The Golden Age of Blogs. Retrieved 2012-02-01." a reliable source? *What is the notation at the end (the "— overview and page samples.")?
Sure, WP:NBSP. I believe I used them correctly, though I think there are alternative ways. If I did them incorrectly, feel free to rv me. ceranthor02:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor Round 2
Lead looks a lot better! Nice job.
Kurtzman had created the satirical Mad in 1952, but left its publisher EC Comics in 1956 after a dispute over financial control. - Can you just clarify this a little bit for me? Does this mean Kurtzman wanted control but couldn't obtain it?
The story's quite involved, with conflicting versions and interpretations, but one simple version is: Kurtzman wanted control over the business aspects of the magazine; Hugh Hefner offered him a job in the Playboy empire, and Kurtzman used that to back himself up when he asked Bill Gaines for a 51% stake in Mad. Kurtzman went on to one failed enterprise after another; the consensus seems to be that he was a visionary genius whose every ambition was foiled by his unbending lack of business sense. Curly Turkey (gobble)22:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything mentioned in the first round has been fixed to my satisfaction. :)
"The social satire in the book's four stories target Peter Gunn-style private detective shows". "target" → "targets", since this is referring to "social satire" and not the stories themselves.
Style and themes: The unspaced en dash that appears in the first paragraph here goes against the MoS. Making it a larger em dash like in the previous section would fix this issue.
Support – After the fixes, I'm satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. It's another nice little comic book article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... early in his career Kurtzman worked doing crossword puzzles for Goodman". Presumably what's meant is that he created crosswords, not that he filled them in Kurtzman to take the credit for having completed them?
"In the 1950s, a trend of "adult" Westerns appeared in which the characters were given psychological backgrounds to their motivations". That's really awkward. How can a motivation be other than psychological?
"Compulsion" was the third story in the book, but the first to be drawn, and was thus Kurtzman's least favorite, as he had yet to perfect the style he had developed for the book." In what sense had he developed the style if he had yet to perfect it?
In the sense that he had yet to work all the kinks out of it, I presume. I have my own ideas, but my sources don't talk about this stuff much. He'd never worked with the page count (roughly thirtysomething pages per story, vs the maximum eight he had been used to) and page dimensions (tall and thin) he was given for this project, and also developed somewhat different styles of drawing (thin brushlines instead of thick) and dialogue balloons. He was a seasoned professional with nearly twenty years in the industry; he could make it all "work", but it took a couple of stories for him to have the kind of control he was aiming for. That's my OR interpretation. Curly Turkey (gobble)21:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... who saw the possibilities of the comics medium in the formalities of the scene's portrayal of motion". Is "comics" right there? Either "comic's" or "comic" would seem to be more correct.
"... over a dispute about financial control with EC Comics publisher William Gaines". Needs to be reordered: "over a dispute with EC Comics publisher William Gaines about financial control".
"These panels inspired Art Spiegelman in the way Kurtzman experimented with formalities such as the portrayal of motion.": You've removed the period from this caption. As far as I can tell, this is a complete grammatical sentence: "These panels" is the subject, "inspired" is the verb, and "Art Spiegelman" is the direct object. Could you explain why this wouldn't require a period as a caption? Curly Turkey (gobble)22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "fight"? I haven't reverted, have I? I'm ignorant of in what context such a sentence should not be punctuated. If I don't understand, then I'm sure to do it again. Curly Turkey (gobble)23:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert it if you don't agree with my opinion, which is that in the caption the opening "These" is referring to what's displayed in the image, not to any preceding text. I agree that this may be an edge case, but that's my take nevertheless. You could maybe ask Tony1 for a more definitive view, but it's really not important in the context of this review. EricCorbett00:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have absolutely no problem with, but does nothing to prevent me from loading up articles with inappropriate punctuation in the future. Curly Turkey (gobble)03:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Panels that inspired Art Spiegelman in the way Kurtzman experimented with formalities such as the portrayal of motion"—I just don't understand the grammatical structure—or the intended meaning. I'm not looking any further at the main text or the image description page, since the caption should stand alone. So are the panels by Kurtzman? Are they the only panels that inspired Spiegelman, or just among those that did? At the moment, it's a huge and ungainly nominal group (noun phrase), and by the strict letter of the MOS shouldn't have a final period (although I know many editors disagree with this rule, including Noetica ... perhaps someone needs to propose a loosening of it at MOS talk?). "Four of the panels by Kurtzman that influenced Spiegelman, showing how Kurtzman experimented with formalities such as the portrayal of motion."? Tony(talk) 02:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Four of the panels" doesn't make it clear that it was this particular sequence (and not just one amongst others) that opened Spiegelman's eyes to the formal properties of comics (Spiegelman is known to people who know these things as an unrepentant formalist). How about:
I'm getting close to supporting this, despite my initial feeling that it might be a bit thin, but it is after all an article on a failed publishing venture. I'm really, really unhappy though about having a section called Overview right after the lead. Isn't the lead supposed to be the overview? Might it be better called something like Background? EricCorbett20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "Overview" is less than ideal, but there's nothing "Background"-y about the section—it's made up mostly of story summaries, about as "Foreground" as you get. I couldn't think of anything appropriate on the bikeride to work this morning, but I'll see what I can come up with. Curly Turkey (gobble)22:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right of course, Background is even worse than Overview; don't know what I was thinking when I suggested that. What about something simple and straightforward like Contents? EricCorbett23:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your kind heart for taking pity this poor article and possibly saving it from what seemed like an inevitable archiving. Basement nerds of the world will intone to themselves their gratitude to you in their strange, introverted ways. Curly Turkey (gobble)01:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
