Talk:Point the Finger

Point the Finger is currently a Language and literature good article nominee. Nominated by Viriditas (talk) at 22:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: 1989 comic book story

Comics

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Presidents: Donald Trump

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

Pages

It looks like there are different versions or editions of the comic with different numbers of pages. Many of the sources say the work is only five pages, but I don't think that's the first edition, as it's clearly six. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partially solved, with the addition of Becker 2022, p. 72. However, while this source corrects the previous error of five pages repeated by many other references, it seems to make a new error, saying that the story was written in 1986 instead of 1989. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related material

I'm not sure if it belongs here, but apparently, Trump supporters attempted to claim the "Keep on Trucking" work as their own and turned it into variations of "Keep on Trumping", and either used Crumb's original art or some variation of it with Trump's visage instead of Mr. Natural. This so upset Crumb that he released somewhere around six anti-Trump t-shirts as a kind of push back. Again, not sure if it belongs in this article, but it is tangentially related.
Crumb and his wife (now deceased) collaborated on newer Trump artwork together that was shown in an exhibition. I'm still trying to find sources for it; so far, I've only found passing mentions of it. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American comics category

I added the American comics category because there is no "Comics about the United States" category. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Point the Finger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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 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]
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]
- 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.[3] 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.[4] 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: [5] [6] [7] ~ 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]