Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2013: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
added one
Add 5
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek Confederacy/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph P. Kennedy III/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncle David/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1960 North Indian Ocean cyclone season/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive2}}

Revision as of 15:56, 12 August 2013

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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj

Nominator(s): Mongolkhun (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because now the article looks it may fit into Featured Article status. I contributed to last editions to tweak the text. Thank you. Mongolkhun (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a, 1c, and 1d at the minimum. I'm sorry but this, in my opinion, has not been adequately prepared. It was recently rated B-class and you got some good suggestions to start with. I see there was also a peer review with no participation—I recommend opening a peer review and waiting for full participation if you want to develop a worklist. At a high level, I noticed:

  • The writing, especially in the lead, approaches being reverential in tone. There are also quite a few common grammatical and formatting errors throughout the whole plage—it will need a thorough copyedit after content and source issues have been addressed.
  • A laudatory statement in the lead is sourced to what looks like a PR release by the Mongolian government. This is not a neutral source.
  • The sourcing in general is sub-par, without any discernible formatting strategy or compliance with WP:RS. WikiLeaks and "International Society for Individual Liberty" are cited just in the lead... these are not reliable or acceptable as used. There are innumerable other sources throughout the article that don't meet WP:RS.

A lot of this is beyond simple editing, and will require being completely rewritten and re-sourced to meet even A-class or GA standards. Please close this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the Wikileaks reference with news reference and removed the "International Society for Individual Liberty" citation from the lead as per Laser_brain. Mongolkhun (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- On a quick scan I'm afraid I can only agree with the concerns expressed above re. reverential/hagiographic tone, so I'll be archiving it shortly. This needs a thorough copyedit and peer review before considering a return to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Fishing Creek Confederacy

Nominator(s): King Jakob C2 01:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because last April, it passed a GA nomination. A peer review for the article has now been completed, so I feel that the article can now be made a featured article. Thank you. King Jakob C2 01:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending significant source cleanup. FN1 seems to be the same source as in later short cites, but includes a huge page range and is missing one author. All books are missing publishers, all newspapers are missing page numbers, and the formatting is in general very messy. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have fixed most of the sourcing issues, but references 6, 8, and 17 are slightly problematic, as I only have access to the individual articles and not the newspapers themselves, and so am not able to determine the page numbers. Still, they are dated and the newspapers and articles are titled, so if someone is determined enough to find the newspapers, then isn't it verifiable enough? King Jakob C2 16:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I thought User:Cdtew's comments during the peer review were right on the mark. In particular, your lead doesn't really get at the significance or consequences of what would otherwise have been a non-story. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on the lead. There are also misspellings and grammatical mistakes; ask around for help with the prose. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It could really do with a good copyedit (you might try the Guild); in particular, check for the repetition of phrases or words in close succession (e.g. the use of "tension" in the opening section, where I think it is used six times in two paragraphs). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: @Hchc2009: I listed the article at the GOCE requests page, but in the meantime have done some tidying up myself. King Jakob C2 13:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I won't oppose because I don't want to pile on, but I also think the article needs further work. One piece of advice I will give is to cut down on the number of one-sentence paragraphs in the article. I count three, and they are particularly noticeable towards the end. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- It doesn't appear to me that the objections raised above will be overcome any time soon so I'll be archiving this nomination. I might note also that there's some serious overlinking in the article, e.g. professional, amateur, historian, and what seems to me a totally unnecessary redlink, military uprising -- all just in the lead. Please take on board the comments above and rework the article accordingly -- it can be renominated at FAC after a minimum two-week break. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Joseph P. Kennedy III

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A novice U.S. Congressman from Massachusetts, grand-nephew of a murdered president. Very few achievements so far, so consider this a minor article on a well-documented young politician. —Designate (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas with WP:GA there is very little enforcement of the breadth requirment, at WP:FA topics that are not broad enough and interesting enough tend not to pass. For a politician this is a very narrow article at this point in his career. Even if the article meets WP:MOS, it seems to me that the topic will have difficulty passing WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no "breadth requirement" in the FA criteria. It's "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", though. —Designate (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only discussion of length or breadth is criteria 1b which merely requires that a featured article be "comprehensive" in that it does not neglect major facts or details. I've seen several FAs shorter than this candidate. I do not see anything that stands out to me as lacking in a cursory perusal of the article, but will look the article over in detail shortly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness

  • FN6, 13: missing italics
  • Use consistent date formatting
  • FN21: formatting
  • Compare formatting of FNs 18 and 26
  • FN33: don't use all-caps
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links
  • Can you justify Ballotpedia with respect to WP:EL/WP:ELNO? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Crisco re "breadth" etc, but it does concern me that as a Congressman of 6 months standing nearly every time he does anything at all ought to be added to his article for the next couple of years or so. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - haven't got time for a full read, but ref #6 to Sports Illustrated looks dubious (or maybe citations have been mixed up). Neither the long quote (b) nor the internship (c) are covered by this article. GermanJoe (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-USGov, Flickr with no apparent problems, YT-image). Sources and authors provided.

Delegate comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open almost a month with no comments since the first week, this nom appears well and truly stalled, and will be archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Uncle David

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article on a British, low-budget avant-garde film for featured article because it attained GA status a few months back, and currently uses all information available on the subject; in essence, its as comprehensive as it is going to get. I believe that it meets the FA criteria, and would make an interesting addition to Wikipedia's collection of Featured Articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Not sure why there's so little interest in this nom but it's been a month, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Given the dearth of reviews, you can renominate in less that the usual two-week break if you choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

1960 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1960 North Indian Ocean cyclone season marked the beginning of a decade long trend of deadly cyclones in what was then East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh), culminating with the deadliest tropical cyclone on record in 1970. In 1960, East Pakistan was struck by two particularly devastating storms, resulting in over 20,000 fatalities. In light of these storms, the local government sought help from the United States for providing the public with better cyclone preparation plans. Overall, the season featured fifteen depressions, five of which developed into cyclonic storms. The collective loss of life from these systems reached 20,299.

While information is generally scarce, for reasons unknown to me, the India Meteorological Department's annual cyclone report provides sufficient info on all of the year's storms. The article is as comprehensive as can be with the available information. I hope you all enjoy reading this and as always, all thoughts and comments are welcome! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right off the bat, I'm confused. The 1960 North Indian Ocean cyclone season featured two deadly tropical cyclones that killed approximately 20,000 people in East Pakistan. - was this 20,000 each, or collectively?
  • The season has no official bounds but cyclones tend to form between April and December. These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the northern Indian Ocean. - since this could be the first NIO season FA, it should set a good standard, meaning I'd love if this was sourced. It also seems to be slightly redundant to what appears later - On average, four to six storms form in the North Indian Ocean every season with dual peaks in activity during May and November. Since the latter sentence is more helpful, I'd cut the first bit. I should note, though, that ref #1 (the IMD one) isn't working for me. Perhaps it's a bad link?
  • Cyclones that occurred between 45°E and 100°E are included in seasonal records by the IMD. - should it be "are" or "were"? The database is technically still ongoing, but they were put in only once, right?
  • I would link the first instance of "cyclonic storms" to cyclonic storm.
  • "The majority of the activity took place in the Bay of Bengal, where eleven systems formed in total. The season's first storm formed over the Arabian Sea on May 10." - I feel like this would work fanjastically if it had a semicolon and "however", or a but, linking the two. I would be so happy about that.
  • "Though it remained over water for its entire existence, several vessels encountered the storm and reported hurricane-force winds accompanied by barometric air pressure of 974 mbar (hPa; 28.77 inHg)." - eek, a bit long. Don't freak out people in the lede with too much text.
  • "The storm producing a 6.1 m (20 ft) storm tide that swept 16 km (10 mi) inland" - "producing" --> "produced"
  • There is a discrepancy between "Severe Cyclonic Storm One" and its infobox calling it a "Very Severe Cyclonic Storm" (which is also how it's mentioned in the timeline).
  • You're inconsistent when you refer to multiple days. I see "May 14 and 17" and "August 8 through August 14".
  • Is "a wave of low pressure" a thing? The next sentence confused me when you said "this upper-level system".
  • "Once onshore, the depression degenerated into a remnant low, the remnants which persisted until August 28 when they were absorbed into a trough over Rajasthan Pradesh." - a general complaint of the article is that you have some shorter sentences that could easily be merged.
  • "and Uttar Pradeshes" - if you're doing the plural, I think it should be lowercase "pradeshes" (and maybe link?)
  • Depression Seven has - "to $9.2 million" - but the source says $9.24. I'd add the extra decimal place. However, the infobox for the whole article says $9.4 million. And nowhere does it say it's in 1960 USD, or any other currency.
  • "An estimated 6,000 people perished " - was this overall?
  • "by the nation's poor infrastructure" - East Pakistan wasn't a nation though. I'd get rid of "nation" to simplify matters.
  • I'd link storm surge earlier than SCS 10.
  • Were there actual "tidal waves"?
  • "Offshore, these waves were estimated at 12.2 m (40 ft); though they significantly decreased before impacting land." - any reason you used semicolon and not comma?
  • UN provides some updated death tolls for storms 9 and 10.
  • "Cittagong" - typo? It should be Chittagong.
  • Is the "tropical wave" mentioned in the final storm a typical tropical wave?
  • The link to List of notable tropical cyclones in the see also section goes to List of tropical cyclone records. Is there a reason that is there?

All in all pretty good, just some minor things here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The lead says, "These systems marked the start of an unusually active period of cyclones impacting East Pakistan, culminating ten years later with the 1970 Bhola cyclone, which killed between 300,000 and 500,000" But this is not mentioned in the body of the article. This needs to be there somewhere, perhaps towards the end?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally something like that would go in a season summary section, but there's not enough information available to support one. I felt it more appropriate to keep it in the lead than just let it sit in a stubby section alone. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Open for over a month and no commentary for a couple of weeks, this review has stalled and will be archived shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Whaam!

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a highly important work of art that has a September 28, 2013 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. Over the last few years Roy Lichtenstein's modestly notable works have been selling in the $42–56 million dollar range. This is his single most important/famous work. At an absolute minimum it would sell for $70 million but could sell for two or three times that. If it were to ever be sold it would surely land on the List of most expensive paintings. It is one of if not the very most valuable military art painting in the world.

Please note that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1 remains open but appears to be on the verge of promotion, that I have been granted leave to open this discussion now, and that I have requested closure of Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1. Although I don't think it is an issue, for full disclosure, I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam! is underway.‎TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well that's the thing, Tony... I have no issue with commencing this FAC before Drowning Girl is closed, since the latter is close to that point, but you should've requested withdrawal of the Whaam ACR before starting this. Anyway, wearing my MilHist coordinator's hat, I'll archive the ACR now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theramin

  • Well, this is getting there, slowly. I have applied a light flame-thrower to the under-brush (feel free to revert if you prefer) but I think you need some more copy-editing by a non-specialist. I have to confess to being stumped by the paragraph that starts "The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material"..." What are you trying to say there? -- Theramin (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"largely constructive"? Sigh. Well, at least someone is reading the prose and correcting my inadvertent mistakes. As it seems to be impermissible to put comments in the article, I will repeat them here:

  • What source calls the painting "notable"? I'm sure we can find several calling it "iconic".
  • I think you need a sentence in the lead on whether this is art, or just copying.
  • I have reinstated some of the material deleted here on the pilot, which fits more naturally in the discussion of the source material rather than of the painting itself. The details of the story come from the comic itself (I am sure you have read it) and are mentioned in a couple of the sources. The identification of the fighter planes in the final version are obvious, I think, but I agree we need a better source.
  • Can you spell out the "implications about his statements on modern industrial America"? what implications? what statements? More generally, that paragraph needs some unpacking, I think.

I haven't been following closely the interesting debate above, but I noticed that quite a lot of the text that appears so controversial in this article already appears in Drowning Girl, which passed FAC recently without much trouble. Anyway, I doubt there is more I can sensibly add, so good luck. -- Theramin (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Drowning Girl and Whaam! are both 1963 paintings. Much of the historical context and background supporting the two articles should obviously be similar. He had a 50 year career, but his two most notable works came from 1963. Their articles will share a lot in common. This would not be an issue if we were talking about two paintings from different eras in his career, but these are from the same era and will share context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion request

Issue 1
Ideally, yes. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issue 2
Issue 3

Sources

Source review - spotchecks not done

Source review v2 - per request, still without spotchecks

Comments from Binksternet

  • There should be a lengthier prose explanation of Ben Day dots which Lichtenstein used in this and many other of his pop-art paintings to good effect. Lichtenstein painstakingly hand-painted the dots which would have been automatically generated in normal printing.
  • The context of the original cartoon imagery should be discussed. The Irv Novick image is a fantasy of the future as imagined by a fictional Native American pilot named Johnny Cloud who was active in World War II. The two airplanes depicted are jet fighters of the Korean War era. See pages 200–204 of High & low: modern art, popular culture, ISBN 9780870703546. I will bring further comments to bear on this article. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Few people know that the pilot firing those missiles is a Native American, ‘Johnny Cloud, Navaho Ace’, who receives predictions of his future through ‘smoke pictures’."[7]
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote the following:

Several of Lichtenstein's comics-based works in which the face of the pilot is visible, including Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, Jet Pilot and Von Karp, are inspired by the World War II Navajo U.S. Air Force fighter pilot Johnny Cloud of DC Comics' The Losers. Some sources claim that Cloud, "who receives predictions of his future through 'smoke pictures'", is the subject of Whaam!, even though the plane in the work is the combination of two panels and its subject's face is not visible.

The reader should be told this is a fictional pilot. It won't hurt to say the character was developed by Kanigher. The bit about the plane being the subject of two panels and the face not visible is your own interpretation. The general scene painted by Lichtenstein was from a comic which featured Johnny Cloud. We know that Lichtenstein changed various aspects of the original but nobody says Lichtenstein swapped in a new pilot. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I would also like the reader to be told that the text in the text balloon was written by Kanigher to represent Johnny Cloud's thoughts.
"He reproduced the Ben Day dots of comic strips by laying a metal screen over his canvas, spreading paint with a roller and rubbing it in with a toothbrush."[8]
That is not an adequate WP:RS to support this fact in this article. Lichtenstein only used this technique after doing circles freehand for a while. Several early works have uneven dots, such as Look Mickey, Engagement Ring (Roy Lichtenstein), and likely I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!. We need a source that says by the time he did this work he was using metal screens.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly pertaining to the "Benday dots" I also find this: "The piece was drawn directly on to canvas with pencil and painted in layers of oil and the Magna brand of acrylic paint. Layering meant the paint could remain wet during the production process and allow for manipulations of shape and colour. The Benday dots were produced using a scrub brush and handmade metal screen, the outline of which is evident, on close inspection, in parts of the background. From the preparatory drawing we can see how Lichtenstein has manipulated the original source, including the text."[9]
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"But he never abandoned his signature method, the Ben-Day dot (named after inventor Benjamin Day's 1879 technique for reproducing printed images by using dots to recreate gradations of shading), ensuring that his work would remain as recognisable as it was quotable."[10]
"The Ben-Day dots, too, were meant to suggest the manufactured and simulated: "The dots I use to make the image ersatz. And I think the dots also may mean data transmission." The work is "supposed to look like a fake, and it achieves that, I think," he explained."[11] Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a link to Robert Kanigher who developed the character Johnny Cloud, USAAF pilot, member of the hot-shot squadron called The Losers. "Character Sketch: The Comic That Inspired Roy Lichtenstein", Yale Press, June 26, 2012. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Kanigher/Johnny Cloud stuff is interesting in and of itself, but isn't it tangential to the painting? Given that the imagery was combined from a number of strip panels, we don't even know if that silhouette is "really" Johnny Cloud. After all, it's clearly not the same plane. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Yale Press connected the dots. We cite reliable sources, and the Yale Press is one of them. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • ""We cite reliable sources" doesn't mean we hunt down every source imaginable and then pile the article up with every tangential tidbit we can find—otherwise, we end up with this. This article doesn't even have a summary of the story the panel(s) originally came from (nor is anyone calling for one), but we're supposed to have the backstory to that nonesxitant back story?
          Far more importantly, notice that the Yale source states: "Several of Lichtenstein’s comics-inspired paintings, including Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! (1963); Von Karp (1963); and Jet Pilot (1962), are based on a character named Johnny Cloud from the DC Comic’s All American Men of War series (1956 to 1966)." Never in the body of the article is Whaam! even once mentioned—though the painting is used to illustrate the article, without comment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Paul Gravett source which is already used in the article says that the pilot in Whaam! is Johnny Cloud. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Gravett claims no such thing. Here's what it does say:
              1. "... the image would not have been drawn without the initial script probably by editor Robert Kanigher ..." — It is not clear who the writer of the story was; Gravett speculates it was Kanigher.
              2. "To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition and for one sound effect and narrative caption. He then sketched out a remixed version (above), replacing Novick’s side-view of the attacking plane on the left with a sharper, clearer plane at an angle, taken from the following issue, All American Men Of War #90, from the story ‘Wingmate of Doom’, panel 3 on page 11, drawn by Jerry Grandenetti (below)." — He did not use the plane that Johnny Cloud was in.
              3. "... the most famous, most reproduced single panel from a comic book, but it has been totally removed from its context as merely one of 67 panels across a 13-page story." — Gravett then goes to describe the story and the story's background (including scans of the original 13-page story) but never once claims, suggests, or implies the silhouette in the painting was the same character that appeared in the story—in fact, he appears to imply the exact opposite when he emphasizes that the plane was replaced by one from a different story drawn by a different artist.
            • In short, there is no source that supports the claim that the silhouette is Johnny Cloud, or that the dialogue was written by Kanigher. That the original story included a character orginally co-created by Kanigher is tangential—at best endnote fodder, but in know way helps the reader better understand anything about the painting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I disagree strongly. Paul Gravett says in his Kanigher obituary that Kanigher's "war comics were the sources for nearly all of Roy Lichtenstein's pop art of war, notably his 1963 paintings, Whaam!" The Kanigher text is an undeniably important part of the work of art, and we should tell the reader who wrote it. The library science lecturer Ernesto Priego of City University London, writing for Comics Grid, credits Kanigher with the text and Novick with the visuals, and connects the single Kanigher/Novick panel with the Lichtenstein work, despite the various changes to aircraft, flame, etc. Priego is not alone, of course. The Tate's own description of the artwork makes reference mainly to the single Kanigher/Novick image, you know, the one that says "Whaam" in it. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • The Guardian obituary was from 2002. The article where Gravett qualifies that with a "probably" was from 2013. It's pretty clear that Gravett has become less confident in that assumption. I don't expect the Tate to put the research in themselves (tracking down anonymous comics contributors? Unlikely)—they almost certainly relied on the statements of Gravett or others. Priego gives credit to Kanigher in his sources, but what does he base that on? The work is uncredited (as can be seen in the original posted at the Gravett 2013), and two years after that blog post, Gravett gives us his "probably". If Kanigher is to be credited, it will have to be similarly qualified. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I do like this quote from the Priego: "Besides embodying the cultural prejudice against comic books as vehicles of art, examples like Lichtenstein’s appropriation of the vocabulary of comics highlight the importance of taking publication format in consideration when defining comics, as well as the political economy implied by specific types of historical publications, in this case the American mainstream comic book. To what extent was National Periodical Publications (later DC) responsible for the rejection of the roles of Kanigher and Novick as artists in their own right by not granting them full authorial credit on the publication itself?"
                  It seems Priego's saying that Lichtenstein can't be blamed for not crediting the original creator(s), as they were anonymized by the company that produced the comic book. I think it might be worthwhile considering working that into the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys should know, that I am extremely inexperienced at editing contentious topics. I am not much of a fan of dabates. I avoid editing contentious topics like the plague. I apologize for my tentative style of editing these topics that are under debate. I admit that I am probably seeking consensus on this talk page more than might be normal. I hope it obtains on some issues. Failing that, I hope someone else would take a stab editing these issues.-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • David McCarthy's comment about "winning hearts and minds" is not something we should tell the reader about. McCarthy got his chronology wrong: the "hearts and minds" concept started in 1964, so Lichtenstein would have known nothing about it when he was creating the artwork. This chronology problem greatly reduces the validity of McCarthy's observation. I hold that the validity is reduced to the point where we should remove all mention. The same problem appears with the McCarthy comparison to Lichtenstein's supposed horror with a "deaths per day" sort of warfare, which again is out of chronology. Both WWII and the Korean War were not given the spin of how many enemy were killed each day—the Vietnam War was the first conflict in which the body count per day was important to the US government and the military as a grisly measure of success (since no other measure could be found). Once again, the chronology is wrong: Lichtenstein painting Whaam! would have known nothing about the kind of war based on body count. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what I'm suggesting is a large reduction in the David McCarthy material—anything having to do with themes that were important during the Vietnam War. Whaam! is not a Vietnam-era painting. Binksternet (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That material disappeared a couple days ago; what remains is a useful comparison of differing styles of combat-themed art created during the Cold War by two WWII veterans. The title of McCarthy's book is after all H.C. Westermann at War: Art and Manhood in Cold War America. I believe our article's earlier anachronism problem was sloppiness on my part, not a problem in the source. Here is what McCarthy says, with my comments added: "By the mid-sixties Westermann was not alone in depicting combat or in his opposition to the war. [a correct statement] Many other artists turned to war as a topical comment on American civilization [e.g. Lichtenstein; note the generic term "war", not "Vietnam War"], and some used their work to picture their disgust with the idea that combat was a contest measured in deaths per day. [this "some" refers to the artist discussed in McCarthy's next paragraph, Edward Kienholz, whose The Eleventh Hour displayed the weekly body count from Vietnam] ... In paintings such as Whaam!—which besides being a comic-book sound effect was also the military acronym for 'winning the hearts and minds' of Vietnamese civilians—an American fighter destroys his opponent..." [McCarthy does not allege that Lichtenstein derived "Whaam!" from "W.H.A.M"; he may merely be pointing out an ironic coincidence] Our article no longer contains any suggestion that Whaam! was a response to the Vietnam War. To clarify the Cold War context I have added some material sourced to Art and War by Laura Brandon. Ewulp (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

Oppose on prose, and this is before I properly read the lengthy discussions above. I hate "iconic" being in the lead as it's a glum cliché (even if it's true), and the existence of "the sketch is on two piece of papers" found on a cursory glance at the article suggests it has not been properly proof-read. --John (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Delegate comment - I have moved the lengthy discussion, which was above to the nomination's Talk Page. Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Modernist

Strong oppose pending resolution to Bus Stop's objections, discussion here: [12]...Modernist (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is very little agreement from other discussants about his issues, they were given little weight. If you agree with all or some of his thoughts please explain what you would like to see done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You may not be familiar with the fact that GrahamColm (talk · contribs), one of the FAC directors moved his 97KB of issues to the FAC talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Whaam!/archive1. Much of his commentary was ignored by me the nominator because the other discussants disagreed with most of it. Read the full 97KB before standing so strongly behind this oppose. After a FAC director cast his comments aside, you found him seeking an audience at the Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read most of his comments here and on the talk page - the gist is he objects to discussion regarding Lichtenstein's relationship to his comicbook sources - in general - and thinks those general discussions belong to the Roy Lichtenstein biography and/or the Appropriation article. Bus Stop is not a troll and his issues cannot be swept under the rug...Modernist (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read the 97k, then show some eveidence by resonding to the actual points that have been made. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that all discussion regarding Roy's sources for this painting ("Whaam!) be included; while general discussion of Lichtenstein's relationship to comic book artists and comic book art (in general) be added to his biography and not be included here - This is an article about a specific painting (albeit part of a group of 'War' paintings), but not part of a specific series...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response. This article falls under WP:WPVA, WP:MILHIST and WP:COMICS. Most of the content that you, Modernist (talk · contribs), and Bus stop (talk · contribs) as WPVA members are objecting to is content that has been encouraged by COMICS members Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) and Hiding (talk · contribs). To me it seems like some general context is relevant for an article. This is the first controversial article that I have ever tried to promote. Have you considered the COMICS opposition, what they call the commercial art perspective? I am fairly sure you will say you have so I guess I shall ask if you could clarify the broad elements that you would like to see moved more specifically. Are you talking about all of Whaam!#General_context, some of that section or more than that?---TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that section is not needed. This is about the painting specifically. Roy was a painter he wasn't a cartoonist...Modernist (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody's made the slightlest attempt to paint Lichtenstein as a cartoonist. What's your point? That context is bunk? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is Lichtenstein is an important painter - if you want context - use the artworld of the 1960s when Abstract Expressionism was waning, and Minimalism, Hard-Edge Painting, Color Field painting and Pop Art was on the rise. No one was looking at the comic books; since you brought it up...Modernist (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble reading this response as anything but a bizarre non sequitur. How is this an argument from removing context? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you just don't have a clue...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect the Tate or the CAI to add to discussions in every single painting Lichtenstein's relationship to commercial sources in general. Specific sources for this painting are enough...Modernist (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you disagree with the weight given to those sources by multiple RSes? Please read those multiple RSes before responding, or we'll just go through this whole ridiculous treadmill yet again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do think the "General context" section is way overdone and should be severely reduced, and possibly merged into another section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very good. Please let me know what elements of that should be moved to the bio, since it is you and Hiding that I have included this for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if we start by moving the 1st and 3rd paragraph to the bio? That is about half of the content? (Directed at Curly Turkey and Hiding).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made my comments clear - I think the General context section can be removed.... reduced here to a couple of sentences the entire section or one like it can be added to the biography, and linked here...Modernist (talk) 21:57 22:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be made clear that most of the content of that section wasn't there when Bus Stop was making his comments. Bus Stop's comments did not refer to most of what is in that section now. He clearly stated he wanted all context to do with attribution issues removed (but you read the 97k, so you know this, right?). Read the BBC, Gravett, and Priego sources. They spend paragraph after paragraph talking about exactly those issues in the context of this painting.
So answer these questions:
  1. Do you think context is bunk?
  2. Do you think it's still bunk even when multiple sources obsess over it?
  3. Can you be bothered to read the sources?
  4. Have you read any of the arguments to keep the contextual material at all?
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I just responded to some sources presented in the discussion this weekend, which expanded this section. It seemed like there was a lot of agreement that the Priego content would be beneficial. Most of the other stuff was just links Hiding was pointing to but by people who are notable enough to have WP bios. Would be glad to move some of this content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These sources, often the case when analyzing an artist or a specific creator, are focusing on one work and then stating the same principles apply to a range of works by that creator. That's a very common writing style, but one must not be confused that it emphasizes the example picked over that issues on the creator. This is not to say that any of the Gravett source should be used at Whaam! as to call out the specifics noted, but that the broader strokes about Ray's work that Gravett and the other sources cover using Whaam! as the example are all sources that are much better suited for that discussion at Ray's article, not Whaam!. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, most of the stuff that's recently been included shouldn't have. As I point out below, Bus Stop wasn't objecting to that—he couldn't have, as it wasn't in the article yet. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My answer stands - my comments stand - I don't answer to you! WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your objection remains vague and unactionable, and thus can safely be ignored. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree on Bus Stop and Modernist's opposes here. The sections on "Background" and "General Context" are far too broad (covering all of Ray's comic-inspired works with very little specificity on Whaam! outside a few name-drop examples) that makes this article unfocused - failing WP:WIAFA#4 on length (regarding focus). Those sections should of course not be lost but brought into the article on Ray himself, and this article can call out (even with {{see also}} links) to the appropriate sections and a brief 2-3 paragraph about how Whaam! falls into these comic works and issues around them (necessary info to understand the "Description" section). The article without these sections still is a quality article, and far from in danger of being non-notable, but it shouldn't be considered Featured if it has these two bulky sections that are not specific to the picture. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very good to have a strong opinion about the content from a non-WP:WPVA and non-WP:COMICS person.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem: The "General context" section wasn't what Bus Stop objected to—he couldn't have, as almost none of it was there during the discussion that has been archived. What he objected to was including anything to do with attribution issues—which he characterized as "out of left field" (a direct quote).
It appears, Masem, that you actually support my position: culling the ugly beast that the "General context" section has bloated into, and summarizing the attribution issues (you say 2–3 paragraphs; I actually thought a couple of sentences would suffice). By supporting this position, you are positioning yourself in opposition to Bus Stop's position.
Modernist's postition? I have no idea. All I see is non sequiturs and refusals to answer direct questions. Feel free to support that if you wish. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing is - you don't have to understand my position. Just as long as Tony does...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing is, you continue to make comments that contribute nothing to the improvement of the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion...Modernist (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I read through the past (moved Bus Stop discussion) to some extent but didn't realize that bloated the article. I agree trimming it down to introduce the broader concepts of Ray's attribution and broader issues, in light of being able to discuss Whaam!. I oppose the current version (to wit, what I see here), and believe that it can be trimmed to focus on Whaam! and bringing in the key issues (and I do agree maybe 2-3 para is too much even, but you get my point). I think the way I got confused was due to how Bus Stop posed this on the VPP for attention. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I object to the general content section. I also object to the way Bus Stop has been bullied. Let's be clear - this is Tony's nomination by the way; I clearly stated my objection is to the redundant referrals to comic book art in general that do not specifically address the painting Whaam!...Modernist (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bullying? Check out the browbeating (on the talk page) Bus Stop gave Tony for soliciting editor feedback from Peer Review, which he then proceeded to take to an unrelated ANI (where he calls Peer Review "outsourcing" editing, and tries to make look like some giant crime). Even after being told by an admin it had nothing to do with the open ANI, he continued the browbeating. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Material for inclusion in this article ideally should be sourced to the painting that this article is about. Bus stop (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should "ideally" not pretend that sources don't exist when multiple sources have not only been pointed out several times by several other editors but have been extensively quoted (many of the quotes are now archived on the talk page with the rest of Bus Stop's filibuster). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should ideally be including material in this article that is supported by sources that mention by name the painting Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the sources being used are broad strokes about Ray's work, using Whaam as the example. We can put some details out from those to discuss here in light of Whaam, but the broader issues should be on Ray's article to keep this article focused on Whaam! and not a larger critical nature of Ray's work. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we summarize the issues. Which is what I've proposed repeatedly, but Bus Stop was hardline opposed to it, while claiming the sources cited didn't exist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this edit removed some of another editor's post, or maybe two editors posted at the same time. I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a poorly resolved edit conflict to me. On that note, in these discussions is it not proper to strike out comments when we change our minds rather than rewrite them? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has really responded to me about what to do with the General Context section other than Modernist who says to axe the whole thing. Others above are discussing 2-3 paragraphs or 2-3 sentences. I have cut it to 2 paragraphs. Have a look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of different ideas. One is that the two paragraphs could be moved to the "Reception" section, which I'd rename to "Reception and legacy" to accommodate it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got EC'd but this is my suggestion too. I think Ray's article needs reorg to highlight these issues there (possibly a separation section on his overall criticism, including one on appropriation) but that's not an issue for this article to proceed, just that we know we can broadly talk those issues on the artist's page. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Tony, move the entire section to Roy's biography it doesn't belong in this article...Modernist (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the section again? It's already been gutted. You're not seriously suggesting moving the paragraph on Novick and Lichtenstein in the army out of the article are you? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I am saying - it adds nothing of value to this article which is about the painting done and exhibited in the early 60s; it's nasty and is irrelevant and can be moved to the biography, if needed at all....Modernist (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the source of this specific painting, not about Lichtenstein's work in general. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You also want to remove the Gibbons stuff, even though it's specifically about this painting, and was quoted in multiple RSes, including the BBC? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it isn't about this painting, but it is about this painting as a demonstration of Lichtenstein's larger body of work. This doesn't mean the source or info from it doesn't belong here, but we shouldn't be going on a tangent talking about Lichtensteins' overall reception on this article about one specific article. The way to read those sources is that they are "name dropping" Whaam as an example, but that doesn't mean the article is dedicated to Whaam. We have to balance what that source is trying to do with what its purpose is here. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A quick summary of the work's reception as a part of the artist's overall oeuvre is exactly what I would expect to see as part of the article. Further, this particular painting is "namedropped" precisely because it is such a prominent painting—it plays a central in the artist's overall reception. I'd also dispute that, say, Priego's piece is merely "namedropping" Whaam! when it talks about the attribution issues. Gibbons followed up his criticism with another reimagining of the same panel—that's too remarkably specific Gibbons' criticism to be considered a "namedrop". Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's innuendo and basically irrelevant, that just takes up space, it is not needed...Modernist (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gibbons is "innuendo"? In what way? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, the Novick stuff is quoted by two authors in three academic sources (not the popular press), so I think they carry more weight than your opinion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not your article, nor have you nominated it here for FA, and in my opinion the information is not needed in the article...Modernist (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to demonstrate to the multiple editors who support having it that multiply-sourced information should be removed, not to strong oppose because YOUDONTLIKEIT. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys lets try to keep a level head. Lichtenstein painted for about 50 years. From 1962-64, he did war comics and for a slightly longer period he did romance comics. For a reader of any specific war comic to understand its context some perspective on this period must be presented. We do not expect the reader of this article to be an expert on Lichtenstein and know how to contextualize this work in regards to Lichtenstein's career. We need to explain to the reader the things about this period in his career that will help him understand this work through context. Although all of the formerly 4 paragraph general context may belong in Lichtenstein, a summary of those concerns should be presented here to add breadth to the understanding of this work in the context of Lichtenstein's career. I am seeing remaining context that relates to Whaam! and am fairly certain some of it should stay. I think people are viewing this as deleting/keeping content is a win for one side. These two paragraphs both mention Whaam! and I would like some help winnowing out the most germane elements of the remaining content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modernist, I think you are quite riled up right now to the point where you will tell me to delete anything the COMICS guys want and Curly you are antagonizing him. As I look at the first of the two paragraphs in general context I see content that says "Lichtenstein's works were somewhat frowned upon in some circles for specific reasons and Whaam! is a prime example of this." That is my interpretation of the first paragraph. What I need is help from the two of you to distill this element of that content. You two having a verbal paintball war at this discussion does not help me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a balance issue, we're not talking about wiping out sections wholesale. I agree the reader needs to understand that Whaam! is a result of Lichtenstein's '62-64 period. However, much of what is in "Background" is at a level of detail appropriate for the Lichtenstein article. We have blue-links for a reason so that if a reader needs to learn more they can click through. So we can reduce "Background" to a paragraph that leads off the "History" section, with the paragraph focused tightly on this work being from that period. The stuff about being in the Army, or the stuff about comics as art, is extraneous here, but perfectly suited to the main artist article. Similarly with the General Context stuff. It's not about deleting it, but balancing it given this article is about the specific piece of art and not the artist in general. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "we're not talking about wiping out sections wholesale"—actually, that's exactly what Bus Stop and now Modernist are suggesting. Quote (Modernist): "That's exactly what I am saying - it adds nothing of value to this article ..." We were making a lot of progress with this article until this pair decided they wanted certain portions of it censored. Balance is not what they are striving for. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand that if WPVA had their way the article would omit COMICS' viewpoint. However, we have to get you two talking sensibly. We may never get to a point where WPVA says a featured article on this topic can include COMICS viewpoints, you need to tone down your approach. His "it adds nothing of value" surely was in part spurred on by your attitude. He also said it was "nasty and irrelevant". If this has any chance of getting through it will be with cogent discourse. I have dialogued with Modernist on many occasions. We have him at the table. I am interpretting his strong oppose as more of an objection to the treatment of Bus stop who has been well mannered enough not to knee-jerk oppose himself. As lengthy and almost tedious as Bus stops comments were they were in very good faith, which is quite commendable. Even when his comments got wiped away, he did not retaliate with an oppose. He is trying to be heard and Modernist is now carrying that torch. Modernist is more concise, which for me is better and I have a history with him. Reading Modernist's commentary now makes me feel I must get a better dialogue going. He is almost always quite precise and I don't feel "nasty and irrelevant" would have come from him if he were not spurred. We have a long way to go, but the best chance to get the WPVA approval is with them at the table, but not wearing others down. I am busy tomorrow morning, but hope that we can begin to make progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Masem, do you agree with my one sentence interpretation of the first paragraph in the general context section ("Lichtenstein's works were somewhat frowned upon in some circles for specific reasons and Whaam! is a prime example of this."). What should we present to the reader to convey this information?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Modernist, in general you are suppose to present favorable and unfavorable content for proper breadth. In order for this to ever get to FA, you are going to have to relent that COMICS folks have a lot of bad stuff to say about Lichtenstein (much of which they feel this painting exemplifies) and its entirety can not be excised. You need to help me figure out what bad COMICS stuff is most important to broaden the high art perspective rather than saying just axe all the COMICS stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming we can link to a more detailed discussion on Lichtenstein's article, I would consider that a reasonable summary, though language-wise, I'd flip it to the Whaam angle than Lichtenstein: (read: putting it into context of the painting as the article subject instead of approaching it from the Lichtenstein angle). That is, that first para of General Context can be summariezed as a sentence in "Negative" "Reception", along the lines of "Whaam! is considered a prime example of Lichtenstein's works that borrow elements from other copyrighted worked to which is claimed that Lichtenstein did not credit, pay royalties, or seek permission from the original artists.", and linking to the reader to a more detailed discussion of this concept. --MASEM (t) 07:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now we are making progress. I am going offline for a bit. I will come back to this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is something I've had in the back of my mind, but have been waiting for the "issues" to die down first, but since it's come up: I think it would be best to drop the "Negative" and "Positive" subsections. They're a little too artifical and black-and white. Dropping the subsection titles would allow for a number of improvements:
              1. contrasting views could be presented together, which would make the issues clearer and be more interesting reading.
              2. It would give more editorial leeway in organizing the information.
              3. Certain issues such as attribution are not necessarily "Negative"—raising concerns about such issues is not a negative comment on the artwork per se, but on the artist (although Gibbons condemns both, they're not the same thing).
              4. It wouldn't unduly attract attention to the "Negative" side of the argument.
                ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is outside of the scope of this article: "Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders." Similarly this in the lead is outside of the scope of this article: "Lichtenstein has drawn criticism for not giving credit or compensation to the artists from whose works the painting's composition was derived. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted as high art." This does not belong in this article. This is not an article about Lichtenstein's work in general. This is an article about an individual painting. I suggest removing those two blocks of text. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be brief because I have an appointment in just over an hour. Here is the rub. The COMICS guys have a lot of bad stuff to say about Lichtenstein in general. These are both general comments. However, the COMICS guys think (as I understand it) that Whaam! is almost the definitive example of these general ideas. Think about it. What painting did Gibbons parody? Where did the BBC4 interview take place? The WPVA guys are not hearing the COMICS guys who are saying "These are our general thoughts on Lichtenstein and this is our case in point" WPVA guys, please think about that. I repeat again. "These are our general thoughts on Lichtenstein and this is our case in point" You can not eliminate these very general thoughts in this situation. General thoughts yes, but probably appropriate in this article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Far from being "outside of the scope of this article", I would consider the information in the first sentence (not necessarily this wording) to be part of the minimum context necessary to understand the work. If this article is to be a TFA (Tony's aiming for the upcoming 50th anniversary), one cannot assume the readers will have any knowledge of Lichtenstein. I don't understand this resistance to providing sufficient context. An "article about an individual painting" requires context. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that one needs a brief intro for who Lichtenstein is, but checking other FA articles on artwork, the details should be laser-guided focused on how that background (not just artist but any art movement at the time) impacted the work so that the reader is being guided right towards the "History" section on how this artwork came about. As how "Background" reads presently, it is very meandering and feels like more a bio than anything else, which is why it feels clunky. (Contrast this to Drowning Girl's Background which I feel is a much more readable section). I will note that that "General COntext" section in "Drowning Girl" suffers the same problem here - all that should be a section in Lichtenstein's own article, and the reception section should briefly summarize it while pointing the reader to it. I will note that no single Wikiproject necessarily has any more weight over others in terms of what content needs to be present and consensus (like this) is used to resolve when there are irreconcilable differences between the two projects. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—you say "I will note that no single Wikiproject necessarily has any more weight over others in terms of what content needs to be present"[13]. It is not so much a matter of Wikiprojects but rather logical significance. Lichtenstein was a fine artist. That is first and foremost. He worked in an abstract expressionistic vein in his early endeavors. The target audience for his output were gallery goers, art museum attendees, and art collectors. The primary orientation of this article therefore should be to the world of fine art. Were there a copyright infringement lawsuit, that would be worth noting. But there is little justification for more than a cursory representation of the supposed complaints emanating from a hypothetical comic book crowd. Dave Gibbons is represented in our article. He gets to say that "this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'." It has to be pointed out how unenlightening that comment is. Does it shed light on this painting? I can't see how it does. But it is technically within the scope of this article, so it can be included. But there is nothing special about that comment. There are hallmarks of the origins of imagery. Appropriation preserves those hallmarks; it doesn't try to hide them. Dave Gibbons is stating the obvious. Contrast that with comments by art historian Richard Morphet. He writes: "Perhaps the immediate impact of Whaam! makes some viewers equate instantaneity with superficiality, as if there is nothing more to the work than what can be taken in at a glance. In fact, though, its very boldness is an ingredient of its complexity." Morphet goes on to say: "Lichtenstein’s image was striking in terms of its grandeur, its composition, and its colour." And Morphet continues: "It seemed to address at the same time history painting, Baroque extravagance, and the quotidian phenomenon of mass-circulation comic strips."[14] These are insightful comments from the correct orientation. The painting fits most logically into the world of art. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, keep in mind that Masem, represents the common reader here. He is not a comics person. His reading of the comics side seems to be that something is there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—you say "Bus stop, keep in mind that Masem, represents the common reader here. He is not a comics person. His reading of the comics side seems to be that something is there."[15] What is "the comics side", and can you please quote from Masem his supposed representation of "the comics side"? Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have only a passing interest in comics, and absolutely no interest in MILHIST or the art projects; my interest in this article only extends from a possible non-free issue aspect that has been amicably resolved. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I think you're forgetting Binksternet's contributions. He makes no mention of comics on his userpage, and isn't listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Participants. He's gone as far as finding multiple new sources for the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Binksternet is also not affiliated with either WPVA or COMICS, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly, We have a starting point for summarizing paragraph 1 of the general context section as "Whaam! is considered a prime example of Lichtenstein's works that borrow elements from other copyrighted worked to which is claimed that Lichtenstein did not credit, pay royalties, or seek permission from the original artists." Can you comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes off worded fairly strongly. The accusations of plagiarism need to be balanced: Sooke's points were good, as is Priego's point about the original artists' anonymity. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the Sooke article: "“I continue to be astonished that people in the ‘60s thought – as some still do – that there is no difference between Lichtenstein’s source image and the finished painting,” art historian Richard Morphet tells me." So such accusations are not limited to the "comics people", nor are they recent. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same article: "Fifty years ago, in the same year that Lichtenstein painted Whaam!, an art historian called Erle Loran attacked him in an article headlined “Pop Artists or Copy Cats?” Surely, in 2013, it is time we stopped accusing Lichtenstein of plagiarism once and for all." So can we stop characterizing this stuff as recentism or limited to the comics crowd. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—this is out of the scope of this article. This article is not about "other copyrighted worked to which is claimed that Lichtenstein did not credit, pay royalties, or seek permission from the original artists."[16] Assertions made in this article should be sourced to the painting named in the title of this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some who allege that there is impropriety in the sourcing of imagery in Whaam, but there is the complete absence of any lawsuit for copyright infringement. See this edit. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read Gibbons' comments. Never does he accuse Lichtenstein of plagiarism (a legal problem), but of not crediting the artist he "swiped" from (an ethical problem). An "absence of any lawsuit" is a red herring. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though the BBC article brings up "plagiarism", it's not characterized as coming from the comics crowd. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever mentioned a "comics crowd". This is just an article on a painting. But the question is: What is a painting? It is an object of fine art. This doesn't mean that a comic book artist can't have an opinion to express. But I think we exercise editorial discretion as to how extensively we cover the comments from various quarters. I feel that the world of fine art might be able to provide worthwhile commentary. I'm not saying that a comic book artist is incapable of providing commentary on a painting that fits into the world of art galleries, art museums, and art collections, but just that we should judge all commentary for its value to the article. This is simply editorial discretion. Bus stop (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What is a painting? It is an object of fine art." A vacuous, black-and-white statement. Of course there is no lack of paintings that fail the criteria to be "fine art" by any definition. Of course there are paintings meant to be commercial art with no fine art aspirations. Of course there are works that straddle the line between high & low, and that people will vigorously debate about long after our great-gradnchildren have passed on.
  • Please familiarize yourself with the Featured article criteria, particularly 1(b): "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" (bold in the original). A work has a context: what was the cultural situation out of which it sprang? What were the short- and long-term reactions to it? What is its significance in its subculture, and in the culture at large? A work does not exist in a vacuum.
  • If you "feel that the world of fine art might be able to provide worthwhile commentary", then the solution is to track down the sources and add them, not to remove material that you personally don't like.
——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion, and the art world is full of a lot of strange stuff, and those interested in art certainly do not always agree with one another. We try to write good quality articles, and this remains in the final analysis an article about a work of art that has been displayed in art galleries and museums. It has aroused a lot of controversy from various quarters and this has produced commentary—some illuminating, and some less so. The complaint that the painting Whaam! looks like a comic book, while an apt observation, does not provide insight. It is just my opinion that the average reader perusing this article has questions, such as how does this painting relate to the history of art? That sort of information is likely to come from someone steeped in the world of fine art. It could come from a comic book artist. I'm just saying that insightful commentary is more likely to come from for instance those who habitually write about art. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're really struggling with the whole idea of comprehensiveness, aren't you?
  • "The complaint that the painting Whaam! looks like a comic book" Who "complained" that the painting "looks like a comic book"?
  • "average reader perusing this article has questions, such as how does this painting relate to the history of art" and how it relates to the culture outside of the world of art. A work of art has a historical and cultural context, and cannot be comprehended outside of that context. Context contributes significantly, often overwhelmingly, to an artwork's meaning.
  • Not everything in the article should be strictly about the meaning of the painting. Its impact on the culture around it is an important part of the painting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—Yes, I think a worthwhile aim is the placing of the painting Whaam! into the context of the history of art,[17] according to reliable sources, of course. This is in the article: "It seemed to address at the same time history painting, Baroque extravagance, and the quotidian phenomenon of mass-circulation comic strips."[18] That is by Richard Morphet who is an art historian. That material was originally added to the article by me but it has been edited by others since. Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not bring it up somewhere here? I don't know the circumstances under which it was edited out, but I assume it was either a mistake, or it was added in an inappropriate place. You could start a new "Comments by Bus Stop" section that addresses point-by-point the sourced information you think should be added. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the article. It is at the end of the History section. What I meant was that my original wording was altered. But this is Wikipedia. I think the subsequent edit represents an improvement to my clunky wording. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, there is no requirement for what you are looking for, those you are right that going too far into the broader claims about Lichtenstein's so-called appropriation is inappropriate for this article. But, it is clear from the sourcing (my read of them) that talking about Whaam! and not at least dropping a line (with a blue link to Lichtenstein's article on the appropriation claims) is missing out on an important facet of Whaam!. To not mention in one sentence how Whaam! is treated as the prime example of this claimed appropriation is not fully covering Whaam! But more than a sentence or two, and we're beyond scope. There's a median solution here that I'm easily seeing, not any "must be in" or "must not be covered" extreme. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—have you seen this edit? I am saying in that edit that some allege impropriety of image sourcing. Isn't that what the allegations are? Is there alternative language that is preferable? Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bad edit. It's more than just a copyright issue or whether it was legally tried, but even attribution (as I understand the sources). The prior statement accurately covered all the facets of this concept of appropriation by Lichtenstein and appears appropriately sourced. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the solution I first proposed to Bus Stop, all those moons ago. He still claims these "sources" you speak of don't actually exist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—what is this edit summary in reference to? Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—it means you made an edit favourable to your POV while we were in the middle of discussing it. You did the same once before, and were reverted for it then, too. Plaese wait until consensus has been reached before making edits that you are fully aware are contentious and are under active discussion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not been "told" anything of the sort, and you are not linking to anything confirming your assertion. Again, this is your edit summary: "(Undid revision 566643248 by Bus stop (talk) Bus Stop, you've been told before to cut this behaviour out.)" Bus stop (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the previous contentious edit you made, and here is Tony reverting you with the edit comment: "Undid revision 566291072 by Bus stop (talk) You are currently being disputed by other FAC respondents such as User:Hiding, User:Curly Turkey and myself". Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—in the future please don't leave edit summaries which mention me and mislead or misconstrue. This is a question of common courtesy. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—I didn't, and I don't. In the future, please refrain from being distruptive. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbons image

I could've sworn we removed the image because the article was already filled up with FU images, and since it didn't contribute directly to the understanding of the painting, it fell outside of the Non-free use rationale guideline. Given that there are those who think Gibbons' view is overrepresented already, this seems like a pretty contentious thing to do.

If it's going to be kept, there are a few more things to keep in mind:

  • According to MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." It appears the image has been moved.
  • The image should be placed along with the text on Gibbons, rather than just at a convenient location in the section.
  • Many editors frown upon forcing the image size, as it overrides user settings.

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • After removing so much commercial arts perspective to the bio article, I thought this was one of the best direct commentaries on Whaam! from the commercial arts perspective. It is also sort of a give back to the commercial arts guys to make sure I did not get opposes for removing so much content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this weren't Wikipedia, I'd totally agree. It's a copyright/fair use issue. Do you think it'll pass an image review? If you do, keep it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It will be up to the reviewer. He may say remove it. It is not going to cause the nomination to fail. It may just cause a delay by a day or two as we debate the merits and then remove or keep. If you can bolster its relevance feel free to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I won't debate it—I think it's interesting and adds to the article, especially in a long, otherwise-unillustrated section. I only brought it up because I've been asked to remove FU images before that deemed inessential, and this one seemed to me to fail the "essential" test. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop's disruptive editing

Check out this, in which Bus Stop changes:

Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism. Smart said the work was neither a positive commentary on the fighting American spirit nor a critique, but was notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene"

to:

Alastair Smart, critic for the Daily Telegraph, observes that Lichtenstein is best known for "narrative scenes". Smart notes that while Whaam! is derived from "an American war comic", its size rivals that of the large paintings common to Abstract expressionism. Smart claims that the painting may be notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene".

Here's the actual Smart review. In particular, Bus Stop has reworded the passage to make "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene" was intended as a positive statement, when it's clear in the original that it was meant disparagingly.

Bus stop has been told twice before to quit this self-serving style of editing, reverted by TonyTheTiger here and by myself here.

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Curly Turkey—why are you reverting me here? Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly explained above. You are distorting the source in a clearly self-serving way. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, my edit wasn't "self-serving"[19]. Not in the least bit. Let me explain. Personally, I would leave off the wording relating to "incendiary impact", just as I have eliminated the wording relating to "disparaging review". These are value judgements. The reader is not educated by thumbs up/thumbs down commentary. But the wording concerning "incendiary impact" was already there, and I hesitate to alter another editor's ideas without sufficient reason. Secondly I had a problem with the word "mimic". It is hard to know whether the word is being used in the sense of making fun of Abstract expressionism or merely referencing it. I understand that the source uses the word "mimic". But I think the source really means to merely say that the size of Lichtenstein's Whaam!" is "reminiscent" of the large proportions of many Abstract expressionistic paintings. A third reason for my edit is that I wanted our wording to capture the observation by Alastair Smart that Lichtenstein is known for "narrative scenes". This is important. Please read this: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books." In the first sentence of my edit I wrote: "Alastair Smart, critic for the Daily Telegraph, observes that Lichtenstein is best known for "narrative scenes"." Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you calling this section "Bus Stop's disruptive editing"? Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity here. Bus Stop cherrypicked phrases from the article and placed them out of context in a deliberate attempt to distort a negative review into something entirely supportive, while removing from the article all language unfavourable to the subject—even though the source was a negative review. Bus Stop's outlandish distortions do not in any way reflect what the author of the source wrote, even when directly quoting (!!!) the author's words. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey—you say "There is no ambiguity here."[20] There is no ambiguity where? There is no ambiguity in what Alastair Smart writes in this article? Or there is no ambiguity in your interpretation of my edit here? You say "Bus Stop cherrypicked phrases from the article and placed them out of context in a deliberate attempt to distort a negative review into something entirely supportive, while removing from the article all language unfavourable to the subject—even though the source was a negative review." Why would I want to distort a negative review into a positive review? First of all, I couldn't care less about positive reviews and negative reviews. Do you think the average reader of Wikipedia is familiar with Alastair Smart? I couldn't care less about promoting or disparaging the work of Roy Lichtenstein. I look for insightful commentary. In my edit, one of the things I did was remove the words "disparaging review". I didn't remove it because I wanted to turn the review into a positive review. I removed it because in my opinion it is highly irrelevant. Do you think the reader has a meter with a plus and a minus side to it? Is the reader weighing positive comments against negative comments as they are reading this article? A reader wants insights into the painting. The painting has piqued their interest. They want to know why this is considered by some to be an important painting. In my opinion Alastair Smart supplied two very important clues. One clue was the approximate equivalency in size between Whaam! and the average abstract expressionistic painting. The other clue concerns "narrative scenes". In my opinion Alastair Smart correctly notes Lichtenstein's abilities in creating "narrative scenes". You make a big fuss about the way my edit handled the term "incendiary impact". If I were starting from scratch I would never include that phrase. I only included it because it was already there. It is merely fanciful. The depicted aircraft are causing "incendiary impact" and Lichtenstein's paintings are causing "incendiary impact". You say "Bus Stop has reworded the passage to make "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene" was intended as a positive statement, when it's clear in the original that it was meant disparagingly."[21] Again, I don't care about positive statements and negative statements. Should we reduce the article to columns of plusses and minuses? Of course not. In my opinion we should edit this article to try to shed light on the painting Whaam!
If you think that I have made any sense, why don't you try to edit some of my ideas into the article? They are of course actually Alastair Smart's ideas. He says: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books."[22] In Smart's article, it is the first sentence in a paragraph. Can we just quote that sentence in our article?
Do you think you could change the title of this section to something neutral instead of "Bus Stop's disruptive editing"? Bus stop (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I look for insightful commentary." No, you cherrypick what you either agree with or can distort to serve your own ends, and remove what you disagree with, even after being told to stop.
"Should we reduce the article to columns of plusses and minuses?" Strawman alert. Nobody has come even remotely close to suggesting anything like this; in fact, I was the one who suggested dropping the "Positive" and "Negative" subsections from the "Reception" section. Nobody disagreed.
"Do you think you could change the title of this section to something neutral instead of "Bus Stop's disruptive editing"?" No. If Bus Stop weren't disruptively editing, this section wouldn't even exist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you just want to argue, so you are on your own with that one. Bus stop (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're hardly one to accuse people of "just wanting to argue", Bus Stop—especially after your relentless multiforum browbeating of Tony over the Peer Review stuff.
Anyways, you've been caught with your pants down. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this is the entire paragraph that we are discussing, appearing in the Daily Telegraph, and written by critic Alastair Smart:

"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion. Some have tried to tease out an inherent celebration or critique here of American martial spirit, though I’d say Whaam! marks, instead, Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene."[23]

My contention, now as before, is that the first sentence is of importance to our article on Whaam!. That sentence reads:

"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books."

I think the above sentence provides insightful commentary on the painting Whaam!. I think it would not be a bad idea to include something from that sentence in our article. I actually think it would be a good idea to include the whole sentence, as a relatively brief quote.

Telling the reader that Alastair Smart's review was a "disparaging review" doesn't provide the reader with all that much information, at least not in this instance. Furthermore—was the review unrelentingly disparaging? I think it is an affirmative statement to say that Lichtenstein is best known for his narrative scenes. Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the transparent pretenses—you've been caught with your pants down, and this is all just rationalizing. The passage you obliterated explained briefly what was "disparaging" about the review. Reading the actual article, and not your cherry-picked out-of-context phrases, confirms this. You changed the entire character of the passage while you were in the middle of a content dispute. If now (after the fact) you think some of these cherry-picked tidbits could profitably be worked into the article, you could try to get a consensus behind them here, where it could be discussed where they'd more appropriately be placed (if at all)—of course, text-source integrity demands that the article must be saying what the source is saying, so "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene" cannot be put in a different light than it was in the source. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my changes. There was more than one reason for the edit I made. You say that I "changed the entire character of the passage while you were in the middle of a content dispute". No, my displeasure with the assertions derived from the "Daily Telegraph" paragraph in an article written by Alastair Smart, quoted in full above, go all the way back to July 17, 2013. Please note this edit, this edit, and this edit. You should really get over regarding me as a "troll", and you really should change the section title here to something other than "Bus Stop's disruptive editing". You can disagree with me and we can discuss our disagreements. Getting back to what I was saying—there was more than one reason for the edit I made here (a few hours ago). You reverted me shortly thereafter with this edit. There are and have been all along certain things bothering me about the wording that is in fact presently in the article, and which of course have been derived from one paragraph by Alastair Smart. The first sentence presently in our article reads: "Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism." There is more than one problem with that sentence. The lesser problem is the linking of "disparaging review" with "attempt to mimic abstract expressionism". If Alastair Smart calls attention to an "attempt to mimic abstract expressionism", would that be disparagement? Maybe, but maybe not. But the greater problem with that sentence is the use of the word "mimic". I am fully aware that this is the exact word that Alastair Smart uses. But its use in our article implies that Lichtenstein was mimicking in the sense of making fun of abstract expressionism in his use of a large canvas. I think that all that Alastair Smart is implying by the use of mimicking is that the size of the Lichtenstein canvas calls to mind the size of the abstract expressionist's canvas. Even if Alastair Smart does mean making fun of in his use of mimic, he is not making a strong point of that. When you string together an entire sentence reading "Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism" it sounds like an important aspect of the painting is the making fun of abstract expressionism. I would guess that this is not an important aspect of the painting but rather a minor aspect if an aspect at all. I also altered, or rather completely removed the second and last sentence. It read, and still reads: "Smart said the work was neither a positive commentary on the fighting American spirit nor a critique, but was notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene"." I consider the phrase "incendiary impact" of very little importance. I view that phrase as little more than a writer's literary flourish. It is a colorful way of speaking. But it is more for entertainment value than to serve any other purpose. Here again is what the original Alastair Smart paragraph says:
"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion. Some have tried to tease out an inherent celebration or critique here of American martial spirit, though I’d say Whaam! marks, instead, Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene."
The colorful imagery in that paragraph starts out with reference to "blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion". The use of "incendiary impact" in the last sentence is in my opinion merely a literary device. It is merely an echoing of imagery invoked in a previous sentence. You are expressing that you are very concerned with Alastair Smart's intended significance in his use of the term "incendiary impact". You say above, about my edit: "In particular, Bus Stop has reworded the passage to make "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene" was intended as a positive statement, when it's clear in the original that it was meant disparagingly." I don't care if it is positive or negative, but how have I changed it from a disparaging reference to a positive statement? Yes, I changed the sentence to read: "Smart claims that the painting may be notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene"." It previously had read: "Smart said the work was neither a positive commentary on the fighting American spirit nor a critique, but was notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene"." Your argument with me is baffling. What is the meaning of "incendiary impact on the US art scene"? You apparently consider this "disparaging". Isn't it possible that this is a complimentary reference? If Lichtenstein displaces all other artists with his new form of painting, might that not be referenced as "incendiary impact"? Again—I merely reinserted the reference to "incendiary impact" because a previous editor apparently felt it worth including. By the way, you did not have to completely revert my edit. You could have made another edit to change that which you did not like in my edit. That is less confrontational and it allows the article to evolve.
Finally, as I've explained before, I wanted to include that Alastair Smart considers that Lichtenstein is "best known" for his "narrative scenes". Let me take this opportunity to ask you if you agree that something about that should be included. It seems important to me. Smart's sentence is: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books." I think that it is important to find commentary in reliable sources that connects contemporary art to art history. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of the actual content (I have not fully analyzed what Bus Stop is claiming), it is clear Bus Stop is edit warring to a preferred version (whether this is right or wrong) without gaining consensus first, and that needs to stop. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring?[24] Preferred version? Preferred for what? Do you think that perhaps you should "fully analyze[d]" what is being discussed? Do you see me using the Talk page to try to gain consensus? Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You added/changed content. It was reverted. You added back in. That's edit warring. I don't care if your content is 100% the right answer, but clearly there are other editors that disagree with that change, and you need consensus to add it back in. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what you added, you are using the talk page, but you aren't waiting for consensus, making the edits just as disruptive. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—this happens to be an article on a painting. The sentences I edited are not particularly controversial. We should simply be using reliable sources to provide the reader with an understanding of a work of contemporary art. The painting has been considered controversial in some ways. But it is still just a painting. My two edits were separated by almost two weeks. Why not read up on the material under discussion including the original paragraph and the edits that editors have made, in attempt to represent that material for the reader? I welcome you weighing in with an opinion and I look forward to responding to that opinion, whatever it might be, but you should be informed on the specifics under discussion. You have said "I have not fully analyzed what Bus Stop is claiming". What you really should do is read the paragraph by Alastair Smart and tell me what you think is of value in that paragraph. What would you extract from that paragraph for inclusion in our article? What would be quoted? What would be paraphrased? I think it would be great if you put together two or three sentences and presented it here for our appraisal. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your edits were reverted, that means those additions/changes are considered controversial by other editors, even if you don't think they are. I don't have to understand what you're adding, only what the history page and talk page shows that you are not following appropriate edit procedures (outlined at WP:BRD). I'm not speaking if your additions are actually the right thing to add or not, just that what you are doing on the article is completely improper, whether you are right or wrong. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—the material that we are discussing has been edited many times by many editors. My two edits are probably the fewest number of edits to that material of any editor who touched that material. The only exception could be an editor who only edited that paragraph one time. Do you not see how ridiculous this discussion is getting? Furthermore the material that I wish to see in that little blurb has already been in the blurb. I am not going to go through hundreds of revisions to pin down who added and removed what material, but a random sampling in the History shows for instance this version from June 16, 2013. In that version I find:
"At the time of the 2013 Lichtenstein Retrospective at the Tate Modern, The Daily Telegraph's critic Alastair Smart, derided the entire exhibit. When discussing Whaam, he belittled Lichtenstein's inspiration of comic books rather than more noble biblical or mytholigical sources. Then, he stated his belief that the work was really an attempt to mimic Abstract Expressionism. Smart describes the subject matter as "a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion" and speaks against the work's merits as a positive representation of the fighting American spirit, suggesting that those who espouse this thematic belief are really trying to hard to support the work. Smart does concede that the work marks "Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene"."
I kid you not. My first edit to this article is July 10, 2013. The tinkering with that paragraph by other editors probably goes back further than the June 16, 2013 version that I randomly quote from above. I am arguing for the inclusion of the biblical/mythological thing—am I not? It was already in there! Let us stop arguing about who did what. I suggest we look at the Alastair Smart paragraph that this stuff is based on. And then let's come up with some agreed-upon language. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find a more neutral title for this section than Bus Stop's disruptive editing? Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading past what I'm saying: You added/changed material, it was reverted by the editors running this page, you re-added even while discussion of the material's appropriateness was going on. That's disruptive, period. It doesn't matter if the material was in there before, if you have only a few edits, etc. Your actions on the article are disruptive. Wait until consensus is gained. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Bus Stop is well on his way to breaking his own "least productive discussion" record with his evasions and prolix rationalizations. Have we hit 97kb yet?

A much better way out of this would be for Bus Stop to say: "I'm sorry, I'll stop editing tendentiously, but, hey! here are some ideas I have that might contribute to the article..." and then allow a consensus to be formed on whether or not those ideas should be included. Of course, that has to go hand-in-hand with a willingness to recognize when consensus has decided against an idea. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Bus stop run his ideas through Modernist (talk · contribs). I would trust Modernist to filter out encyclopedic issues on behalf of WPVA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I think it's a tempest in a teapot and should stop right here...Modernist (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, nobody believes for a split second thatyou would ever consider the embarrassment of agreeing with any position of Curly Turkey's. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose. I don't think the ongoing hairsplitting will do anything to the article that will drag it below acceptable standards. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Background section

Based on my comments above, this is the only section that seems wonky compared to the rest of the article. It has no focus, and each para bounces between ideas, and does not lead me to understand why Litchenstein made Whaam!, whether it was to try something new or part of the current trend in pop art. For example, the current last paragraph, about Litchenstein's lack of interest in comic book collecting, seems extremely disjointed and a point for his bio page, but not the painting. This is fixable, but whether that is building a better story (*) moving the details around in this article and the Litchenstein bio one, or something else, I'm not sure. In how I read this article, I would think the background section should explain the at-the-time current pop art scene and trends, and then lead into Litchenstein's interest in the area and any previous works, as then to lead into discussing Whaam within that context. I don't know if this is the best way, but it feels a lot better than the present "mess" the BG section is in (it's not bad, just the part that would keep me from supporting this passing FAC, but it is fixable.) --MASEM (t) 02:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, Why he made Whaam! Background says 1. In the 1940s during the war, he worked on Cartoons, 2. Late 1950s and early 1960s, artists began doing formal paintings of comics, 3. Lichtenstein liked emotional War comics, 4. Lichtenstein had done many aeronautical themed works, 5. He chose the scale to be consistent with contemporary works, and 6. He liked the challenge of Comic subjects. What don't you understand about this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—I found this interesting. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a full dissertation on the pop art school in this article, but enough to explain it was a movement when Whaam! was created, and Litchenstein's role in that. I'm envisioning a section that would be the same relative length as the Background, but just ordered in a better "story" for the reader. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
War Comics is part of a subgenre of Lichtenstein's pop work. He also did romance comics, explosions and commercial/household items. Explaining Lichtenstein's role in pop art is Bio material. There are a few dozen paintings on WP that would have an identical background section. Heck there are about a dozen of his War comic works on WP. Not even sure what you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading Masem's comments correctly, I think he's not suggesteing significant expanding or cutting the "Background" section, but rearranging it into a more readable narrative. I agree.
Masem also seems to be suggesting the last paragraph on Lichtenstein's lack of interest in comics per se should be dropped. I disagree. I think it's unlikely that many readers will not have that question at least in the back of their minds, and if the answer takes no more than a sentence or two, why cut it out? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's out of place because I think it's given in the wrong context. Saying Litchenstein didn't collect comics doesn't seem to connect to why he drew Whaam, as written. On the other hand, saying something like (and this is just very rough text, not even neceesarily accurate but to point out what I'm suggesting) "At the time of drawing Whaam, Litchenstein had done a number of other comic-based works; Litchenstein had little interest in comic books when young but saw these works in <such and such a light>." Guide the reader to understanding where Whaam fits into Litchensteins short bio, rather than drop them facts without reason. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he did not collect comics is not related. However, this short paragraph sets up the motivation that Lichtenstein liked this type of challenge. How else are we going to work in that he liked this type of challenge?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked in a your suggested alteration of this paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section still feels very disjointed. It should start by explaining the rise of comic book works in pop art, driven by Warhol and Litchenstein, then you can briefly mention that he was a military participant and had familiarity with combat scenes, then say how he challenge of bring comic art to pop art that is implied through there, leading to the larger formats that Whaam! is an example of. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on this talk section since I still believe this section is very poorly written in context of the article. The article needs this section but it needs major refinement to direct the reader to "Whaam" and less about the details of Litchenstein's background that aren't important to understanding "Whaam". --MASEM (t) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section is fairly concise and I don't think there's much superfluous there. Visual arts FAs often contain a comparable or greater amount of background (see the "New York art scene" section of Campbell's Soup Cans or the "Biographical context" section of Triptych, May–June 1973). I agree it's still a bit rough and will try messing with it some more. Ewulp (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the size, it's the flow. Ideally, to me, it should flow "Current State of Pop Art prior to Whaam", "Litchenstein's work prior to Whaam", and then "Reasoning to create Whaam". That information is sorta there, but it starts on Litchenstein's career and eventually meanders to Whaam. It's fixable, entirely. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ewulp

Where is your source for this edit which changes the price of the work?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Bailey article; I've added a cite. Ewulp (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just telling Modernist that the phrase "The work is also regarded as one of his most influential works along with Drowning Girl and Look Mickey" does not mean these are the three most influential, just that each is among his most influential. How does that misrepresent the source?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the source reads: "The show will feature influential paintings such as "Drowning Girl" from the Museum of Modern Art in New York and "Look Mickey", on loan from the National Gallery of Art in Washington as well as the Tate's own "Wham!" piece"[25] but what does "influential" mean? Is the source explaining further? If the source is not explaining anything further about what they mean by "influential" then perhaps we should omit it. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paintings are identified as influential, not as his most influential. Other sources here may identify Whaam! as "most" important/influential, but this source doesn't. A painting that is less influential than the average Lichtenstein painting might still be described as influential. And as mentioned in my edit summary, the beginning of the section is a bit tedious in the number of ways it describes the painting as one the most important; surely this line won't be missed. Ewulp (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Influential" can have value to the reader if further is said on that topic. Who did these paintings influence? Other artists? The graphics industry? In general Lichtenstein's lifetime output has been very influential on the graphic arts. (I stumbled upon a source for that but I can't find it right now.) But we are not saying the 3 named paintings were influential in either of those two areas. The source doesn't specify an object of influence. I would argue for the removal of this: "A prominent example of pop art, it is widely regarded as one of Lichtenstein's most important and influential works." All the assertions in that sentence are entirely debatable. About this painting we should say it is an "example of Pop art". I don't think we should be passing along to the reader value judgements of this sort. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have no remaining sources that say influential. The remaining say important. Do we want to omit that this painting is influential?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. adding influential to graphic artists would be good. I think we need to retain content that says this is an important and influential work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on what a source said. I encountered a source which I can't find again. A problem though is that it wouldn't likely draw a connection between this painting or any particular painting by Lichtenstein and his influence on graphic arts. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way why do you "think we need to retain content that says this is an important and influential work"? Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ewulp—thank you for your edits to the last sentences of the article. Can I suggest this wording:
Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart, in a generally disparaging review, acknowledged Lichtenstein's "cheeky assault on the swaggering, self-important Abstract Expressionists". It is also Smart's opinion that Lichtenstein may be best known for his "narrative scenes". Smart compared Warhol to Lichtenstein, finding Lichtenstein lacking. Whereas Smart considered Lichtenstein "repetitive", Smart noted that Warhol went on to "address the dark underbelly of modern life".[1]
I have removed at least two factors. Tell me what you think Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we need is the part of Smart's review that describes Whaam!—not Smart's opinion of Lichtenstein's work in general, which would be better suited for the biography than this article. Ewulp (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something that makes Smart's review worthy of more ink than the last fifty years of criticism? That's an honest question, not snark. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Ewulp, well then that would be only one paragraph of Smart's review, and everything would derive from this paragraph:
"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion. Some have tried to tease out an inherent celebration or critique here of American martial spirit, though I’d say Whaam! marks, instead, Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene." Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issues on latest set of changes:
  1. 1st half of 2nd paragraph does not belong in this article. It does not provide motivation for this paining.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's minimal background information, answering the question "what did he do for 17 years between army discharge and Whaam!?" Many FAs on works of art have much more background than these few brief sentences; look at the "Influences and commissions" section of The Battle of Alexander at Issus for instance. There should be enough biographical context so the painting doesn't emerge from a mysterious vacuum. Ewulp (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Last sentence probably belongs in the reception section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it belongs there, then it needs to be cited in context—noting the snark with which it was stated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence could go in either section; it serves a purpose in the "Background" section by furnishng a sourced description of the work he was doing in the early 60s: a "thought provoking and often witty compendium of images". But it sounds somewhat laudatory and might be a better fit in "Reception". Ewulp (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it "sounds laudatory" in the least, then it's being misrepresented. That's a breach of text-source integrity. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not misrepresented; it sounds somewhat laudatory in the original. You rarely call something "thought-provoking and often witty" unless you somewhat approve of it. Ewulp (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Enormous apologies. I could've sworn I was responding to simmering else entirely. Chalk it up to premature senility. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No problems! Ewulp (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Still concerned that you have removed the only sourcing that this painting is influential.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on this... Ewulp (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We know that it is prominent, important, and influential because it was purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966 and has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006. The lead of the article presently reads:
"Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. A prominent example of pop art, it is widely regarded as one of Lichtenstein's most important and influential works. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006."
I would change that to something like:
"Whaam! is a 1963 pop art painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006." Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boastful WP:LEADs seem common look at David (Michelangelo), which uses the word masterpiece and see the quote to open Mona Lisa.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We would be more justified in regarding it skeptically. It relates strongly to the age we live in. Whaam! hasn't really stood the test of time as Michelangelo's David or da Vinci's Mona Lisa. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can leave the term "diptych" out of this sentence. Do we have a good quality source for the term diptych? Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do find this: "Before this show I hadn't given any thought to something that suddenly seems significant. "Whaam!" is a diptych. Two side-by-side panels are separated by an obvious split down the middle. Horizontal panoramas might have been rare, but diptychs hadn't been a big deal for 500 years."[26] But I don't find for instance the Tate museum referring to it as a diptych. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also find this at the Tate site: "The artist wrote that this was his first visualisation of 'Whaam!' and that it was executed just before he started the painting. His original idea had been for a single canvas, but the diptych concept (embodied in T00897) developed as he worked on this drawing."[27] I'm still not sure that the finished two-part painting should definitively be called a "diptych". It seems both the preparatory drawing and the painting are being referred to there. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think, strictly speaking, it is not a diptych. We can describe that it is a work consisting of two panels and that it is sometimes referred to as a diptych. I would suggest the following wording:
"Whaam! is a 1963 pop art painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006. It consists of two panels side by side and is sometimes referred to as a diptych."
The previous wording is ponderous by comparison, in my opinion. As a general rule I think this article is improved when it is shortened. It reads in a more snappier fashion when some of the excess is trimmed out. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or, one more possibility:
"Whaam! is a 1963 pop art painting, in the diptych configuration, by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bus stop

Should we be writing that Alastair Smart characterized the painting as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism? (That is found in the Reception section.) Alastair Smart only writes that the size of the painting mimics the size of paintings in abstract expressionism, and I have already added a sentence pointing that out: "The large dimensions of Whaam! are consistent with the generally large canvases in use at that time by the abstract expressionists." (That is found in the Background section.) I think a painting has aspects other than its dimensions but Alastair Smart makes no mention of these.

A painting can have color aspects and graphic aspects, to name two. Alastair Smart does not say that in these ways the painting Whaam! relates to anything abstract expressionistic. The sentence in our article does not match up with what Alastair Smart says. Our article says: "Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism." Alastair Smart, in his review says here, "In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion." Note that the reference is only to the size of the painting.

This is a bunch of pomposity and should be removed: "The work is admired for the temporal, spatial and psychological unity of its two panels…"

Can't this be said in plain English: "…altering the relationship of the graphical and narrative elements." I think we want to say that the speech ballon is moved relative to other imagery found in the painting.

This is too much information (or misinformation): "A prominent example of pop art, it is widely regarded as one of Lichtenstein's most important and influential works." This is a trite comment. This is a large sweeping statement about a completely subjective matter. It would suffice to say the painting is an example of Pop art or even that the painting is considered to be an example of Pop art. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting comment, even if for only how incorrect it may be, is Alastair Smart's comment in this paragraph:
"Lichtenstein duly became a brand, lucrative but repetitive; a one-trick wonder, seemingly intent – after his long, early years as an outsider – to stick with a winning formula once he’d found it. The comparison with his Pop Art peer, Andy Warhol, who went on to address the dark underbelly of modern life and the American dream, is grossly unflattering to him."
Warhol provides easy comparison for the reader, because the reader is likely to be familiar with the Pop art work of Warhol. The comparison between the two is at least thought-provoking. Whereas Lichtenstein is said to be "repetitive", Warhol is said to have gone on to "to address the dark underbelly of modern life".
As I've already said I think we should include another Alastair Smart comment, this one which I agree with: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books." Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a statement would need some sort of elaboration. What does "narrative scene" mean to the majority of prospective readers? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that a lot of "elaboration" is called for. Why wouldn't a dictionary definition suffice? We have an article Narrative art which says "Narrative art is art that tells a story, either as a moment in an ongoing story or as a sequence of events unfolding over time." Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the sources, that I have read regarding Whaam!, narrative does not mean Narrative art, but rather textual elements of the work versus other graphical elements not composed of text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Narration can take the form of words. It would be correct to refer to the words written in speech balloons as narration. But some subject matter is more narrative and some subject matter is less narrative. Alastair Smart is saying "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known…" because the painting "Whaam!" (and certain other paintings) involves subject matter that is quite narrative. Contrast the subject matter with that found in Campbell's Soup Cans. There is no implication of an unfolding of events. The subject matter which is the painting Drowning Girl implies a sequence of events. Paintings are single still images so it is understandable that narration would seem to be generally absent. But some paintings are more narrative and some paintings are less narrative. Alastair Smart correctly observes the tendency of Lichtenstein's paintings to be narrative. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the primary editor of the article can't agree with you on what "narrative art" means in this context, then how can we hope the average reader stumbling across a TFA will understand? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that I have not encountered this use of the term narrative in my research on this work. This is a second somewhat relevant meaning of the term, but not the one most scholars use in relation to this work. With Drowning Girl there was much discussion about pregnant moments in the FAC. I think that this is what you are talking about in this use of the term in the sense that this panel is part of a series of events that are like a story and this panel depicted in its grand scale is thus part of a narrative. That is a different meaning than the scholars I have read.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a word in the dictionary. Alastair Smart is using a dictionary term. Alastair Smart is saying "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known…"[28] Alastair Smart is describing not only Whaam! but a tendency in Lichtenstein's paintings in general. Many of Lichtenstein's paintings are especially narrative. This is an observation that is being made by a reliable source, and it is a good observation because of its specificity and concreteness. Bus stop (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Lichtenstein paintings are narrative. This is not narrative. Bus stop (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That theme is important in many Lichtenstein works. I don't know how important it is in this work. When a plane blows up that has a sense of finality. There is no wonderment about what happens next like in Drowning Girl. There is not even much interest in how we got to this point like in Drowning Girl. That point is less important for this particular image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 11:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair Smart is saying that Whaam! is narrative. This is his entire paragraph:
"It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion. Some have tried to tease out an inherent celebration or critique here of American martial spirit, though I’d say Whaam! marks, instead, Lichtenstein’s incendiary impact on the US art scene. "[29]
Narrative has a dictionary definition which is consistent with what we see in the painting Whaam!, and what Alastair Smart is referring to in the painting Whaam!. Alastair Smart provides us, in his own words, a narration of that which is depicted: "a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion." You say "When a plane blows up that has a sense of finality." There is a "before" and "after". Obviously a still painting generally does not convey an event changing over time. Nevertheless some pictorial entities are more narrative and others less narrative. Whaam! happens to be a good example of an especially narrative pop art painting. Depicted is an event. The viewer is particularly aware of the time element. It is implied by the conflict unfolding on the painted canvas. This would probably not be described as being narrative. But we should just go by what sources say when the assertion in the source clarifies an aspect of a painting. We should extract from sources that which meaningfully sheds light on the nature of the painting we are writing about. Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the definition " representing stories or events pictorially or sculpturally" requires multiple panels. I don't get the feeling that depicting one scene from a story counts as narrative. It seems to me that narrative means presenting the story and not a scene from it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Terms of Smart's use the paragraph starts as if the subject is narration, but narrative scene points to the fact that his picture is just one scene of a narrative. Smart makes no implication of the natural connection in the reader's mind to other moments. No one looks at that and wonders about the future of the people in the scene like they do with Drowning Girl. Smart does not claim that. DG has all kinds of sources discussing this wonderment. It is not the same issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Narrative—or story—art represents events taking place over time. These events may, however, be compressed into a single image that implies something that has already happened or is about to take place."[30] Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—you would be right that quintessential narration involves words. I do see your argument. It is somewhat supported by the following: "There is No Such Thing as Narrative Art". That writer says: "Although it is commonplace to speak of the spatial arts, painting and sculpture, as narrative arts—a way of speaking which suggests the intimate relations between image and text—pictorial artists obviously do not narrate stories in the same way that writers do. In a certain sense, they do not narrate at all. To speak of an artist as a teller of stories is a figure of speech, since painters and sculptors do not “tell,” they “show.” As some critics have observed, pictorial artists imply a narrative by referring to what has been said in words, but surely such allusions are not the same thing as a narrative in words." It is not surprising that there are different views on this, but I think we can justifiably write from the point of view of those commenting on art. Bus stop (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

concerning the derivation of imagery

Apropos of our language presently in the article referencing "impropriety", "plagiarism", and failure "to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources", we can point out that the practice of "appropriation" applies here too. Many artists of the 1960s took imagery from preexisting sources and incorporated it into their work. This is supported by a source such as "moma_learning". I would suggest we add the following sentence (I have presented it in bold below) to the end of the relevant paragraph. The whole paragraph would read:

"Critics have raised concerns of impropriety with Whaam! and other Lichtenstein works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. To claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, or even raised the issue. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic book. The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."

I would add the "moma_learning" source to the end of that new sentence. We need to impress upon the reader that there is precedent for drawing upon the images in preexisting material and that the practice was widespread among Lichtenstein's contemporaries particularly in the pop art movement. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a case where most of this seems more appropriate in Litchenstein's article, with just enough introduction to describe how it applies to Whaam. We do need to mention appropriation in relationship to Whaam, but we don't need to go into the larger issue for Litchenstein here. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is nothing controversial in the sentence I have suggested, and it is on the general topic of the paragraph to which it is appended. That paragraph begins with: "Critics have raised concerns of impropriety…" The act that is perhaps improper actually has a name. That act is called "appropriation". Was "appropriation" practiced by other pop artists of the time? Of course, and our source supports this: "Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture—both absorbing and acting as a mirror for the ideas, interactions, needs, desires, and cultural elements of the times. As Warhol stated, “Pop artists did images that anyone walking down the street would recognize in a split second—comics, picnic tables, men’s pants, celebrities, refrigerators, Coke bottles.”" Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wrong not to mention appropriation either here or at Litchenstein's page, it is a recognized POV and one that is otherwise covered neutrally (both sides). I'm just cautioning going too far the road of explaining appropriation in general in this article about Whaam! - you only need the sentence to introduce it, and then go into the specifics on appropriation and Whaam! --MASEM (t) 00:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reword "Critics have raised concerns of impropriety with Whaam! and other Lichtenstein works of the period" to "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's use of appropriation in Whaam! and other works of the period"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would use a full sentence at the end of the paragraph to counter the charges of wrongdoing presented in some of the sentences at the beginning of the paragraph. The sentence I'm suggesting includes an explanation of what is called "appropriation" and by way of explanation my sentence points out that other pop artists at the time were also borrowing images. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can say, taking CT's language "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's use ofappropriation, borrowing of images from other sources, in Whaam! and other works of the period." Enough context to let the reader knows what it means here and if they need more, a link for such. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a sentence devoted to appropriation is warranted. The paragraph begins with a litany of complaints concerning derivation of imagery: "impropriety", "plagiarism", "copying", failure to "credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources". Such suggestions of wrongdoing are mitigated by the common practice of pop artists in the 1960s of "borrowing" images from many sources in popular culture. The sentence that I am suggesting for the end of that paragraph has the effect of countering the earlier suggestions in that paragraph. I believe this is in keeping with the presentation of a full view on the derivation of imagery. This is the sentence I am suggesting: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries." This would be the source supporting it. The source is from the Museum of Modern Art. It is understandable that representatives of comic book art have complaints to lodge when paintings containing similar images sell for great sums of money. But there is a context that has only to do with art. There was an aim to find imagery in the surrounding environment for use in paintings. This is called "appropriation" and it was widely practiced by the pop artists of the time. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is understandable that representatives of comic book art have complaints to lodge when paintings containing similar images sell for great sums of money." — It's easy to argue sour grapes, especially when you have no sources to back it up. Remember, though, it's not the creators themselves who have made the accusations, nor are they confined to comics folk. Many (many) people simply don't accept appropriation as legitimate—especially in the 21st century, when copyrights are considered natural property rights, and lawsuits over alleged copyright infringement (included "piracy") are constantly in the news. (Appropriation is not unknown to comics folk, either—check out Art Spiegelman's "Malpractice Suite" as a prominent example by a cartoonist your average person may actually have heard of).
Anyways, how about: ""Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's use ofartistic appropriation—the practice of borrowing images from other sources—in Whaam! and other works of the period."? Seriously, all the claims are fairly balanced with counterclaims, and just because the issue of appropriation is "settled" in the arts community doesn't mean everyone's going to buy it (or should). Let the reader make their own value judgements. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is already undue emphasis on negative commentary associated with the derivation of imagery found in Whaam!. ("Impropriety", "plagiarism", "copying", failure to "credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources".) I think there has been a selective reading of sources as well as a tendency to put lower quality and/or not-quite-on-topic sources on par with good quality and on-topic sources. We have an article with the title "Is Lichtenstein a great modern artist or a copy cat?" I point out the title because I think the title would suggest it is on topic. It does address Whaam! specifically, and I am going to quote a reference to Whaam!. The article, in the "culture" section of the BBC online, is written by Alastair Sooke, who is an arts journalist. Sooke says, "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others. Lichtenstein transformed Novick’s artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways."[31] We can briefly allude to questions regarding the relationship of Whaam! to its source imagery. But greater depth of treatment should be allotted to articles of appropriate scope. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean we have one paragraph in which half of it brings up issues that are brought up in multiple sources, including the BBC, and the other half refutes those claims, and you're unsatisfied with the balance we've achieved. You have very lopsided ideas of what "undue" is supposed to mean, and very poor comprehension of the "comprehensive" requirement. Quoting Sooke at us multiple times tells us nothing more than that you happen to agree strongly with him, and take issue with readers making up their own minds—for instance, Gibbons has very obviously compared the two images very closely (having seen the original Lichtenstein in person, and produced a very faithful copy of the Novick), and still disagrees.
"We" have "briefly allude[d] to questions regarding the relationship of Whaam! to its source imagery", and "greater depth of treatment" has been "allotted to articles of appropriate scope". Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Many (many) people simply don't accept appropriation as legitimate—especially in the 21st century, when copyrights are considered natural property rights, and lawsuits over alleged copyright infringement (included "piracy") are constantly in the news."[32] This article is not a general discussion on the rightness or wrongness of "appropriation" in the visual arts. The Museum of Modern Art says:
"Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects. It is a strategy that has been used by artists for millennia, but took on new significance in mid-20th-century America and Britain with the rise of consumerism and the proliferation of popular images through mass media outlets from magazines to television."
"Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture—both absorbing and acting as a mirror for the ideas, interactions, needs, desires, and cultural elements of the times. As Warhol stated, “Pop artists did images that anyone walking down the street would recognize in a split second—comics, picnic tables, men’s pants, celebrities, refrigerators, Coke bottles.” Today, appropriating, remixing, and sampling images and media is common practice for visual, media, and performance artists, yet such strategies continue to challenge traditional notions of originality and test the boundaries of what it means to be an artist."[33]
This is an article on one individual painting named Whaam!. We should use good quality sources. The Museum of Modern Art is definitely a good quality source. It is telling us that a group of pop artists working in the mid-20th-century employed a strategy of intentionally borrowing, copying, and altering preexisting images. Yet you are objecting to the inclusion in our article of a sentence saying "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries." I think it is fully supported by a good quality source.
Incidentally, it does not matter whether I agree with Alastair Sooke or not. You say that I "happen to agree strongly with him". I agree partially with him. But this is irrelevant. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is not an article about appropriation, or Litchenstein, or pop art. It is about Whaam and needs to be focused on that. It links to the appropriation article so that an interested reader can learn more but trying to describe any more beyond establishing its context in the Whaam article is far too much undue weight. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest "Lichtenstein's use of artistic appropriation—the practice of borrowing images from other sources" and you complain that I object to a sentence that in essence says almost exactly the same thing, in a clunkier, tacked-on manner? Them's some fine hairs to split!
"This article is not a general discussion on the rightness or wrongness of "appropriation" in the visual arts." Which is why it doesn't, and nobody has suggested it should. Bye-bye, Straw Man. Please don't come back, though I'm sure you will...
"I agree partially with him. But this is irrelevant." Yes, it is. It's totally irrelevant. The fact that he thinks blah blah blah "banishes the hoary" blah blah blah is totally irrelevant when, in fact, it empirically hasn't. People have issues with it. They voice those issues. As this is an encyclopaedia and not a blog, we are required to present both sides of the issue, and let the readers decide what is "legitimate" and what ain't. And, seriously, I've told you again and again, I'm totally familiar with the idea of appropriation—I even did a presentation on Duchamp in high school art class—so you can quit lecturing me. You're missing the point. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, thanks for all the feedback. I have tried to balance the thoughts presented above. Masem and Bus Stop, I hope we are getting close to a point where you are comfortable making a support/oppose decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—has "Lichtenstein's impropriety" become an established fact? You are referring to "Lichtenstein's impropriety" as though it were a foregone conclusion. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence, "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's impropriety, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—in Whaam! and other works of the period" is sourced to paulgravett.com. We do not find the term "impropriety" in that source. I can accept paraphrasing, but I cannot accept misrepresentation. One must selectively read the source to derive only that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's impropriety". And another thing—is Dave Gibbons a "critic"? The source "paulgravett.com" counters Dave Gibbons' concerns. Why is that not represented in our article? Dave Gibbons says "That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick’."[34] I don't think the source ("paulgravett.com") is entirely accepting of that view as expressed by Dave Gibbons. The source says "To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition…"[35] The source also says "So if we also want to acknowledge the writing (the image would not have been drawn without the initial script probably by editor Robert Kanigher) and the lettering, the proper credits should really read: ‘Roy Lichtenstein after Robert Kanigher, Irv Novick, Jerry Grandenetti, Russ Heath and Gaspar Saladino.’ If we could ever determine who coloured that original panel, that name could be added on the end!"[36] The source itself has a view to express. Yet our article is only providing representation to a view expressed by Dave Gibbons. If we are going to use a source to support an assertion, that assertion should be reflective a general view expressed by that source. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have the following: "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources". What does this have to do with the one painting that is the subject of this article? That statement is out of the scope of this article. The two sources provided do not say this in relation to Whaam!, which is the ostensible subject of this article. To quote Masem's post above, "this is not an article about appropriation, or Litchenstein, or pop art. It is about Whaam and needs to be focused on that."[37] Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed impropriety to perceived improprieties.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be entirely unnecessary if Bus Stop would accept my or Masem's rewordings. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—Please consider removing the following wording from our article: "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources". (It is found within this section of the article. The two sources given in support of that assertion barely mention Whaam! at all.) This is not within the scope of this article. Masem has said "this is not an article about appropriation, or Litchenstein, or pop art. It is about Whaam and needs to be focused on that."[38] I asked to have the following sentence added: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[39] (Note that it is sourced to the Museum of Modern Art.) Masem argued that this could not be included. Masem argued that the sentence I suggested could not be included "Because this is not an article about appropriation, or Litchenstein, or pop art. It is about Whaam and needs to be focused on that."[40] We should not be deciding which "peripheral" material should be included based on double standards. The sentence reading "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources" is no less "peripheral" than my suggested sentence reading "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries"[41]—and the sentence that I suggested is far better sourced. The persistent problem that does not seem to want to go away involves out-of-scope material being added to the article. That is not the subject of this article. If you wish to bring in peripheral information, or tangentially related information, than you can't rule out information about the working habits of the core group of pop artists in mid-twentieth century. Why? Because as the source supporting the sentence that I suggested for inclusion tells us: "Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture—both absorbing and acting as a mirror for the ideas, interactions, needs, desires, and cultural elements of the times."[42] This was standard operating procedure, and that is sourced to MoMA, not exactly lightweight as far as sources go. All sources are not the same. Our project does not necessarily accept all blogs as reliable sources. The BBC and MoMA tend to be regarded as high quality sources for many purposes. I would submit that for the purpose of explaining the place of Appropriation (art) in the artwork of several high profile pop artists in the middle of the twentieth century one would have a difficult time finding a better source than perhaps this one. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries." was incorporated with your desired source several days ago in the sentence "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—". I do not refer to other artists in this use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have an argument for removing "royalties" from the sentence, but not credit. More than one source (maybe not the ones inlined) have definitely talked about that in the context of this painting. The rest of it is not even remotely "out-of-scope", as we've been through over and over and over and over again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token the following sentence, appended to the end of the paragraph we are discussing, would not be out of scope: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[43]
As I have stated above, an abbreviated summary of this content is already in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole paragraph would read approximately as follows:
"Critics have raised concerns of impropriety with Whaam! and other Lichtenstein works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. To claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, or even raised the issue. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic book. The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[44] Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have been working from an outdated version of the article. Between 13:56 and 19:01 on the 9th I made these edits, which largely incorporated your content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which leaves the "impropriety" you object to, and gives us a longer, clunkier paragraph. What is your objection to the wording I suggested? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that while you two were going back and forth, I revised the diputed content to read as follow:

"Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—[73] in Whaam! and other works of the period.[19] Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways.[36] To claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s.[74] Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources;[75][76] Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.[49]"--Let me know if this is still contentious.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have merely plunked the word "appropriation" into the first sentence of the paragraph that we have been discussing. The problem all along has been that you are presenting unbalanced material supported by insubstantial sources—mostly blogs—and you have been presenting too much of it. Now you are objecting to the inclusion of material that comes from a substantial source (MoMA) which would tend to restore balance. Most substantial commentary emanating from the art world supports the accomplishments of Lichtenstein. This is an interesting quote I found by Bernice Rose in a 1987 book called "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", published by the Museum of Modern Art:
"Copying from another’s artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." (I don't have the book, but I found that quote at this blog; I can't vouch for its accuracy.) I think Bernice Rose contends that the act of copying was important to Lichtenstein and for reasons beyond the mere expediencies of image procurement. I think Bernice Rose contends that Lichtenstein wanted to challenge the notion of originality prevailing at that time.
I've tried to add a simple sentence: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[45] You object to that sentence. I am not sure what your objection is. The point to the sentence is that the art movement known as pop art was crucially about the appropriation of imagery deemed to be part of "popular culture". I think we see a similar idea expressed in the quote from Bernice Rose. I don't think it is sufficient to say as that paragraph in our article presently says "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation…" I don't think that is meaningful because appropriation is an important part of pop art. One would have to be unaware of the important relationship between "copying" and pop art to go on at length with this issue as the paragraph presently does. Furthermore this is just an article on a painting. I would change the whole paragraph to read something like this:
"Comic-book-like imagery has left some puzzled about copyright implications though Roy Lichtenstein has never been sued for infringement. Appropriation of imagery was widely practiced by pop artists in the 1960s."
That is all that is called for, in my opinion. I don't think more needs to be said on this topic in the "Whaam!" article. The links are there to the two articles at which further delving into the subject is possible. This article should be preserved for material pertaining to the painting Whaam!. Please tell me if there is anything left out, and why you think it needs to be included in this article, and what substantial source(s) would support it. For the above I think we have support in sources such as this, this, and this. Bus stop (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"supported by insubstantial sources—mostly blogs"--the sources include articles from the BBC, the Chicago Tribune, and MoMA; one of the "blogs" is a blog and archive that publishes peer reviewed articles before they appear in The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship, a scholarly journal put out by Ernesto Priego (a PhD in Information Studies at City University London) and others. The other "blog" is by Paul Gravett, an authority in his field with several books to his name (and a Wikipedia page), and the lenght, level of detail, number of illustrations, and overall polish of the article makes it clear it wasn't "just" a blog post. Oh, wait!—there is a "blog" section and an "article" section at Gravett's website—and what was cited was filed under "articles" and not "blog"! "Mostly blogs" my back door.
And here we are back on the treadmill of Bus Stop trying his darnedest to remove or minimize negative criticism at all costs: "Comic-book-like imagery has left some puzzled about copyright implications though Roy Lichtenstein has never been sued for infringement. Appropriation of imagery was widely practiced by pop artists in the 1960s."—this clearly takes a POV: that appropriation cannot seriously be questioned. No, this is an encyclopedia, and we leave that up tot the readers to decide: see WP:NPOV.
In the end, I seriously think that the opening sentence to that paragraph could drop the word "impropriety"—it was my suggestion, and I now think it was not a good choice. I think the rewording I suggested above is a great improvement. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely argue that Bus Stop's complaints are trivial and nuanced at best, and drawing this out far more than it is needed. He is looking for an exactness we don't otherwise expect, particularly with how well the sourcing now supports the existing language. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—you can't substitute "Paul Gravett" for "Dave Gibbons". One has to look at "paulgravett.com" and see what it says. Dave Gibbons says: "this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick". The source, paulgravett.com, does not agree. You are selectively reading the source, and failing to represent what the whole source says. Paul Gravett says "To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition and for one sound effect and narrative caption. He then sketched out a remixed version (above), replacing Novick’s side-view of the attacking plane on the left with a sharper, clearer plane at an angle, taken from the following issue, All American Men Of War #90, from the story ‘Wingmate of Doom’, panel 3 on page 11, drawn by Jerry Grandenetti." Paul Gravett also says "So if we also want to acknowledge the writing (the image would not have been drawn without the initial script probably by editor Robert Kanigher) and the lettering, the proper credits should really read: ‘Roy Lichtenstein after Robert Kanigher, Irv Novick, Jerry Grandenetti, Russ Heath and Gaspar Saladino.’ If we could ever determine who coloured that original panel, that name could be added on the end! ‘WHAAM!’ may be about the most famous, most reproduced single panel from a comic book, but it has been totally removed from its context as merely one of 67 panels across a 13-page story."
Bear in mind also that it is not just "appropriation" that we are talking about. The images in probably all cases were somehow significantly altered. "Appropriation" was necessary to represent popular culture. That is how we get the name "pop art". But the pop artists were not leaving images unaltered. Note this quote, also from the same blog at which I found the Bernice Rose quote that I presented above. I don't have this book; I can't vouch for the accuracy of the quote. But information on the book can be found at this blog. The name of the book is "Masterworks in the Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Collection". It is by Robert Saltonstall Mattison. Here is the quote:
"Lichtenstein intends to raise images from popular culture to the level of high art by transforming it in his work. He takes devalued forms of visual communication, redeems them, and possesses them through recreating them in his paintings. Because he has considered and minutely adjusted every line, form and color area, his art breathes finesse and refinement."
Notice the claim, made by Robert Saltonstall Mattison, that Lichtenstein "minutely adjusted every line, form and color area". Also that he is "transforming it in his work." What does "transforming" mean? Does it mean leaving it the same? We are talking about a painting. The paragraph that we are discussing in our article does not bring a point such as this out. This is another example of a lack of balance in the paragraph under discussion. Yes, it is the intention of the pop artists in the 1960s to make paintings that use as their imagery that which is found all around them. This is what is called popular culture. But it is not necessarily their intention to leave these images unaltered. In fact I know of no case in which pop art imagery is left unaltered. Sources are telling us that Lichtenstein altered the source imagery. Therefore we are talking about "appropriation" but we are not just talking about "appropriation". Robert Saltonstall Mattison makes a point of arguing that Lichtenstein "adjusted every line, form and color area" and that he transforms imagery. We can't blithely overlook the fundamental aims of pop art, nor should we overlook the artistic working methods of Lichtenstein. His working methods involved bringing changes to source imagery that he deemed consistent with fine art. When speaking about "appropriation" concerning Lichtenstein, shouldn't you bring Robert Saltonstall Mattison's observations to bear? None of this belongs in this article, by the way. This topic should be taken up in one or more articles of appropriate scope. Believe it or not this article is just on this one painting, but I feel compelled to respond to a one-sided presentation of Lichtenstein's supposed wrongdoings. The paragraph we are discussing reads like there is some moral culpability on the part of Lichtenstein. We read for instance in that paragraph that "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit or pay royalties to the original artists of his sources". This is not even an article on Roy Lichtenstein. In my opinion the paragraph should be reduced to no more than a few sentences. Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Robert Saltonstall Mattison source would be more usefull if it just mentioned the word Whaam!.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—I'm not stating that we must explore every aspect of this issue in this article. On the contrary I think this issue should be reduced in this article. The same suggestions of wrongdoing are being said in different ways in the paragraph as it now stands. The present coverage in the paragraph under discussion is one-sided. There are other factors that should be presented if we are to give the reader a comprehensive grasp of what transpired in 1960s pop art, including Lichtenstein's participation in it. There are other factors. What were some of the aims of the art movement? What distinguishes a painting from a comic book image? We should present the views of good quality sources. Robert Saltonstall Mattison is one. Bernice Rose is another. But are we going to discuss all this in the Whaam! article? Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subpar source

"It is widely described as either Lichtenstein's most famous work" near the beginning of "Reception" is sourced to Reproduced Fine Art, a commercial site which does not seem to meet the standards for a reliable source. Ewulp (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the greatest source, but it has passed two source reviews. I could use some help finding better sources for this content, BTW. Also, still looking for a source to reinsert influential.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically contemporary art. "Fame" and "influence" are not as applicable to this painting as for instance a much older painting. The reader should be told in the first sentence that this is a "pop art painting" as that is very basic information. The lead presently reads, with bolding added by me:
"Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. A prominent example of pop art, it is widely regarded as one of Lichtenstein's most important and influential works. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006."
I would change that to:
"Whaam! is a 1963 pop art painting, in the diptych configuration, by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006."
Its "prominence" is evidenced by the fact that it is displayed at the Tate Modern. Clicking on Tate Modern we find that it is "Britain's national gallery of international modern art" and that it is "the most-visited modern art gallery in the world, with around 4.7 million visitors per year." Stating that the painting is prominent is superfluous. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, that's not what the "prominent" is referring to here. Just because it is displayed at the Tate doesn't make the work of art prominent. The prominent here is referring to Whaam!'s influence relatively to the whole of pop art, not where it is displayed. As long as that statement can be sourced to avoid OR peacocky words (it should be able to), that part is fine. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—you say "The prominent here is referring to Whaam!'s influence relatively to the whole of pop art, not where it is displayed." Do you have a source for "prominence" or "influence" in relation to Whaam!? Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find exact sourcing (that otherwise doesn't circle back to WP) but even looking through top hits at google books on (whaam) (pop art) (example) shows that many consider it a standard example of the pop art movement that, by the sourcing already given here, is not original research to apply the term "prominent example". --MASEM (t) 17:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree there. If you are inferring the work's prominence from the frequency you find it used as an example, but don't have a source that states it, I'd call the the very definition of "original research". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—why, in your opinion, is it "prominent"? Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the sources already used here and that I see in searching cite it often as an example of pop art. No, they don't call it "predominate" but if you search on examples of pop art, you pretty much end up on two names as key figures: Litchenstein and Warhol, and when demonstrating Litchenstein's work, point to either Whaam or Drowning Girl. No, no source out there states explicitly it is a predominate example, but it is not original research to consider that it is used by a numerous sources as an example of pop art (and specifically knowing what else they call out as examples) and considering that it is a predominate as an example. Or to put it another way, in a survey of sources that in describing what pop art is and that give examples of such, the number of times Whaam is mentioned is very high and would be one of the top 5 or so. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add some of the best sources that you looked at in this regard. Basically, there should be some saying it is the most important/influential/prominent/notable and others that say it is on the short list with Drowning Girl (among Lichtensteins). Then we should have some discussing pop art that say it is on the short list of works that are most representative of the movement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Masem—there are many examples of pop art. They can vary considerably in many ways. This one painting hardly represents most works of pop art. If we write something in an article, we should do so for a purpose. Just because something is reliably sourced is not sufficient justification for including that thing in an article. It would be unlikely that Whaam! would not be "prominent". Whaam! was purchased from the prominent Leo Castelli Gallery and Whaam! is in the permanent collection of the prominent Tate Modern. We include that information in the first paragraph of the lead of the article. (Even the information on prominence is prominently placed.) We need not say that Whaam! is prominent because we have demonstrated its prominence early in the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every painting or work hung at the Tate is prominent, though the reason the Tate is a prominent gallery is because they have amassed a collection of well-known art in addition to other art. Where Whaam! is hung has zero impact on its prominence as an example of pop art. You're mincing words, and that's not helping here. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—you say "Where Whaam! is hung has zero impact on its prominence as an example of pop art." Can you please tell me what has "impact on its prominence as an example of pop art"? Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're being serious with this type of question, "prominence as an example of pop art" means that in the literature by experts in the field (art historians and critics in this case), they have identified in their writings that they believe Whaam! is a highly-representative example of what the pop art movement was. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—we would be doing the reader a disservice if we suggested that a work of pop art was "representative of the movement"[46]. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[47], [48], [49], [50]. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least in the UK "It is widely described as either Lichtenstein's most famous work" is certainly true, and it appears very often as the image chosen to represent Pop Art. To say "Its "prominence" is evidenced by the fact that it is displayed at the Tate Modern" is not right at all. They change their displays fairly frequently, and display all sorts of stuff, though Whaam! is one of the few works that usually seems to be included, as it is a great favourite, with notebooks & other shop goods using it. But a better ref than is now used, or The Daily Mail is needed. Here's one- not exactly an art historian..., or The 60's for dummies. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's adequate. Multiple reliable sources support the "most famous" language. The word "widely" can be contentious but shouldn't be in this case, as the fact that this is one of Lichtenstein's best-known works seems uncontested. About a year ago I attempted to source a "widely" at Lucian Freud by using a swarm of RSs; it's usually the best you can do in a case like this. Ewulp (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

Image check - all OK mostly OK (5 fair-use, 2 PD-ineligible). Sources and authors provided. 1 fair-use is problematic:

  • File:Drawing_for_Whaam!.jpg - not OK? I am not convinced, this image is needed in this article and "significantly increases the reader's understanding". The sketch's composition on two pieces of paper is described in-text, the color notations have their own image. I don't see any more details of the sketch in-text, which would be in need of a visual illustration? If the sketch itself, its visual characteristics or notable details would get more coverage, fair-use would be OK. But all current details do not need an image imo.
  • Other fair-use images are OK.
  • Some "purpose of use" fields could be a bit more detailed, but all other 4 usages appear to be legitimate fair-use, given the complex background information to various source images.
  • Please do not use "n.a." for any FUR-parameter. If the parameter really would be "not available", the image would auto-fail WP:NFCC. Filled two summary FURs (no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be an almost axiomatic fulfillment of WP:NFCC#8 which calls for "Contextual significance" to include a preparatory sketch? I should think that a preparatory sketch would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The subject of the article is the painting Whaam! and the sketch is preparatory to that painting. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the hasty removal of that image. What was called for was improved text, and context not necessarily wholesale elimination or removal IMO this image passes WP:NFCC. This article is still a mess...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the relevant policy here is WP:NFCC, of course editors can submit questionable fair-use images to WP:Non-free content review and ask for more input from other reviewers. I'll not comment on other questions of this nomination, the check did only focus on the images and their related article content. GermanJoe (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - Will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. I cannot see a clear consensus emerging from these discussions and it has become difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Reviewers might wish to note that concise statements often have more influence in reaching consensus than essay-like reviews, which often deter fresh assessments. This is the most contentious FACs that I have seen in a long time. Perhaps it is a testament to the importance of the painting that it can still be a source of controversy after all these years. I will allow renomination in one week from now. In the meantime, please try to come an agreement – even if these means agreeing to differ – on the article's Talk Page. Graham Colm (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [51].[reply]

Peru national football team

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | Talk 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...it meets the FA criteria. I've spent years working on this article (since 2009), mainly on my spare time; I've immersed myself on the literature, read tons of books on the subject (which was pretty entertaining, to be honest). Aside from old peer reviews (which were of much help) and the aid of IP editors, I have pretty much worked on the article largely by myself. I modeled it after the Scotland national football team article, but I think this article is a good contender to be the new standard (depending on what happens in this FAC). I have tried to copy-edit the article as best as possible, mainly as a result of peer review backlogs and general lack of interest from other editors. I recently got the article Pisco Sour through a FAC, so I have good idea of what is expected and the procedures. If you find any mistakes, or have any improvement suggestions, please give me a chance to fix those things before opposing the nomination. Thanks in advance for reading the work; I hope you enjoy it!--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • At a first look I don't understand why does the player tables show up while the World Cup and Copa America are hidden. I strongly suggest to auto-hide the two player tables (and perhaps add a couple of sentences summarizing the more notable recent players) and have unhidden trimmed versions of the records (for the WC just focus on the editions when it qualified, while for the CA one perhaps only on those times when it was in the top 3 or 4). Nergaal (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment Nergaal. The current structure is a mixture between the FA Scotland national football team article and some new ideas.
I hid the Copa America & World Cup tables because they made the article seem longer than it actually is. Instead, I decided to use text to describe the more memorable events in the tables (and overall-records as well, but only in the first paragraph of each of those sections).
All football (soccer) articles have the player tables unhidden. I don't want to change that concept (unless everyone else here thinks that s for the best). Based on my experience, IP contributors (who are the ones who constantly update these tables) prefer unhidden player tables.
What I can do is trim the records. However, this is again something I have never seen another football article do...so I'd like to hear further input on this matter before taking action on it.
Good points. I think they are certainly on the idea of "setting a new standard".--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parutakupiu

Comments – I will post my review in a gradual section-by-section manner, if you don't mind.

  • Uniform section – I've made a few changes to this section already, mostly copyediting (see recent edit), but some things still need attention:
  • Stadium section:
    • Same concern about using a blog-type source, even if it's based in what appears to be some kind of higher education institution site.
  • Supporters section:
  • Rivalries section:
    • I would move this section after the "Supporters" one, as it fits into the earlier socio-historical portion of the article.
  • Before reading the World Cup, Copa América and Olympic record sections, I would recommend nesting them under a "Major competitions record" parent section and then renaming them to just "FIFA World Cup", "Copa América" and "Olympic Games". Parutakupiu (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment to this general section is that the record tables should not be collapsible. The data should be in plain sight and, when collapsed, the table is not straightaway noticeable. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I'll respond to your points in number format.
  1. My decision for using both terms ("uniform" and "kit") was to have a variety of words to play around with (to avoid repetition). Also, from personal experience, the term "kit" is increasingly (if not already commonly) used by the soccer community in the United States. Could they not be considered synonyms?
Yeah, I guess they can. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I replied to your blog concerns in your talk page, but I will link to them here in case any other reviewer is interested in reading the explanation for the blog sources (see [52] and [53]).
  2. Yes, I plan to create articles on both subjects.
  3. Yes, I will move the rivalry section below the supporters section. It does make more sense.
  4. There seems to have been a change in the WP:FOOTY MoS for national teams (see [54]). I developed this article under the old MoS used for the Scotland national football team article. Although I am not opposed to the new MoS, my view is that the new MoS works better for achievement lists rather than sections with WP:SUMMARY text of larger articles (which, I think, is the case with the Peru article).
I did not know about that MoS guideline, but the fact that the project decised for a change in favour of my suggestion gives it more value. Probably "Achievements" is not the best title (especially for team who have not had notable achievements), hence a more neutral title like the one I suggested could be more suitable to every situation and national team. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I appreciate the suggestions up to now. I also like the last point you made (about the structure change), because I think it fits with the objective of making this Peru nft article the "new standard model" for other nft articles. Given this situation, perhaps having a discussion in this FAC's talk page would be good to reach a consensus?
If you think it's an undertaking that could generate a positive feedback, go for it. But I don't think it should in any way hinder this article from reaching the quality necessary for promotion to featured status. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIFA World Cup section:
    • In the same sentence of portion of prose you provide figures in text format and then in number format. Fix the many occurrences throughout the section.
    • "In the finals, the team hold..." – holds
    • Unlink Mexico in "Mexico 1970 World Cup finals" and Argentina in "Argentina 1978 World Cup finals".
    • Add a period at the end of the image caption.
    • Unlink Budapest, Paris, and Algiers.
    • "(upon returning home)" – Replace parentheses with commas.
  • Copa América section:
    • In the same sentence of portion of prose you provide figures in text format and then in number format. Fix the many occurrences throughout the section.
    • "... hosted the tournament..." – I'd change to something like "played as hosts", to avoid repeting the word "tournament".
    • In the part about the player records, I'd replace the parentheses with em-dashes and the square brackets by parentheses.
    • acquired→achieved
    • "Peru ended the first stage as leader of Group 2 in the first stage..."
    • two-game→two-legged
    • "... saw both teams win their respective home games..."
    • "...in Bogota (1–0) and Lima (2–0)..." → "(1–0 in Bogota and 2–0 in Lima)". Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olympic Games section:
    • games→Games
    • "during the controversial 1936 Summer Olympics..."
    • "... became South America's representative to the football tournament in the 1936 Berlin Olympics."
    • "The representatives for the Peruvian team players..."
    • "... but in extra time Peru..." – Add a comma before Peru.
    • Shouldn't the content from Note I deserve inclusion in this section? I think it's too large and detailed to be treated as a mere note. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the improvements Parutakupiu. I applied all of them except for the last one. The original version I wrote for the section had the detailed post-match situation (Austrian protest & Peruvian response), but it felt trivial when compared with the section's content and the structure of other similar sections (What is relevant to the main text is that Peru left the tournament due to problems outside the pitch; anything additional is worthy of being in a note for extra information). Note length & detail is also not necessarily an issue (I have seen notes in books which are over half a page's length). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only noticed it now: the lead says that Peru participated in two Olympic football tournaments, but the second participation (in the 1960 Games) is nowhere to be read in this section. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable players section:
    • First of all, I'd move this sub-section to the top, before the squad lists. It's a historical and less mutable section so it should come first, in my opinion.
    • "South America won 0–2, with Cubillas scoring the first goal." – This should be in a different sentence, so replace the preceding semicolon with a period (to close the previous sentence which also runs too long).
  • Managers section:
    • Are refs 130 and 131 from a reliable source?
    • Unlink "sports analysts"
    • This section is small and you already give a link to the main list of managers, so I don't think you should have a navbox that, in addition, is shown collapsed by default.
  • Fixtures and records section:
    • "Since 1927, Peru has played approximately 545 matches, including friendlies, since 1927;..."
    • Ref 134 is quite odd, I've never seen four sources in a single ref tag. I would say you should add separate ref tags after each corresponding citation, but maybe your solution is valid? I don't know...
    • "... at the Copa America held in Bolivia." – Link "Copa América" to the 1997 tournament article; unlink "Colombia" (in an earlier sentence) and "Bolivia".
    • "... no yellow or red cards in its games."

— Parutakupiu (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments.
  1. The common structure for these sections is Current -> Recent -> Notable. However, I personally like your suggestion better.
  2. Yes, the Dechalaca.com references are reliable. They have a professional structure to their publishing (see in Spanish), and I find no reason to distrust them. However, some of their articles are guilty of biased opinions (which I usually don't agree with), but that's not unusual.
  3. Yes, the ref 134 style is rare. It was suggested during the GA review several years ago, and I have seen other FA articles use it (so it seems valid).
Everything else you pointed out should now be fixed. Thanks!--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you let the competition record tables be visible by default? They are probably one of the most important piece of data for people consulting this page, and their length should not be an issue.
  • In the external links section, change the title of the navbox "Finalists" to "World Cup final presences".

— Parutakupiu (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Length was my primary concern with the tables. I will make them visible.
Yes, I changed the title.
Thank you very much for the heavy copy-editing in the article. It was absolutely awesome to read all of it again.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, happily. I believe this article is adequate shape to achieve featured status. Congrats to the nominator for his work. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008

Comments – I haven't read the article in depth yet, but here are a few initial impressions that I have from what I did look at:

  • The FIFA Fair Play diploma image isn't needed to understand that they were awarded the honor. Therefore, this image likely doesn't meet the non-free content criteria as far as this article goes.
  • I'm also uneasy about the blog that was referred to earlier. It's good that he's apparently a published author, but if there are opportunities to replace some of the uses, I'd suggest doing so. Better to have the most reliable sources possible.
  • Check that the page ranges in the refs all have en dashes. I noticed a couple citations without them.
  • "A series of staggering victories in the late 1960s". I don't understand the use of "staggering" here. Were they big upsets, as we Americans would say? That sounds more neutral in any case.
  • "eliminated only due to a goal difference with Chile." Not sure if non-football fans are going to get this with the current wording. How about "only due to a worse goal difference than Chile" or similar? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the comments Giants. I'll also reply here with the number list.
  1. I also had my doubts about the image, so it is now removed.
  2. The current version of the article only has the Pulgar blog used for non-controversial facts. I have checked and no other source covers these topics (particularly the uniform's history). The other blogs are from university professors, and all should also be referencing uncontroversial facts.
  3. All page ranges in the refs should now have en dashes. Thank you for pointing this out. :-)
  4. The sources (Witzig and FIFA) indicate that Peru's qualification was surprising because Argentina was the clear favorite. Perhaps replacing "staggering" with "unexpected" might do the trick?
  5. Yes, I changed the goal difference sentence with your suggestion.
I appreciate the comments. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008:, I removed the word "staggering". I think that is the best solution for NPOV.
I again checked the blogs. They're all reliable and follow the guidelines per WP:BLOGS. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Open six weeks and quiet for last two, I can't see this nom achieving consensus to promote any time soon, so will be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [55].[reply]

House of Plantagenet

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a Good Article that covers an important subject in the Plantagenet family. It examines their impact and importance and covers the significant events and changes that impacted the members of the families explaining in some way why they acted as they did. Without this nomination it is hard to see the article will be challenged enough to improve further Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - suggest to install this useful tool User:Ucucha/HarvErrors and check harvard citations for consistency (errors will be highlighted in red). The article has several cases of missing bibliographic entries or mismatches between the details of "Footnotes" and "Bibliography" (author's first and last name and year of publication need to be exactly the same). I'll try to read the full article and give some more comments later. GermanJoe (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I thought we had cleared these up when we worked through the citations. Thanks for the tool - I'll get to it.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Most of Caroline phase first paragraph needs citations, as do the second and third paragraphs of Lancastrian war
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN34 is missing pages, as are FN 68, 103, 106
All done apart from StubbsNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Stubbs replaced with more relevent citations Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
Done - thanks for the tips Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawless: BiblioBazaar is a reprint service - what is the original publishing info?
DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
Locations removed for consistencyNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN for Mate?
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on these next week, thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns A) I've still got concerns over a point raised in the GAR:

  • ":::There's no "right" answer, of course, but I think that to meet the GA standards the article should also note the alternative definition - not least because it the one used by the British monarchy itself! Possible sources would include the Royal Household's own website, here; J. S. Hamilton's "The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty", introduction, para 1; "Angevins and Plantagenets" in John Cannon and Anne Hargreaves' "The Kings and Queens of Britain"."
  • I still think the article is putting forward the Henry II start date for the Plantagenets as the only definition, rather than one of two.
Thanks, good point Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've used the royal.gov.uk citation you gave and added to the lead the alternative of four distinct houses. I've also referenced the death of John as the end of the Angevins in some eyes. I think it was left like it was due to one particularly vociferous editor - much more balanced now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B) I'll work through at least the earlier periods:

  • "Henry saw an opportunity to reassert Plantagenet authority over the Church in England" - I don't think that this is supported by the cited source (Schama). Schama notes on that page that Henry, an "Angevin king", wanted to reassert the rights of Henry I (a Norman) over the Church; there's nothing about his own/future dynasty here.
Amended to reflect this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In response to please Henry three of his men murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral." - worth looking at Barlow (1986) "Thomas Becket", here; Barlow's probably the standard text, and it's not quite that simple/ Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to reflect this was probably misadventure (and cited) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chronicler Gerald of Wales borrowed elements of the Melusine legend to give a demonic origin to the Plantagenets, and several early Plantagenet kings are said to have claimed such a heritage for themselves." - this is cited to Warren, p.2. What he actually says is Henry II's "were prone to joke about the story", which isn't quite the same as claiming to be demonic. Incidentally, Warren talks not about the Plantagenets, but the Angevins.
Amended to reflect this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Benjamin, Marcus (1910). Appleton's New Practical Cyclopedia. University of Michigan." - I'm not convinced that this is a "high-quality reliable source" for medieval history any more.
Removed and replaced with link to King of Jerusalem Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Stephen was captured and declared deposed because there was no precedent for a ruling queen rather than a queen consort, Matilda was declared "Lady of the English"." - there are some mild grammar issues here (Stephen wasn't deposed because there was no precedent), but also it's also not quite right - see Marjorie Chibnall's biography of the Empress, p.102, for an explanation of the issues surrounding the title.
I've rewritten this to match the history more precisely. The title is not explained but I've removed the assertion.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the consolidation of the English lands, Henry II considered further expansion to find a fiefdom for his brother William FitzEmpress. The Catholic Church blessed a campaign in Ireland that would bring the Irish church under papal control, but plans were delayed until Dermot of Leinster was allowed to recruit soldiers in England and Wales for use in Ireland. Henry became concerned that Dermot's knights' success would give them independent power so he visited himself. This enabled the recognition of his overlordship by the native kings and the appointment of John of England to the notional first Lordship of Ireland." - worth double checking the sequencing here against Astley (whom, incidentally, prefers to label the English monarch the House of Anjou from 1154 to 1399!)
Rewritten to reflect chronology - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry II recognised that his vast holdings were unsustainable and planned for partible inheritance common in the feudal system." - I'd be keen to see the first part of this cited. The second half needs clarification - partible in inheritance was common in some parts of Europe, but not all.
Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Philip II of France attempted to destabilise his mightiest subject and encouraged the sons not to wait for their inheritance. They rebelled in the Revolt of 1173–1174." - John didn't rebel.
Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The younger Henry rebelled again, but died of dysentery before Richard and Phillip took advantage of a sickening Henry II with more success." - the events are separated by many years (Young Henry died in 1183, the rebellion in the second half in 1189, but it reads as though one followed closely on the other).
Rewritten to reflect chronology Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard inherited all the Plantagenet holdings in 1189. His English coronation was marked by a mass slaughter of the Jews, described by Richard of Devizes as a "holocaust"" - I'm not sure "marked" is the right verb here.
Changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard had little interest in governance and rarely spent time in England beyond that necessary to raise revenue to support his military adventures. " This needs a stronger citation; the Victorian concept that Richard "ought" to have spent time in England or that he conducted "military adventures" is a little old fashioned.
Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is reported to have said "I would sell London itself if only I could find a rich enough buyer"." - this needs qualification: is this taken seriously by modern historians?
Removed - doesn't really add anythingNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " According to Roger of Hoveden, when Richard was released, Philip II warned John "Look to yourself, the devil is loose"." - again, needs qualification - is Roger regarded as a reliable source?
Removed - doesn't really add
  • " Philip II of France had been dividing up the Plantagenet realm with John of England." - could you double-check against the cited source? If memory serves, John allied himself with Philip, but didn't go about dividing up Ireland, England, Normandy etc.
REphrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French lands selected Richard's nephew Arthur, while John succeeded in England. " - I'm not sure this is accurate. Brittany went with Arthur, but Normandy went for John.
Added detailNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The contested succession and resultant rebellions by the Norman and Angevin barons" - I don't think that the contested succession was a strong factor in the Norman baronial revolt.
Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and led to the de facto end of the Angevin Empire, even if de jure it lingered until 1259" - um, Gascony wasn't exactly held de jure! I'm also not convinced that the French King regarded as lingering de jure at all! :)
Agreed - changedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John's defeats in France weakened his position in England, resulting in his vassals rebelling and enforcing the treaty called Magna Carta, which limited royal power and established common law." - I don't think that John's vassals did enforce the treaty called Magna Carta; it famously wasn't enforced by either side under John.
Agreed - rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " leading to the First Barons' War in which the barons invited an invasion by Prince Louis." - the "rebel barons" invited the invasion. The loyalist ones didn't.
Agreed & changes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some historians consider the Angevin monarchs end and Platagenet monarchs" - check the grammar here.
Grammer fixed and cited to match the lead giving alternative definitions of dynasty or dynasties (see above) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Plantagenets exhibited typical antisemitism" - all the Plantagenets? Or just Henry III?
Rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henry saw such similarities between himself and England's then patron saint Edward the Confessor in his struggle with untrusted advisers that he gave his first son the Anglo-Saxon name Edward and built the saint a magnificent still-extant shrine." I don't think the bulk of the literature would include the "struggle with untrusted advisors" clause here.
Agreed - changedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry III could not motivate his barons to support a foreign war to restore Plantagenet holdings on the continent - they would not supply the men and money required to do so. Facing a repeat of the situation his father faced, Henry III reissued Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest in return for a tax that raised the incredible sum of £45,000." - I think Henry did motivate them; isn't the £45,000 the money that was spent on the reinvasion of Poitou?
Yep, rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was enacted in an assembly of the barons, bishops and magnates that created a compact in which the feudal prerogatives of the Plantagenets were debated and discussed in the political community." - the prerogatives of the Plantagenets weren't debated; I think the argument swung on the pre-Plantagenet legal situation, in particular Edward the Confessor.
Agreed & rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Matthew Paris wrote that Richard responded to the price by saying, You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon – step up to the sky and take it down'. " - missing speech marks
Done
  • "Henry's extravagances left a longer lasting legacy in his building projects including Westminster Abbey, Windsor Castle and the town of Harwich. " - I'd look for a direct cite for "extravagances".
Checked and apart from warfare costs seems he wasn't - added detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " regarded as the first Parliament worthy of the name because it was the first time cities and burghs sent representatives" - regarded by who? The "model parliament" idea is quite old-fashioned now; see Carpenter's article on Henry III's parliaments.
Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edward, having pacified the realm, left England to join Louis IX on the Ninth Crusade, funded by an unprecedented levy of one-twentieth of every citizen's goods and possessions." -movable possessions... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll start working through these (or at least the easier ones) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - give me a shout if I can help at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't know about this article. It seems to function as the main summary article on English history over the period when the Plantagenets ruled, and therefore attempts to both cover the dynasty itself and the general history of England. This is a far from ideal way of doing things, which no doubt the nominator inherited. Both aspects of the article suffer from the inappropriate dual function. In an ideal world we would have a history article England under the Plantagenets - not an unreasonable periodization - that covered the history properly, rather than just wars, dynastic politics, and some other stuff like the Black Death. Then this article could cover better the full ramifications of the family, including the few left after 1485. The history side seems to be almost entirely restricted to the 100 Years War once that gets going, and rather peter out after 1389, except for the Wars of the Roses - nothing else seems to have happened in England 1389-1485. Some of the sources used are rather embarrassing, & not acceptable at FA level, although the article is so summarized I doubt the actual text would need changing if for example a better source than "Morris, John E (1910). Great Britain and Ireland: A History for Lower Forms. Cambridge University Press" was used for "In 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, deposing and exiling Balliol"! "Marshall, H.E. (2006). Our Island Story: A History of England for Boys and Girls. Yesterday's Classics" - a reprint of an ancient childrens' book, is used once & should go too. Most sources used are fine. As things are I can't see myself supporting this at FA, not least because while it functions as a general period article it is uneven and too narrow in that role, though I appreciate the work the nominator has put in. I'd advise splitting it into two, and building those up. Sorry! As a GA I think it is fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you think it stands up at GA at least, Johnbod. I have addressed the citations you raised above anyway. You are correct in assuming this article was inherited in the state where it covered both the family and the period and it has undergone some contested change since (it once got to twice the size which explains the feeling of summary) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think this article is fantastic. It is very coherent and the level of detail is superb. It's such an interesting read and you have improved it even further than a month or two ago. It clearly explains the start and end of the line and gives the reader knowledge about the history of the dynasty without being too complicated or needing to know about it more professionally or with expertise.  — AARON • TALK 15:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- As this review has been open a month and a half without achieving consensus to promote, and has been quiet for the past week, I'll be archiving it shortly. Given the last Peer Review appears to have been some years ago, I'd suggest going through that process again before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC) [56].[reply]

Real (Ivy Queen album)

Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real is the fourth studio album by Puerto Rican reggaetón recording artist Ivy Queen, released on November 16, 2004, by Universal Music Latino. On Queen's debut full-length English-language studio album, she collaborated with hip hop and fellow reggaetón artists Hector El Father, Fat Joe, Getto & Gastam, La India, Gran Omar and Mickey Perfecto. The album was primarily produced by Rafi Mercenario, and included guest production by American producer Swizz Beatz, Puerto Rican producers Ecko, Noriega, Monserrate and DJ Nelson. The executive producers were Goguito "Willy" Guadalupe, Gran Omar and Queen. I am nominating this article for featured article status because I feel it that meets the criteria. After a successful GAN, it was placed for peer review and received one as so. After some time, the article received an excellent and much needed copyedit by Miniapolis (talk · contribs). I proudly present my first FAC nomination, Real. DivaKnockouts 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I see several issues with inaccurate representation of Spanish-language sources (I looked at these two), and because User:Moonriddengirl/DivaKnockouts is still pending, my first question would be if User:Miniapolis speaks Spanish, or merely smoothed out prose without being able to consult the Spanish-language sources, and my second suggestion would be that someone undertake a thorough review of sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sandy. No, I know a few words of Spanish but don't speak it; I copyedited the article because it was next in line on the GOCE requests page. Not wanting to muddy the waters, I wouldn't have taken it if I thought there were copyvio issues. Miniapolis 01:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Inaccurate representation of Spanish-language sources"? Really? Please explain. — DivaKnockouts 19:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's quite clear: Sandy is referring to possible misrepresenting of facts or opinions presented in the Spanish-language sources. I would like to add that, based on your DYK work and the non-formal CCI listed above, a spotcheck for copyright violations by translating the sources word-for-word is also needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy said she looked at the two above but did not provide an example. How am I suppose to understand what she is referring too. If Sandy doesn't know Spanish how can she tell if something is misinterpreted? Google Translate is a very good translator as it does misinterpret things. — DivaKnockouts 00:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy never said she doesn't speak Spanish; she seems, from my experience, quite fluent. She was asking if your copyeditor spoke Spanish and could thus consult the sources (and perhaps spot close paraphrasing or representation issues) or was just basically polishing the prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Google translate can be terrible, especially for paragraphs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but where does that imply she doesn't speak Spanish? That she checked 2 sources on her holiday, found issues, and has asked for someone to give a detailed spot check means there are quite likely issues with close paraphrasing and source representation that you should be dealing with, rather than misreading her comments and arguing about what she meant... particularly as I have already told you in no uncertain terms. If I were you, I'd find a fluent speaker of Spanish who has time to do spotchecks, and if they find widespread issues you should withdraw this nomination. If there are just a few, you can fix them quickly; the delegates may not mind. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Miniapolis (and User:Crisco 1492) for clarifying. Yes, the concerns relate to the issue that occurred at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1, where because a competent copyeditor had smoothed out the prose, reviewers failed to notice the copyvios (all of the prose was at a level higher than was typical for the nominator, but reviewers and delegates thought that was because a competent copyeditor had been there, hence many failed to check the sources and detect the copyvio). In this case, in my very quick search I didn't see any copyvio, but my check was not thorough (limited time). I am additionally concerned about accurate representation of sources in this case ... by smoothing the prose, it is possible subtle inaccuracies are introduced even by a competent copyeditor (as Miniapolis certainly appears to be). I am out of time for the moment, but will again go through and look for samples the next time I have a free block of time. (Diva, yes I speak and comprehend Spanish at a fluent level, although reading takes me a bit longer, and my written Spanish is not fluent as I learned Spanish "in the street" and in the workplace ... I believe you should recall this as I detected multiple copyvios in your past DYK work, although I have been unable to complete the CCI with Moonriddengirl because of time constraints). Perhaps you could ask HcHc to check for accurate representation of sources if it takes me more than a few days to return to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend withdrawal. Aside from the significant concerns about use of Spanish-language sources above, I did a random check of English-language sources and every one I checked had problems. Just the first three are listed below. Additionally, there are statements and whole sections in the article that lack citations altogether (see for example the first section in Recording and Production). This is far removed from FA standards, and at the minimum needs a thorough audit of all sources (Spanish and English) by an uninvolved editor.

  • Ref 4a, close paraphrasing:
  • Article text "she was dropped from the Sony label"
  • Source text: "was dropped from Sony"
  • Ref 4b, failed verification:
  • Article text: "Her next single, 'Ritmo Latino', and its parent album failed to chart."
  • Source text: Mentions the album "fizzled" but nowhere does it say that the album failed to chart.
  • Ref 11, failed verification, and not a reliable source:
  • Article text: "The following year, Queen released a platinum edition of the album with extra tracks, including 'Papi Te Quiero' and 'Tu No Puedes'"
  • Source text: First of all, you used an ad in a magazine as a source, not the magazine itself. Second, the ad doesn't support these two songs being "extra tracks".

Please withdraw this. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomaination I will work more on the article and present it back before my peers in the future. Thank you for your comments Sandy and Laser brain. — DivaKnockouts 22:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC) [57].[reply]

Sperm whale

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has already met the GA criteria, and I think that after improvements by myself and other editors it is now worthy of FA status.Kurzon (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not yet ready to be evaluated for FA status. Without even delving into the text itself, a quick glance shows many problems: citation needed tags, many unsourced sentences and paragraphs; there's a sentence with 9 citations after it (!) (and another with 8); single-sentences subsections, etc. Sasata (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agree with Sasata. A wide range of sources and facts has been assembled, but the actual structure and writing of the article has a way to go. Also looks like there is insufficient information on the ecology, which is really a section on distribution, while "diet" is a top level heading rather than being part of either ecology or behaviour. Other examples of issues:

  • Paragraphs beginning with sentences that don't specify the subject, eg. "How they choose mates has not been definitively determined."
  • Single sentence subsections in "description"
  • Subsections or paras that lack appropriate overview, but contain random specifics, eg. skeleton subsection begins "The ribs are bound to the spine by flexible cartilage,..."
  • The only substantive text under skeleton relates to echolocation, which is actually the main subject of a later subsection on vocalisation
  • Random info hasn't been culled, eg "Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, mentions cachalots (perhaps incorrectly) as preying on fellow whales."
  • Looks to be too many external links per WP:ELNO

That said there is plenty of information assembled read to support rapid improvement.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and urge withdrawal. Criteria 1a and 2b are the most obvious problems; the prose and article structure are simply not ready for FAC. Frankly, many of the core problems from the 2008 FA delisting still persist here as well (including inconsistent capitalization of the name and a prune-worthy EL section). The usual reference formatting problems and probable objections to image use and layout seem secondary at this point. This is badly in need of a thorough peer review, and, frankly, I think the GA reviewer was generous regarding the article's organization. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC) [58].[reply]

Sharon Newman

Nominator: — Arre 06:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I've been working on this article since December 2011. With much work, it finally became a good article in March 2013. Miniapolis (talk · contribs) of the Guild of Copy Editors thoroughly copy-edited it a month later. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a FA. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. It's a bit lengthy, but it goes into comprehensive depth regarding the topic and covers everything. Thankyou, Arre 06:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- This page was only transcluded to WP:FAC today so, although it has garnered some comment through a notice on the Soap Opera project page, it's only as of now that it can be expected to pick up any reviewers trawling the FAC list... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Creativity97

I am one-hundred percent for this FA nomination. The article has been worked on immensely in the past few years (mostly by Arre) and it really deserves the recognition of featured article status. It would also be the very first FA for American soap opera articles, which would be a big deal. Regards, Creativity97 21:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Casting

  • The paragraph should not start with the surname, full name required.
  • Again with Case. This should also include a link.
  • "...who plays Sharon to the present" -- check the prose. This doesn't read at all right.
  • "...was the third actress to have the role in a four-month period." -- Play the role surely?

Characterization

  • Shero should be in inverts
  • Sorry, I am not familiar with Zap2it and I was forced to use the link to find out. Could you include a brief introduction to it?
  • Yes, for example: "The theatrical newspaper The Stage thought that the performance was..."
  • Too many quotes leads to bumpy prose and interrupts the natural flow. See WP:QUOTEFARM. There are far to many quotes within this section IMO.
  • Well, a person who took the article Poppy Meadow to FA status mentioned that quotes are extremely helpful for articles like this. Considering they are actual quotes from people. And they aren't long quotes... But I've slightly fixed that issue. Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the actress has expressed displeasure with Sharon's..." -- Why the 's for Sharon?

Nick and Sharon

  • Link to Madison.
  • "In January 2009..." -- Be consistent if you are to use an American comma after a date opener, such as you do everywhere else.
  • "In January 2009 Nick and Sharon reunite..." compared to "In May 2005, 14-year-old Cassie..." and "In February 2003, Case temporarily exited the show..." and "In 2012, after Victor disappears..." etc. Having gone through, I note some are given the comma and some aren't. I don't think there is a correct way, but I would make it consistent if nothing else -- CassiantoTalk 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morrow (the actor playing Nick)..." -- I don't feel we need to be reminded of this.
  • "After another one-night stand..." -- Another? Surely one-night stand should then be linked on the first mention?
  • "After another one-night stand Sharon becomes pregnant,[33] briefly lying that Jack is the baby's father when Summer becomes ill and Phyllis needs Nick.[33] Nick soon finds out, but their daughter Faith is kidnapped at birth by Nick's brother (Adam) and given to Ashley (Jack's sister). Sharon, believing Faith has died, seduces a guilty Adam.[33] " -- Why do we repeat the same reference three times in one paragraph? One is needed at the end, that's all.

Cameron Kirsten ordeal

  • "While away, Sharon becomes suicidally depressed..." -- One or the other I think, suicidal or depressed.
  • "That night she meets (and had an affair with) businessman Cameron Kirsten..." "She meets...had an affair with..." →"She meets and has an affair with..."
  • "When Sharon return to Genoa City, she is horrified when Cameron follows her for "business" with Newman Enterprises." -- Who said "business? Why is it a quote?
  • "When she arrives they have a fight in which Sharon throws a bottle at him to keep him from raping her, "killing" him." -- Again here.
  • "Detective Weber (Sherman Augustus) is suspicious of Sharon about Cameron's disappearance." →"Detective Weber (Sherman Augustus) is suspicious of Sharon's involvement in Cameron's disappearance."
  • "When Sharon return to Genoa City, she is horrified when Cameron follows her for "business" with Newman Enterprises.[39] He blackmails her into meeting him at a motel. When she arrives they have a fight in which Sharon throws a bottle at him to keep him from raping her, "killing" him.[39] After driving around with his body in her car trunk for days, she dumps it in an alley.[39] " -- Repeated ref again. This only needs to be given once at the end.
  • "Sharon begins "hallucinating" with visions of Cameron's "ghost" (him, alive)." -- Why the quotes?
  • They are in quotes because they aren't literal events. She wasn't hallucinating and it wasn't his ghost, as in explained in the brackets. I think that should remain. Arre 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of quote marks here is confusing. Try reading it without; the sentence still reads the same which proves the inverts are redundent. Lets see what others think. -- CassiantoTalk 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Case noted that Sharon was getting into "deeper" trouble by making mistakes "trying to do the right thing". -- Again here.
  • "Cameron reveals himself while Sharon has lunch with Nikki (Nick's mother). He had murdered Sharon's ex-boyfriend (and Cassie's biological father) Frank Barritt (Phil Dozois), who was visiting town, and hid the body in Sharon's car trunk.[39] Cameron's crimes are revealed; he is jailed, leaving Sharon free to live a normal life.[39]" -- ref repetition.
  • "The actress felt that Sharon was still a romantic lead: 'Your romantic lead shouldn't just be a simple romantic lead...' " -- Too many "Romantic lead"s. Sure the quote can't be helped, butI would swap your one.

More to come. -- CassiantoTalk 23:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie's death
  • "A weakened Cassie escapes from the hospital to find Daniel and tell him she was driving; she is returned to the hospital." -- Repetition of hospital. *Suggest* →"Cassie becomes hospitalised and escapes to find Daniel to tell him she was driving, but is soon re-admitted." Also, did she manage to speak with him?
  • Do we need to link drinking and driving? Also, was the foundation solely aimed at teenagers, or drink driving per se?
  • OVERLINK to Zap2it.
  • "In 2005 good-girl Cassie becomes a rebellious teenager; Nick and Sharon have a difficult time dealing with her.[41] Cassie has a crush on bad-boy Daniel Romalotti (Michael Graziadei), who is dating Lily Winters (Christel Khalil). One night, against her parents' wishes she sneaks out to a party. In a ploy to impress a drunken Daniel she attempts to drive him home, despite being underage. The car crashes, leaving them with no memory of the accident. Daniel is thought to have been driving, and is blamed for the accident. A weakened Cassie escapes from the hospital to find Daniel and tell him she was driving; she is returned to the hospital."[41] -- Repeated ref.
Other romances

"According to Case, Sharon loses her 'entire identity' after Nick cheats on her and 'needed a new one' " -- more pointless quotes. Needed a new what? This is a little ambiguous.

  • Well, needed a new identity. It would be weird/repetitive to say "According to Case, Sharon loses her entire identity after Nick cheats on her and needs a new identity", don't you think? Arre 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not asking you to repeat the word. Please think further afield than that. Is there another word for "identity? Is there a different way the phrase could be written so we only use only one identity? I would also change "cheats" to something a little less tabloidy. Perhaps "needed a new one" is redundent here? Or even "loses her entire identity". *Maybe* "According to Case, Sharon needs a new identity after Nick's infidelity." Or "Sharon becomes depressed at Nick's infidelity. Case thinks that Sharon 'needs a new identity.' " or "According to Case, Sharon loses her entire identity after Nick's infidelity and the character needs to reinvent herself". Or "According to Case, Sharon loses her entire identity after Nick's infidelity and needs to adopt a new personality". What about; "According to Case, Sharon loses her 'entire identity' and needs a new one after Nick's infidelity. " -- CassiantoTalk 04:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She begins a romance with Jack Abbott (Peter Bergman), Phyllis' ex" *Suggest* "She begins a romance with Phyllis' ex-partner Jack Abbott, played by Peter Bergman." IMO, I would introduce the actors sometimes to help the prose flow as an over reliance on parenthesis can cause messy prose.
  • As a personal rule, I adopt an "anymore than three, give parenthesis" when doing this. Maybe you could do as I suggest if there are singular characters mentioned, but not more than two or three. Keep them as they are. I just think putting the singular ones in prose form breaks down the monotony and awkwardness of relying on parenthesis. -- CassiantoTalk 04:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She begins a romance with Jack Abbott (Peter Bergman), Phyllis' ex.[45] Bergman called the courtship "only appropriate", explaining: "Wherever Sharon goes, she is embarrassed. Will Phyllis come walking around the corner? But Sharon doesn't have any reason to be embarrassed with Jack".[45] -- Repeated ref.
  • In fact, before I go on can you please check the whole article for consecutively repeated references, choppy, unnecessary quotes, and consistency in American style commas following dates beginners. I am seeing more and more as I continue, and it is slowing down my review as I have to keep listing them. Cheers -- CassiantoTalk 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Life as a fugitive
  • "In January 2011, Sharon is arrested for the murder of Adam's ex-wife, Skye Newman (Laura Stone). Sharon had previously gone to Hawaii to find Skye, who fell into an active volcano. CBS Soaps In Depth reported that a distraught Sharon might commit suicide." -- Why? Obvious to you I know, but could we explain that she felt depressed or upset prior to this as it looks a bit redundant without it. Remember, some of us have never seen this series.
Mental health
  • "In 2009, Sharon suffers from kleptomania (an impulse-control disorder), causing her to steal items from people and stores and eventually forcing her to admit herself to a psychiatric hospital while she is pregnant." -- "In 2009, Sharon suffers from kleptomania (an impulse-control disorder), causing her to steal items from people and stores. As a result, she is forced to admit herself into a psychiatric hospital while she is pregnant."
  • "In 2012, after Victor disappears after his wedding to Sharon..." -- repetition of "after". Suggest: "In 2012, Victor disappears after his wedding to Sharon"
Storylines
  • "Noah survives, and Grace decides to raise Cassie as her own; however, her plans are foiled when Nick and win custody." -- Check the ending of this sentence.
Reception
  • (including Case, Braeden, Morrow and Muhney),[57][18][55][58] -- Ref order
Lead section
  • is a fictional character in the American CBS Daytime soap opera The Young and the Restless, portrayed by Sharon Case." -- I don't know if using "on" is American English, but as an Englishman it sounds odd.
  • "...character made her debut March 24, 1994." →"...character made her debut on March 24, 1994."
  • "When first introduced, the character was described as a "young girl from the poor side of town". -- By who?
  • It's said by the official website for the soap; it'd be awkward to say "according to the soap's website" in the lead. I altered it to something else; "When first introduced, the character was a young girl from the wrong side of the tracks". Arre 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call him Nick, but the link refers to him as Nicholas. How was he known in the series? If it was Nick, I would pipe the link to Nick Newman and refer to him as Nick throughout.
  • I'm not sure you "obtain" custody, you either win it or lose it don't you?
  • Obtain is to acquire something yes, but my understanding would be that you obtain something physically. You don't obtain an appeal? You win an appeal as its a battle between two people with one outcome. Similarly, this would work for custody as that too is between two people. -- CassiantoTalk 08:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite her marriage to..." best to mention that this was her second marriage.
  • "...which Case called incestuous." -- if she called it incestuous then I would use speech marks here.
  • The once-"beloved" character was now perceived as "crazy", with critics blaming Bell for the character's "royal destruction" "via one ill-conceived storyline and/or romance after another" amid promises to strengthen Sharon's character." -- Why all the speech marks? Say who perceived the character to be all these things and it may look a bit better. IMO, I wouldn't bother and would delete the inverts altogether.
  • Why have you cited the end of paragraph three?
  • "Sharon has been characterized as "kindhearted", "insecure" and "not your typical romantic lead"." Again here, why the inverts? If you want to use them say who said it.

Support per resolved comments. A good article on a character who I knew nothing about prior to this. CassiantoTalk 05:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Caringtype1

  • Comments Many of the quotes in the Development section are chopped up and very awkward to read. For example, sentences like this "According to Case, Sharon loses her "entire identity" after Nick cheats on her and "needed a new one"." They are confusing to read. I think either the full quote should be used, or the sentences be reworded. Adding to the confusion, quotation marks are used in sentences like this one, "Sharon begins "hallucinating" with visions of Cameron's "ghost" (him, alive)." This reads very similar to a sentence using an exact quote, which isn't the purpose here. That sentence should be somehow rewritten to read more clearly, like "Sharon begins hallucinating with visions of Cameron's ghost, revealed to be him alive." Or something like that, so it removes the unnecessary quotes and parenthesis. Also are you sure "Cameron Kristen ordeal" is the best heading to use? It's not very descriptive at all. Also, in reply to Creativity97's above comment, the article can't be made a FA just because someone worked very hard on it, and you want it to be the first FA for an American soap. It's definitely a good article, but in its current state, it's jet not ready for FA.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to intrude here, but Caringtype1, all I meant when I said the article had been worked on very hard was that editors should continue to work on it and get it to the next stage, which should be a given when someone says something like that. I didn't mean it in any way that it would just be an accomplishment for WP:SOAPS or anything. Just wanted to clarify. Regards, Creativity97 21:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I just wanted to make sure those were observations you were making, not reasons to pass.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caringtype1, I think it would be even worse if full quotes were used, then everyone would be saying the article relies too heavily on quotes, which it would. Like I said before the Poppy Meadow article contains plenty of quotes (not to knock on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS' door), just saying. I didn't know paraphrasing was this difficult for people to read, to be honest. The person who copy-edited this didn't. I've begun fixing it up anyway.Thanks for your comments. Oh and another thing, yes I do feel that "Cameron Kirsten ordeal" is an appropriate title; that storyline consisted of many tumultuous events and to list them all would be too much. But I'd be open to changing it, do you have suggestions, Caringtype1?Arre 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess using several lengthy quotes would be worse. But I think less chopped up quotes would really help the flow of the article. Maybe your right about the title "Cameron Kristen ordeal", doing more research about the topic, I see the storyline took many different routes that would be hard to sum up in another heading. Also in that section it says "When Sharon return to Genoa City...", needs an 's' after return. Also the story lines sections frequently mentions "Newman" as a company, whereas elsewhere, it is referred to as "Newman Enterprises". It "Newman" what it's called on the show? If so, the first time it is mentioned should include "...Newman Enterprises, commonly called Newman", or something. That's all the comments I have for right now.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. -- CassiantoTalk 04:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while. I would just like to say, I've been trying to see if I could remove some of the quotes. But it's extremely hard, considering without quotations these words seem odd and awkward. I've fixed other issues too. But, I haven't done anything to the quotes in "Reception" because there has to be a lot of quotes in that section.Arre 11:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual to have a lot of quotes in a "Reception" section. As long as the amount of critical comments are equal in terms of positive and negative, I don't foresee too much of a problem here. My concerns were over pointless quotes from the other sections; as a rule of thumb, a quote should only occur if it adds something of value to that particular sentence. If it doesn't, then I would avoid. -- CassiantoTalk 16:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up all issues such as unnecessary quotes, consistency in American style commas following date beginners and also references which have been repeated. Arre 01:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

Oppose due to sourcing and plagiarism issues. I do not think the plagiarism is intentional—it looks like a case of the editors not understanding how to properly quote, paraphrase, and summarize sources. Quotations have been used improperly, and I found instances of close paraphrasing or outright copying of text outside of quotations. Of the first four refs I checked, each has issues. This sample indicates that the whole article needs to be audited for plagiarism.

  • "Despite her crimes and faults, Global Regina describes Sharon as a central heroine who has endured many challenges to get to where she is." This is the first sentence I read at random and it suffers from problems:
  • The opening modifying phrase is misplaced. It's currently modifying "Global Regina", which I'm assuming isn't the thing that has crimes and faults.
  • Global Regina redirects to a TV channel article.. what is it really?
  • The sentence itself is too closely paraphrased to the source text.
  • Ref 101: You selectively quoted phrases from the source, but simply changing "masks" to "might mask" in your own writing does not sufficiently paraphrase. You are thus plagiarizing.
  • Ref 102: I don't understand why you have quoted "seem to think". Are you quoting the source text to avoid having to paraphrase? Quotations should be used only when the source text is profoundly written or when you wish include a quotation by an authority rather than paraphrasing or summarizing.
  • Ref 74b: Same problem as ref 101. You've selectively quoted the source, but included source text elsewhere in the sentence without quotation. That's plagiarism.

It looks like the entire approach to sourcing and quoting needs examination. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC) [59].[reply]

American exceptionalism

Nominator(s): Kgarson (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...of current events Kgarson (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [60].[reply]

Circumstellar habitable zone

Nominator(s): Wer900 • talk 20:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been comprehensively and completely rewritten, and the rewrite itself has been modified to a significant extent, since the last time it was assessed. I feel that after having rewriting the article it is far stronger than the C-class work that it was assessed to be before. The article has seen little major change day-to-day since the period immediately after the rewrite, and uses the latest literature in order to produce a high-quality, authoritative work. For those reasons, I feel that "Circumstellar habitable zone" should be a featured article. Wer900 • talk 20:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jamesx12345

This was on my list of articles to look at, so I feel I can make some (hopefully useful) comments.
  • The first sentence is perhaps a bit too technical. In no way demeaning the intellect of some readers, the word "commensurate" is a bit long for a first sentence. Perhaps there is a simpler way of saying that it is where liquid water is found?
    • done. Replaced with "sufficient", even though that doesn't get across the whole concept (a gas giant in the CHZ will not have liquid water at its core, but exotic ices). Wer900 • talk 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with "inferred"
    • done. Replaced with "[t]he bounds of the CHZ are calculated"
  • "Most are more massive than the Earth" make explicit the differences in composition?
  • "the CHZ concept has been broadly challenged as a primary criterion for life." Nuff said. I defy you to find an 11-year-old doing a class project on aliens that will explain that sentence to you.
    • Removed "broadly", hopefully that should help (and make clear that the scientific consensus is very much in favor of the CHZ being the most likely location for life, or at least intelligent life). Wer900 • talk 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the basic conditions for water-dependent life may be found even in interstellar space" I was under the impression that there are flecks of comet and suchlike but nothing really conducive to life. It's the interstellar space I don't get - that would probably have to be referenced

Good opening - it is nicely written, but perhaps a bit denser than it needs to be. Looking at FAs like Big Bang and Sun, they tend to assume nothing, but there are some more advanced concepts as well. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • History looks fine. Could mention be made of earlier hypotheses regarding extraterrestrial life? It has been a question for at least a few hundred years, so perhaps its lack of consideration is worth a mention.
  • "various planetary scientists" looks like a weasel word. (If "various" is given in the reference perhaps that could be made clearer?)
    • done. Replaced with "several".
  • "put ηe at 0.48" 48% is a bit less intimidating (in brackets maybe?)
  • "Extrasolar extrapolation" I think people will either understand the maths or not - the inverse square law is pretty elementary, so you could just say "quarter luminosity, half the distance," with a link somewhere to the inverse-square law. I'm not sure if that needs a ref as it could be WP:OR. (Not that I contest it!)
    • The relevance of the inverse-square law and the complications to its use are already mentioned, and as you said, it's pretty elementary, so I don't think that such a level of explanation is necessary. Wer900 • talk 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "numerous roadblocks to a perfect extrasolar extrapolation of the circumstellar habitable zone concept" a bit verbose again - sorry.
Further comments
  • "However, stellar evolution is at play with red dwarf system habitability as well, reducing the wild fluctuations in luminosity so planets are more likely to have life." I can't say I am entirely clear what this sentence means - it seems to be that the first and second sentences in this paragraph contradict each other, and then the final one clarifies the point. I think the use of "is at play" is causing the confusion - if replaced with a direct statement saying that red dwarves stabilise as they age, it would help with comprehension.
  • "could render water unable to form a liquid" - could you be more specific and say it would sublime? (Or come very close)
    • It could go in both the solid and the gas directions based on which direction the temperature and pressure fluctuate, so I think that added specificity is unnecessary. Wer900 • talk 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "55 Cancri f was discovered within 55 Cancri A's circumstellar habitable zone" - this could be embellished to "55 Cancri f was discovered within the circumstellar habitable zone of its host star 55 Cancri A" for those not familiar with naming conventions.
  • "While conditions on this massive and dense planet are not conducive to the formation of water or for that matter biological life as we know it, the potential exists for a system of moons to be orbiting the planet and thus transiting through this zone and being conducive for biological development." This would most likely need to be sourced.
  • "The planet is currently listed as unconfirmed by the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia." I'm not clear about this reference - I can't find any suggestion of a planet g in the database.
  • "preclude the planet from being habitable" does this merit further explanation? Sounds interesting.
    • done. Nothing too interesting, just it was kicked outside the HZ. This article is not the place
  • "Many argue" - another weasel word (although it may be correct to use it here)
  • The last section is not as strong as the rest of the article. Aside from the obvious tag, it seems to be based too largely on a single source, and under-referenced in general. As an aside, no mention is made here (except in the image caption) of carbon chauvinism or the potential for alternative biochemistries.

Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Please look at grammar in image captions
  • File:Habitable_zone_-_HZ.png: source image has been deleted as incompatible with Commons' licensing
    • done. Replaced with another image compatible with our licensing; the image indicated was deleted as text and another image later convey the same information; plus, it doesn't look good to have a non-professional, technical image at the beginning of the article. Wer900 • talk 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Estimated_extent_of_the_Solar_Systems_habitable_zone.png: what is the source for the information conveyed by this diagram?
  • File:UpsilonAndromedae_D_moons.jpg: not sure about this - it's claimed as own work, but compare for example the current front-page image here.
    • done. A bit of poking around shows that the image predates the Basel Peace Office by over a year, so they took it from us rather than the other way around. I could see nothing indicating it is not own work. Wer900 • talk 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Phot-15b-09-fullres.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

  • Most recent changes to the page are minor, but I think that the ultraviolet habitable zone needs further explanation. I am concerned that an "ultraviolet habitable zone" is a bit arbitrary, given that it depends on the atmosphere of the planet and the type of organism considered. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The liquid water CHZ is also "arbitrary" in the same way, but based on general climate models for different masses of planets it *can* be predicted. the UVCHZ is the same. Anyway, I will clarify that section, as the UVCHZ is just the region where a forming planet can escape photoevaporation of itself or its atmosphere while it is forming and after. Wer900 • talk 17:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber comments

Reading through - queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In June, 2011, two additional habitable zone candidates around Gliese 667 through Bayesian Re-analysis of radial velocity signals—Super-Earths Gliese 667 Cd and Gliese 667 Ce. - this sentence has no verb - also can it be appended onto one of the preceding paras?
  • Such a concept was the idea behind Stephen H. Dole's 1964 study. - sentence sorta just sits there and isn't clear it refers to the following sentence. A semicolon between might be a good link between the two.
  • At present, you have the last para of the History section and then a criticism section covering similar or same material - these would be best combined - in either location. Also title criticism is somewhat generic, as it is more like proposing alternative avenues to explore.

Otherwise, little to complain about - will take another look and have a think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata comments

Oppose for now. Interesting material, but the text needs to be swept for MoS compliance, typos, and more wikilinks would be helpful to the average reader. Please consider the following suggestions, questions, and comments for possible article improvement: (p.s. per the FAC instructions, avoid using templates "(such as {{done}}, {{not done}} ... as they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives" Sasata (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • please audit the article for duplicate wikilinks; there's a handy tool to help
  • consider changing various "noun" + ing constructions (search for "being")
  • ""Liquid Water Belt" which described" which=>that (audit throughout; which generally follows a comma)
  • "first introduced the term" underlined probably unnecessary
  • "The theory of habitable zones was further developed in 1964 by Stephen H. Dole in his book Habitable Planets for Man, in which he covered the circumstellar habitable zone itself as well as various other determinants of planetary habitability, eventually estimating the number of habitable planets in the Milky Way to be about 600 million." I'd suggest breaking this sentence in two. Why "eventually"? Does this mean he came to the conclusion by the end of the book, or later, after the publication of the book?
  • "At the same time …" Really? Or would "Around the same time" be more appropriate?
  • "In 1993, astronomer James Kasting" why is the profession of this blue-linked fellow given (his article calls him a geoscientist, BTW), but not that of the (twice!) red-linked Stephen H. Dole?
  • pipe link heavier elements?
  • "More recently, several planetary scientists have criticized" Should reword "recently" per WP:RELTIME
  • link ammonia; link methane on 1st occurrence
  • "would not cause a boiling away of liquid water." -> perhaps switch to active voice, like "would not cause liquid water to boil away."
  • "A 2013 study by Ravi Kumar Kopparapu put ηe at 0.48" ηe is not explained until later in the article
  • "95-180 billion" use endash for number ranges
  • "In 2011, Seth Borenstein in 2011 concluded" fix
  • "based on observations from the Kepler mission" the link should probably go to ‪Kepler (spacecraft)‬ rather than Johannes Kepler (I see it's linked correctly later in the article)
  • "concluding that about "1.4 to 2.7 percent" of all sun-like stars" why does the percentage range have to be in quotes? Later in the same sentence, "expected to have earthlike planets "within the habitable zones of their stars"," why does this have to be quoted? Could it be replaced with simply "within the CHZ"?
  • the final sentence of the 1st paragraph of "Solar System estimates" needs a citation
  • "and global warming inducing atmospheres" hyphen between warming-inducing? Also, link global warming, glaciation, albedo, cloud albedo (maybe fit a link to Ice-albedo feedback somewhere too?), relative humidity
  • "This estimate has often been cited by subsequent publications." source?
  • "combining high obliquity and orbital eccentricity" link to axial tilt and orbital eccentricity (I see the latter is linked twice later, but should be linked at 1st occurrence)
  • "Applies to planet with" -> planets
  • consider linking luminosity at the 2nd occurrence (would be far away from the 1st link in the lead)
  • 'Various complicating factors, though, including the individual characteristics of stars themselves, mean that extrasolar extrapolation of the CHZ concept is more complex." source?
  • "Some scientists argue that the concept of a circumstellar habitable zone is actually limited to stars"
  • link binary system; does the existence of a binary systems always extend the CHZ when compared to a single-star planetary system?
  • "Michael Hart proposed that only main-sequence stars of spectral class K0 or brighter could possess habitable zones, an idea which has been extended in modern times" that last clause makes me wonder when Hart proposed his theory
  • link red-dwarf habitable zone, tidal heating, climate model, space weather, magnetosphere, stellar evolution, helium, metabolism
  • "Given that this new equilibrium lasts for about 1 Gyr," rather than have the unknowing reader sent to Byr, how about including parenthetically (1 billion years)
  • "The origin of water on Earth is still unknown, possible sources include" think a semicolon works better than a comma here
  • "put a habitable moon so close to astar that" -> a star?
  • "Later study revealed temperatures analogous to Venus ruling out any potential for liquid water." comma after Venus?
  • consider putting a {{nowrap}} template around 70 Virginis b, 16 Cygni Bb and other similar names to avoid unsightly line breaks
  • "Gliese 876 b, discovered in 1998, and Gliese 876 c, discovered in 2001, are both gas giants discovered in the habitable zone" too many "discovered"
  • "around Gliese 876. although" fix punctuation
  • link gas giant
  • check ending punctuation in figure captions per WP:Caption
  • "existence has recently been put into doubt" when is recently? "The planet is currently listed as unconfirmed" as of when?
  • "and colleagues" is a friendlier version of "et al." that is probably more appropriate in the article text for a general encyclopaedic audience
  • "the Earth Similarity Index (ESI)" don't need to define acronyms that aren't used later in the text
  • "located 49 ly from Earth" here the abbreviated form of light years is used (and linked again), but it's spelled out in previous and later instances
  • "The discovery of two planets orbiting in the habitable zone of Kepler-62, by the Kepler team was announced on April 19, 2013." something's wrong with the grammar/flow here
  • "Many argue that an orbit" sounds weaselly
  • the Drake equation is linked, but perhaps Drake should be linked as well; link search for extraterrestrial intelligence
  • this article refers to "Wow! reply", but our article on the subject calls it Wow! signal
  • "The concept of a habitable zone is criticized by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen in their book Evolving the Alien" please give year of publication of this book for context
  • per WP:SEEALSO, several of the "See also" links should be removed, as they are already linked in the article
  • please consider use a flexible, browser-dependent column width setting for the references (like colwidth=30em); it's currently hard-coded to be 4 columns, which looks rather thin on my monitor setting (and for many others, I suspect)
  • the references need to be tweaked for consistent presentation; please audit the following:
  • display of author names (see "James Kasting" vs. "Strughold, Hubertus" vs. "Hart, M. H."); note that sometimes author names are abbreviated, even though their full names are available from the cited source
  • journal article titles should be consistently either title case or sentence case; be careful to ensure that if sentence case is used, to capitalize terms that require it (like "Kepler M-dwarfs")
  • page range format: compare "1602–6" vs. "1279–1297"
  • why two "et al."s in ref #82?
  • need to be consistent in how many author names are given before et al.; compare ref #85 vs. ref#112 vs. ref#126
  • ref #123 consists of only a Russian-language title … how about an author, indication of language, accessdate, publisher, etc.?
  • page numbers for ref#128?
Response

I apologize for the mistakes I made wholeheartedly. Some of the mistakes were inserted subsequent to the rewrite by well-meaning authors who did not clean up after themselves, and as the FAC nominator it is my job to clean up after those changes. However, I stand by statements that appear to be weaselly. The ambiguity is deliberate; unlike in the case of anthropogenic global warming, it is not possible to cite any study that qualifies these terms further. The only thing that is evident immediately is that many scientists believe life as we know it can emerge on worlds with Europa with the ingredients for life coming from elsewhere, with a few scientists believing in the existence of radically different biochemistry with different life requirements. I will fix the other mistakes that you identified with regards to the MOS. Wer900 • talk 20:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed many of the errors in the article with AWB, including doubled wikilinks. However, I think that it is important to retain links to important subjects at the end, just to centralize them after a reading of the article. Wer900 • talk 03:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nergaal

  • "an support liquid water at the surface" I would also add: and therefore is the location with the highest probability of encountering habitats where life is sustainable (in essence that is the main point of the CMZ term)
  • "To many" what? Scientists? Astronomers? Average folks?
  • "has been estimated to be anywhere from 500 million[4] to over 150 billion." in the Milky Way? Observable Universe?
  • "numerous planets have now been discovered in the CHZ" this is a bit skewed. when was the first planet discovered in this zone? (first confirmed planet was only about 15 years ago)
  • "to greatly outnumber planets": terrestrial planets or also super-Jupiters?
  • "In subsequent decades" does this refer to the first reference in the 50s?
  • the intro image is terrible. if you try to click and zoom on it you cannot read anything
  • the intro doesn't address clearly the location of the zone for a single star or a binary, or ternary one
  • I think the "Goldilocks zone" term can be mentioned in the intro since it might be more common to some non-experts
  • for some reason I think that the third paragraph is a bit overly represented (it discusses the stuff in a small section at the end and the last paragraph in the first section). I want to say that this could be trimmed slightly and moved to the correct sections (for example the radioactive decay is not discussed in the actual article)
  • I think the determination section could receive a better representation in the intro; for example to a casual reader it would be useful to explain that the CMZ in the SS has earth close to the center, and extends until close to Venus, and may extend past Mars and Ceres.
  • "While the entire orbits of the Moon" isn't the Moon completely within the chz?
  • submitted papers???? wtf? this is a FAC, so a peer-approved paper is a minimum requirement; these guys might be right but until reviewers give ok they can't even be mentioned in a note of a FA.
  • intro could also say that a star 4 times of luminous as the Sun would have the CMZ located at twice the distance (or 4 times less luminous, half the distance)
  • stellar evolution: how soon will the Earth fall out of the habitable zone?
  • "15 millibars" what is the pressure on Mars? what planet in the SS has such a low ground pressure?
  • "could render water unable to form a liquid" huh? this sounds like BS or an over-simplification. liquid water can exist at any pressure given a certain temperature. what constrains does the statement include?
  • "the Hill radius of the planet so that they are not pulled out of orbit of their host planet" not sure how this works. you mean a satellite of the moon would not be habitable?
  • "cannot have habitable moons" i would stay away from such clear-cut statements, and replace them with "are highly unlikely to have habitable moons"
  • " to astar" space
  • "the fraction of stars with planets in the CHZ" does this refer to main-sequence stars only? or all stars? including binary systems?
  • "about "1.4 to 2.7 percent" of" is this the latest number? and how many planets does this mean for the MW?
  • " planets were discovered. " add year; "ne of the first discoveries was 70 Virginis b," add year again
  • " to themselves possess " rephrase
I implemented most of these recommendations and those of Sasata, but I think the submitted articles are okay, especially considering that they are written by reputable scientists with long histories of publication in planetary astrophysics, and that the criteria they specify are not used in any other place by the article. Wer900 • talk 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • fix the "Gas giant planets in the habitable zone" link
  • "KOI-1686.01" should also be discussed
  • " the first super-Earth" put in the parenthesis how much bigger than earth is this
  • mention the Gliese 667 C system, and finish the super-earth section with a statement along the lines that the number of reports of such planets is rabidly growing in the last several years (i.e. so to leave the reader the impression that the section may look very different in a couple of months)
  • please put a mini-definition of a waterhole in parenthesis (region region in the radio spectrum not absorbed by atmospheric water)

I really like the article otherwise. Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done, although I had added another image which was later removed. Wer900 • talk 21:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose! Umh yeah, after a month I come back to see that most of my comments I gave after spending a few hours reviewing the article have not been fixed. Nergaal (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62

  • "planetary-mass objects with sufficient atmospheric pressure can support liquid water at the surface." Shouldn't this say "at their surfaces"?
  • "To many scientists, studying objects in the CHZ appears to be the best way to estimate the scope of life in the universe and locate extraterrestrial life." Let's try to rewrite this without weaselling, eh? "Studying objects in the CHZ may be the best way to estimate the scope of life in the universe and locate extraterrestrial life."
  • Ref 20 "Rare earth" needs page numbers, either in the citation or using {{rp}}
  • Ref 130 "Evolving the Alien": see above
  • Why are there so many external links? Some of these look like they should be citations, which violates WP:EL: "Most external links should present different details from citations." I strongly suggest cutting this list down. The larger it is, the less useful it becomes.

Meep. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done, except for page numbers and external links. I am still waiting for page numbers (I do not have those particular books), and as for external links the link list has already been reduced dramatically, and we have a particularly long article here. Another reviewer has stated his reluctance to trim more links. Wer900 • talk 23:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hamiltonstone

  • The main section "Determination of the circumstellar habitable zone" begins with this: "Whether a body is in the circumstellar habitable zone of its host star is dependent on both the radius of the planet's orbit (for natural satellites, the host planet's orbit) and the mass of the body itself." Shouldn't this general introductory sentence specify three key variables rather than just these two? Isn't the third key variable the energy output of the star? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a whole table of at times quite variable estimates regarding the solar habital zone, but there should be some discussion of these in the text. The table needs to be referred to by the text.
  • Having just explained that there is a range of estimate regarding the zone, and tabulated those, there's something wrong with the next sectin having this: "For example, while the Solar System has a circumstellar habitable zone centered at 1.34 AU from the Sun..." We don't really know this with such precision - it is one (perhaps leading) estimate. Suggest it be rewritten as "For example, if the Solar System..." etc hamiltonstone (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article suddenly moves up a level in its ideas at this point: "On the other end of the spectral scale, Michael Hart proposed that only main-sequence stars of spectral class K0 or brighter could possess habitable zones, an idea which has been extended in modern times with the concept of a tidal locking radius for red dwarfs. Within this radius, which is coincidental with the red-dwarf habitable zone, it has been suggested that the volcanism caused by tidal heating could cause a "tidal Venus" planet with high temperatures and no ability to support life". I'm afraid a lay person isn't going to follow the rapid evolution of the argument here. Needs an extra sentence or two and the logic needs explaining. First of all, it seemed to me that Hart's general idea expressed in the sentence (that the range of stars that can have CHZs can be narrowed) is superficially contradicted by the idea that a star so different from the sun as a red dwarf could have a hab zone. The two sentences at least should be disconnected. Then you need to explain why a tidal locking radius is relevant (or even what a tidal locking radius is. I don't immediately associate tidal locking with tidal heating, so i thought I had encountered a second non-sequitur in the para. Then, why is this radius concidental with the hab zone?? And why would it be a "tidal Venus"? Why not a "tidal Earth"? And if it cannot support life, as the sentence concludes, why is this even in an article about CHZs? As you can see, this para lost me! :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the explanatino appears to lie in a later section, so some of the issues could be addressed with a reordering.
  • "Moving a moon closer to a host planet to maintain its orbit would create tidal heating so intense as to eliminate any prospects of habitability". This makes it sound as though one is planning a massive engineering project. Try "A moon close enough to a host planet to avoid this problem, however, would experience tidal heating so intense as to eliminate any prospects of habitability".

Delegate comments -- after remaining open almost six weeks there appear to be too many unaddressed comments for consensus to be achieved any time soon, so I'll be archiving this shortly; pls review and/or action all comments before considering another nomination here, which in any case cannot take place before the usual two-week break per FAC instructions Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference smart was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2013&oldid=568227096"