Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2013: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 4
Add 8
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phoenix (constellation)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/How a Mosquito Operates/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atlantic Puffin/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Diane/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ambohimanga/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in the Congo/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in the Congo/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Posen/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Posen/archive1}}

Revision as of 06:43, 9 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius's Eighth Symphony is one of the great artistic mysteries of the 20th century – the "great work" that never was. For years Sibelius tantalised the musical world with hints of the imminent appearance of this final masterpiece. Conductors were promised it, arrangements were made for its premiere – but it never appeared. In all probability he destroyed it, but maybe not all of it? Early fragments and sketches that seem to relate to this near-mythical work have turned up, been analysed, played and recorded. Some experts are convinced, and believe that somewhere in the piles of music manuscripts being pored over there even yet lurks the bones of another Sibelius symphony. Others are more sceptical; yet others dread the possibility. It's an interesting and at times painful story; I am grateful to all those who assisted with advice and suggestions at the recent peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I took part in the peer review and struggled to find anything to quibble at then. I have no quibbles now. This is a top-notch article, in first rate prose, with wide-ranging references, and covering this enigmatic subject fully. Brianboulton sets out Sibelius's shilly-shallying with unblinking clarity, and gives well-researched and convincing reasons for the composer's equivocation. I don't see how an encyclopedia article on this topic could be better done. – Tim riley (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim, for your consistent interest in and help with musical articles, for your most generous words above, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Eusebeus Some minor copy editing issues.

The Lede -
  1. "according to later reports of his family" - shouldn't it be "by" or "from" his family?
  2. "In 1924 his Seventh Symphony had been widely recognised as a landmark in the development of symphonic form" Reads as if the recognition is limited to the specific date. Suggest something like "His seventh symphony, premiered in 1924, had been widely ...."
  3. Nitpicky bit here, but the follow-up fn for the above claim (Grove) does not really, as written, offer the needed substantiation. I think just a quick rewrite or quotation to show the Grove basis for the claim about contemporary recognition of the 7th.
  4. "but as each scheduled date approached Sibelius retracted, ..." Is "retracted" the right word here...? He didn't retract the offer, it's more like he delayed or demurred.
  5. "Similar promises, to the ..." perhaps consider: "Similar promises Sibelius made to .... " and eliminate the need to put what is important information into a parenthetical.
  6. I find the last bit of the lede rather awkwardly written, starting with the "Only in the 1990s, during the cataloguing of numerous of Sibelius's manuscripts and sketches that had recently come to light," Here's a suggested rewrite: "It was only in the 1990s, while the composer's many notebooks were being catalogued, that scholars raised the possibility that some of the music for the 8th may have survived. Recent research has led to the tentative identification of several short manuscript sketches which are related to the Eighth, three of which (comprising less than three minutes of music) were recorded [you can play without recording, but you can't record without playing!] by the Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra in 2011. While a few (or some?) musicologists have suggested it may be possible to reconstruct the 8th, others have suggested that this is unlikely given the ambiguity of the extant material. The propriety of publicly performing music that Sibelius himself had rejected has also been questioned.
  7. Related to the end of the lede (reconstruction): according to the David Stearns piece he claims that "recent news from Finland’s Helsingin Sanomat (and its savvy music journalist Vesa Siren) tells of extensive sketches being discovered." This raises some ambiguity, since the article tells us that only 3 minutes of music were recorded. So perhaps clarify that while extensive sketches have been found (per Siren), only a tiny fraction of these were recorded. It is otherwise confusing, I think, for a reader to figure out how an entire symphony could be reconstructed from 3 minutes.... The issue can then be dealt with more extensively in the main article, perhaps under a dedicated heading.

Please feel free to reject any of these suggestions. If it is helpful, I can go through the rest later as I have time. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. I have generally carried out your suggestions for minor prose fixes. On the suggested rewrite of the final lead paragraph, I agree that on the whole your version is tighter, and I have largely adopted your wording. One divergence is that I have reinstated the important phrase "subject to futher findings". These words are necessary to answer your point 7: readers might indeed wonder how a whole symphony could be reconstructed from three fragments. I think that the main text, in the Discoveries and Speculation nsections, makes it clear that there is other material under consideration, although the experts are divided about its relevance. Lastly, I agree that the Grove citation does not cover the contemporary status of the Seventh Symphony, and have altered the wording accordingly. I may return to this point when I get back to my Sibelius books (I am away from home at the moment). Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support. Eusebeus (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support Support

A typically solid looking effort here from Brian on an interesting subject I know little about. I'll put comments here as I read through.

  • Lead looks very good. I have no issues here apart from with the image caption, which says "By then he had probably ceased all work on his Eighth Symphony, although he continued the fiction for many years that it was still a viable project." We say he had "probably" ceased all work on it, then say he "continued the fiction"; to me the latter piece of wording, while very good prose, appears to imply that he had definitely finished working on it, which we don't know. Perhaps we can reword slightly to "though he continued claiming for many years that it remained a viable project" or similar
  • Background
  • Did he name Ainola after his wife? We say he "settled in" Ainola; is Ainola the house or general area? If the house (or an estate), we should probably say he "settled at" Ainola (as we do in the next line)
  • "Sibelius was often heavily in debt, and prone to bouts of heavy drinking" Perhaps we can remove the repetition of "heavily/heavy"
  • Perhaps we can split the second paragraph at "By the mid-1920s"
  • Composition
  • "Beginnings" section generally looks good. I would rearrange slightly "to compose and imbibe the city's musical life" to "to imbibe the city's musical life and compose", but that's just personal preference
  • "Sibelius had promised the world premiere" Do we know when he promised it?
  • "Serge Koussevitzky and the Boston Symphony Orchestra" Perhaps we should clarify that this was one promise and not two, Koussevitzky being musical director of the Boston Symphony Orchestra for many years
  • "Georg Schnéevoigt who had" I would put a comma in here after "Schnéevoigt"
  • "Olin Downes, writing to Sibelius in 1937." You don't need a full stop here as this is not a sentence
  • "through the 1930s" throughout the 1930s?
  • "the Eighth Symphony would shortly be released" Perhaps "that the Eighth Symphony's release was imminent"
  • Destruction looks good to me
  • Also Discoveries
  • Speculation I have only one quibble here: you don't need the parantheses on "(Vesa Sirén)" in the quote box
  • Referencing looks good
  • The images lacked alt text. I have taken the liberty of adding it myself, I hope you don't mind

All in all I believe this is a really first-class piece of work, very well constructed and presented, marvellously written and an all-round great read, even for somebody with very limited knowledge of the material. I have only a few points above I think could be looked at, but all in all I expect to be supporting in due course. Well done so far Brian, and if there's anything I can lend a hand with please let me know. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these comments. The small fixes are all done. Ainola was indeed named after Aino, but I'm not sure that this is relevant information for this article. I don't know when Koussevitsky was first promised the symphony; as Sibelius was telling his sister in September 1928 that the work would be "sent to America", it may have been that early. No definite information, though I'll look again at my books when I get home. On alt text, I have always been sceptical of its value, and stopped adding it to my articles years ago, but I know that others feel differently, and I never object if others wish to include it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supported for FA; well done Brian. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and help. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Smerus I commented on this excellent article, which I am delighted to support for FA, in the Peer Review. Now I am back in London I have found a typically pungent passage by Richard Taruskin, which might be useful and relevant for context purposes, and which I set out here anyway for interest:

"[A]fter the last symphonic poem, in 1926 [there were] no more major works...The sphinx-like silence seemed like the outcome of an inexorable trajectory. Sibelius now loomed not merely as a Finnish national monument but as the very embodiment of the North - harsh, frosty, inscrutable, chastening. His authority, especially in the 1920s and '30s, was enormous. ....There was hardly a composer of symphonies during this time, especially in Britain and America, who was not profoundly - and often openly, even reverently - beholden to his example. The First Symphony (1931-5) by ... William Walton ... could easily have passed for Sibelius's Eighth." (Music in the Nineteenth Century, (2010), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978019534833, pp. 822-3).

Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. The quotation is splendid, and I am using it in place of the previous somewhat anodyne quote box in the final section. A worthy tailpiece to the article, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked it - I have tarted up the box a bit with links and ref, hope that is OK.--Smerus (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, yes, thanks Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Stfg

Support Nice article , and I'll be supporting. Just a few issues:

  • "... and a later conflagration ..."; "conflagration" seems rather over the top; "... and a later one ..."?
  • Just before that: "got rid of" is too colloquial; destroyed? disposed of?
  • Discoveries, 1st sentence: "boring" is too colloquial; uninteresting?

Sentences of the form "John went to the shops and bought some milk" should never have a comma before the and. I think I've caught all instances. --Stfg (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, all fixed I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
– and thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Reference formatting for now, I think. I'll try to look at the rest later, time permitting:

  • Although it offers a list of references, I am not clear why Sirén et al. is a reliable source. Also, the way the website is identified in the citations (as "Sibelius" website) seems odd to me. My concerns over this site are critical because you lean on it very heavily.
  • If you look at the details of the contributors, here, you will see that they are among the leading present-day Sibelius scholars. They also provide a very comprehensive list of their sources. There can be no doubts about the reliability of the material; had they chosen to publish it in print, there would clearly be no question about it. As to how the website is identified, I'm not sure I can do much about that, other than to call it "sibelius.fi", its formal name in the web address. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 16 is a source originally published in the Finish Music Quarterly, and it would be ideal if we had the full journal citation for that appearance (volume/issue/pages, as appropriate).
  • I can't provide volume or pages information. The date information that I initially gave (April 1995) was wrong; the article comes from the fourth quarterly issue for 1995. I have amended accordingly. Personally I think there is enough information to identify the print source, but it would also be possible to alter the citation to the FIMIC website, as the online host for the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 18 has an issue number, so looks like a citation to print that is archived online; are page numbers available?
  • Citation 21: I believe a period is required after eds.
  • Hmm, this might be a question of BritEng versus AmEng, but I was taught not to put a period at the end of an abbreviation when the last letter of the abbreviation is the same as that for the full word. Thus "ed." is the correct abbreviation for "editor", but "editors" becomes "eds" not "eds." For the same reason I would shorten Saint to "St" not "St." However, I think that provided that one is consistent, either form should be acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 25 is a traditional journal and decidedly needs page numbers.
  • The pdf in citation 38 isn't loading for me, but that may be my problem, so I'm not able to determine what it is or evaluate its reliability. The citation formatting is odd. Editions elsewhere are set off in parentheses, for example.
  • The parenthetical "editions" refer to the international editions of newspapers. In this case the "Sibelius edition" is a series of recordings issued by BIS. This essay is likely to be part of the material issued with that edition. The writer is a leading Sibelius scholar. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that Stearns has sufficient influence in the field to make citation 40 a reliable source.
  • Stearns is music critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer, an Arts reporter for the radio station WRTI-FM, a contributor to Gramophone, Opera News, The Guardian etc. I don't think his reliability status is in doubt. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are missing close parentheses in both Tawaststjerna source entries.

I'll see about looking at prose when I have the chance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support just a few comments (sorry I missed the peer review)

Lede
  • "While a few musicologists have speculated that subject to further findings it may be possible to reconstruct the entire work" I'm pretty sure I know what is meant, but the "subject to further findings" is placed and reads oddly.
Background
  • "large output of orchestral works, chamber music, piano pieces and songs, as well as lighter music." Songs can be fairly light. Perhaps shift to end of sentence, "large output of orchestral works, chamber music and piano pieces as well as lighter music and songs."
  • Well, if you consider Richard Strauss's Four Last Songs, or Mahler's Kindertotenlieder, or the entire output of Hugo Wolf, you realise that songs are often anything but light. I'd prefer to let the phrasing stand. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you mention "his country" in the 1920s, I would toss in a "by then independent" at a suitable position, since you made a point of the duchy before
Limbo
  • I like the quote box statement on the 9th Symphony. I like less reading it, and then having it described to me in the main text. I'm not sure both are necessary and I think the quote box works better.
Destruction
  • "numerous stages during his life" Perhaps "of his life"?
  • Consider moving the McKenna quote box down a paragraph, to be by the content it relates to
  • "This was essentially a tidying operation" I would make it clearer that "this" refers to the preparation of the material, rather than the performance thereof.
Speculation
  • " is accepted beyond reasonable doubt " Interesting application of the legal standard, but perhaps "is fully accepted" is tidier.
  • Are the location, publisher, and ISBN really needed in the Taruskin quote box?
That's all I have. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from PumpkinSky
Image check...all fine.
Accessdate format for web refs are not consistently used. Some web refs have them, some don't. All should have them. Otherwise, excellent work. PumpkinSky talk 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the image check. As for access dates, the principle I have applied is the same as that in all my featured articles (except maybe a few very early ones when I was less cognisant), namely, that if the material originally appeared in identifiable print form, then the access date is unnecessary. This is not just my practice, it is widely observed. If you think this principle has been applied inconsistently in this article, can you please indicate where? Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now I know myself and many others follow the rule that books retrieved online don't need accessdates. I'd not see it explicitly stated that anything originally in print form didn't need one, but I had often wondered about it and it makes sense. So I support now. PumpkinSky talk 01:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think on this issue, consistency is the thing, one way or the other. Thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was one of the travellers at PR and had my say there: this excellent article has improved further since then and I'm very happy to support it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 6 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Phoenix (constellation)

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this has come together nicely - I find constellations hard to make engaging because of their innate listiness, but it got a good review from Hamiltonstone at GAN and I figure a big shove in the right direction. Anything outstanding should be imminently fixable. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now...Comments from PumpkinSky
Refs 1,2,3 don't use the publisher parameter.
The retrieve date for the NED ref is not in the same format as other retrieve dates.
Image File:Constellation Phoenix.jpg has a no-categories tag on Commons. Could that be taken care of?
There are several books from Cambridge University Press. All but the one in ref 51 list the location. See ref 52. PumpkinSky talk 23:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
all done - thanks for doing the cats for the image Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto

A nice little article and easy to read, despite the blindingly scientific subject matter. I offer my comments for you to embrace, consider or disregard:

  • I think the opening sentence in the History section maybe a bit too long and feels slightly awkward without a pause of some kind. "Phoenix was the largest of the twelve constellations established by Petrus Plancius from the observations of Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser and Frederick de Houtman. It first appeared on a 35-cm diameter celestial globe published in 1597 (or 1598) in Amsterdam by Plancius with Jodocus Hondius." – Maybe?
sentence split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Uranometria of 1603. De Houtman included it in his southern star catalog of 1603..." – Is there anyway of avoiding the repetition of the year?
changed to "the same year" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to link Australia? Much too well known to require one I think. I would be inclined to say the same for South Africa too.
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an OVERLINK to "Gamma Phoenicis", three paragraphs down in the Stars section.
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know either small case or capitalisation are okay with "earth", but is there a reason why we capitalise "Saturn" and "Jupiter" and not the earlier mention of "earth"?
nope - earth capitalised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not pushing for this (and by no-means obligatory), but could the refs be split into two columns, purely for asthetical reasons?

CassiantoTalk 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

references in two columns now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone. I undertook the GA review, and then made some comments post-review in response to which Casliber incorporated changes.

  • "...brown dwarfs are objects of mass intermediate between large planets and the smallest stars that are not massive enough to perform hydrogen fusion". Just checking - there is such a thing as a star that lacks the mass for hydrogen fusion? I thought that was the defining feature of a star...? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I think brown dwarfs are technically substellar objects...here is a straightforward definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it needed a copyedit - as written it sounded as though it was the smallest stars that lacked the mass for fusion. Feel free to tweak further - i feel some improvement could be made to the idea of "performing" fusion, but have not as yet come up with it. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from - actually some brown dwarfs are maybe smaller than planets, so it has to be massive. I tried this or alternatively it could be "brown dwarfs are objects whose mass is greater than that of planets, but insufficient for hydrogen fusion characteristic of stars to occur." - bastard sentence really.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yes it was a troublesome sentence. I'm happy with your last solution. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • charted and gave the brighter stars their Bayer designations — clunky, I think, something like charted the brighter stars and gave their Bayer designations
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • declination, right ascension. — link at first occurrence
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • boasts nine star systems with planets, and the recently discovered Phoenix Cluster—one of the largest objects in the universe— I'm not convinced by that comma
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One name of the brightest star Alpha Phoenicis... after 1800 for the name of the constellation.[4]— should be possible to avoid repeat of "name"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 77 light years distant from Earth, orbited by a secondary object—"and" instead of comma?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has around 85% of the mass of the Sun, —"It" is separated from its intended referent by an intervening sentence
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • hot jupiter-like planet—cap Jupiter
capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref38 has a Lua query
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten this, supporting belatedly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: thank you for addressing my concerns. Praemonitus (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Praemonitus: it's a decent article, but I have some concerns that I would like to see addressed before providing support.
  • "Phoenix, Grus, Pavo and Tucana, are known as the Southern Birds": I think this sentence should clarify that these are all constellations. Thus: "The constellations Phoenix, ..."
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...generally invisible to anyone living north...": I would prefer that you not use the word 'invisible' here as it implies something other than the intent. Perhaps say something like 'lies below the horizon'.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...it has two other dimmer components visible only with a telescope, of apparent magnitude of 7.2 and 8.2 at a distance of 0.8 and 6.4 arcseconds from the main star respectively": I'm very skeptical about the truth of this statement, and suspect that an editor has conflated a pair of visual companions into a four-star system. Hence, please either provide a citation or remove it as pure fiction.
looked around - bugger knows where that has come from actually. Everywhere else calls it a triple only - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I think I found the source for the statement about it being a four-star system: Clausen, Gyldenkerne & Grønbech (1976), p. 209: "...since all four stars with high probability constitutes a physically bound system...". Sorry for doubting it. Praemonitus (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Navigating SIMBAD is peculiar - if I look at the children of Zeta Phe on SIMBAD, I get RMK 2AB (the main two stars) and RMK 2C (the third), but then I look at PMSC 01042-5546 it lists children like this am confused....and why would no-one mention it since? SIMBAD seems to see it as a triple as does Kaler...or am I missing something Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
update - added a minor note about study and fourth star - it is alot of detail for a constellation article so I think more detail should be on the daughter page (Zeta Phoenicis) maybe Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty recent reference, Zasche & Wolf (2007), lists the fourth star as an astrometric component. They also list a period of 261 years for the third component. That sounds like its definitely a triple and potentially a four star system, so I think the article is okay. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Psi Phoenicis... and four times the mass, of our sun": the reference does not list the mass. Neilson and Lester (2008) give it an estimated 0.85 solar masses.[3]
The source does on a graphic illustration two pages on....but I'll take a Peer-reviewed journal over it, so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...of the metal that the Sun...": should clarify the meaning of 'metal' here in the astronomical sense.
linked to Metallicity now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:43, 4 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

How a Mosquito Operates

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shortish article on one of Winsor McCay's small yet enormously influential œuvre of animated films from the earliest days of the form. It is McCay's second film, and his first that has something resembling a story. I'm hoping to bring the remaining McCay animation articles up to FA status by the 100th anniversary of Gertie the Dinosaur next February (three more including this one). Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

Addressed comments moved to talk page

Support on prose and images. Good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Review by Quadell

This article has lively prose and excellent sourcing. I did spotchecks for 6 of the 31 references, and in every case I found the statements fully supported by the sources. In particular, I was impressed with how well the source material was synthesized and rewritten to avoid any hint of plagiarism, which is always gratifying to see. The images are all free, and the captions, infobox, and categories are used appropriately. The lede is ideal. I couldn't find much to criticize, but I do have one nitpicky concern about reference formats and two questions about sources.

  • References should only link to a URL if the source contains a digital version of the text in question. Thus the link to Theisen's "History" is clearly correct. In addition, many people choose to link to Google Books previews, even though the whole text is not available, and I suppose that can be valuable. But the link to the Google Books page for Beckerman's "Animation" is not correct, since no portion of the e-book is available online.
    • I'm in no position to check this. I live in Japan, and many of the books that have previews in the US are blocked in Japan—blocked without any notice that they have been blocked, so the pages just look like any other page that has no preview. I'd rather just link to Google Books for each of them rather than check with a US-based editor for every single book I link to. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vouch that no access in Indonesia either. I personally don't mind Curly's approach to it; at the very least it serves like the ISBN: to show the book exists. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can assure you that all Google Book links are to at least previews of the online text, except for Beckerman, which has no preview available. In the "Bibliographies" section of the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works, it says "When a book is available online through a site such as Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, or Google Books, it may be useful to provide a link to the book so readers can view it. ... A link to a Google Book should only be added if the book is available for preview." (The ISBN link already provides a way for the reader to get to the Google Book page, should one want to do so.) – Quadell (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I watched the film, I was struck by the amount of repetitive back-and-forth movement in all character motions. To a modern, this is one of the most unusual aspects of the style of animation. Do any of the sources mention this? If so, it could be a valuable addition to the "Contents" section.
  • At some points the article gives interpretations that are valid only if they are in the sources. I'd love to check the sources myself, but Google Books only partly allows for that, and I don't have access to the printed works. In particular, the article twice refers to the mosquito's "personality" as being "egotistical, persistent, and calculating", citing Canemaker p. 167, and the same source is used to call the insect's actions "horrifying to watch". Can you confirm for me that these interpretations are in the source? How are they worded?
    • "McCay's mosquito contains hints of a real personality whose thinking processes produce actins that in turn strongly affect audiences. The mosquito seems to be egotistical, with a fondness for showing off; he is calculating (when he prepares his proboscis on the stone wheel), gluttonous, and doggedly persitent." This is preceded by a couple paragraphs about character animation in general and how McCay's experiments in character animation "reached its apex in Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". It's followed by a paragraph that includes: "McCay's tour de force animation is all the more impressive when one cosiders the rather firghtening face of the mosquito, the repulsive, almost sexual action of repeatedly penetrating his host's face with his long beak, and the bloody finale in which parts of the mosquito wash over the screen. Tha McCay's bug holds us fascinated through all of the above is impressivel; it is attributable to the creature's recognizable personality traits but also to McCay's dexterity in alternating ugly or disturbing images with those that make us laugh or impress with their beauty." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pleasure to read, and I look forward to your answers. – Quadell (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is certainly among the best Wikipedia has to offer and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Lobo

I have a keen interest in film history, so I'm happy to see an article like this at FAC and happy to do a review. I found it a really interesting read, thanks for putting it together. I'm afraid I did have some issues with it when reading through. The order of the material is occasionally strange, and I don't think the lead is a very effective summary of the article: these are expanded on below. I've also listed a few minor prose concerns and some suggestions.

Organisation:

  • In the "Contents" section, I think it would make more sense to place the synopsis first, and then the other information in contents could perhaps come under a second subheading, "Style"?
  • "It was released at a time when audience demand for animation outstripped the studios' ability to supply it. When most studios were struggling merely to make animation work, McCay showed a mastery of the medium and a sense of how to create believable motion" - All of this seems a little out of place in "Contents". I think it would be better off integrated into "Background".
  • Wouldn't the final paragraph in "Background" (and the image) be much better positioned higher up in the section? Currently it is organised: McCay's background, what he wanted to achieve, production, release, then we are suddenly told his inspiration behind the story. It should go: background, aims, inspiration, production, release.

Prose and contents:

  • I'm afraid I think the lead talks far too much about McCay's biographical history, and doesn't talk enough about the production of this film. I suggest a rewrite of the second paragraph, where it briefly mentions his success with Little Nemo, then talks about McCay's aims for this particular film (one that told a story, believability and naturalism), its release and reception, and then its legacy.
  • "The second of his films, it is about a giant mosquito who torments a sleeping man; the mosquito's abdomen swells as it draws blood until it explodes." - Personally I think the first half of this sentence is all that's needed for a plot description in the lead.
  • IMDb lists "The Hungry Mosquito" as another alternative title. Is that accurate, have you come across that in your research?
  • "Inspired by the works of Charlie Chaplin" - Hmm, even though Chaplin didn't make his film debut until 1914? I suppose it's possible that McCay saw CC while they were both on the vaudeville circuit (CC was touring America in 1911), but that should be clarified (ie, "inspired by the vaudeville act of Charlie Chaplin...")
  • We possibly have a bit too much biographical information in the "Background" section as well...Remember that McCay has his own biographical article, this one is about the film. Context is good, don't get me wrong, but it could be briefer here.
    • I'm not sure it would be good to shorten it further—it emphasizes his drawing skills, especially his speed, which is important to understand how a single self-taught artist could produce such a film; it gives his newspaper cartooning background, since he derived the story from one of his comic strips; it gives his vaudeville background, important as he introduced the film into his vaudeville show. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any information on how long McCay was working on the film? How many frames did he draw?
  • "the film relies on physical, visual action—a strength of the film medium." - This stalled me a bit, I don't think it flows very well and it isn't particularly clear. If I'm understanding the point correctly, may I suggest: "The film capitalised on the strength of the new film medium by relying on physical, visual action" (or something like that).
  • "It was distributed abroad by Vitagraph Studios; in the United States, McCay showed the film as he toured his act in spring and summer" - Is the last part needed, when you've already told us that he first showed it on stage? I rather think it would be fine to just have, "McCay put the film together in December 1911, and released it in January 1912—first as part of his vaudeville act, and later in movie theaters. Abroad, it was distributed by Vitagraph Studios." Also, did the film have a distribution studio in the US that we can name? Do we know when it was first released abroad?
    • I haven't come across any info on international distribution. It appears that McCay's films were released at least in the UK and France (there's a poster of the French release of Little Nemo, not sure of the year). Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way it is phrased at the moment makes it sound like McCay showed the film in movie theatres himself, without a distributor, which can't be right? The new stuff you added mentions him sending the frames to Vitagraph, so it sounds like they distributed it in the US too. And I'm still a bit confused - was he still showing the film in his act (in spring and summer) at the same time as it being shown in theatres? Is that why that is mentioned? --Lobo (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referring to the final explosive sequence (which McCay had hand-painted red)" - Think this would be better without the parenthesis.
  • "The technical quality of McCay's animation was far ahead of its time, unmatched until the Disney studios gained prominence in the 1930s with films such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)." - Sounds like editorialising, better to add in a "considered" ("considered unmatched until Disney...") And do animation experts really think his level wasn't matched until Snow White? How about the earlier Disney shorts, Betty Boop, etc?
  • "McCay's biographer, animator John Canemaker, commended him for his ability to imbue a mosquito with character and personality." - Not sure it is very important that he was his biographer; suggest, "Additionally, the animator John Canemaker has commended McCay's ability to imbue a mosquito with character and personality." Also, Canemaker has his own article, it should have a wikilink.

Feel free to argue back with me about any of these suggestions =) --Lobo (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Thank you for making some of my suggested changes. I've taken a look, and sorry to be difficult, but...I still think the lead gives way too much background information, and I still don't think the page is organised as well as it could be. I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of playing around with the article in my sandbox. I've changed the lead quite a bit, to show what I think would be more suitable, shuffled some of the material around, and introduced/removed some headers. The prose has been tweaked in a few places as well - all of which I think makes the article more coherent. This may be overstepping the task of a reviewer, but I saw a window for improvement and I really want the article to be as good as possible! I really hope you like this version and will implement it into the article. --Lobo (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting so much effort into your review! I've incorporated into the article a lot of what you did in your sandbox. A couple of things, though:
  • "Originally it included a live-action prologue"—My sources don't explicitly say this, but I'm pretty sure the live-action prologue was limited to the theatrical release (this was the case with Gertie, but not with Little Nemo).
  • My understanding is that the film did not have a theatrical release in the US until McCay had finished "milking" it in his stage act—hence the tour, as his act usually stayed close to home. That was the case with Gertie.
  • I've tightened up the lead a bit, but not really along the lines of your rewrite. Could you take a look at it?
  • I'm not sure about mixing "in-universe" and not-"in-universe" prose as you have in the first paragraph of the "Contents" section. I've broken the "Contents" section into "Summary" and "Style" sections. What do you think?
  • I've changed "The technical quality of McCay's animation was unmatched until Walt Disney's feature films appeared in the 1930s." to "The technical quality of McCay's animation was unmatched until Walt Disney began producing feature films in the 1930s."
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, things are looking better. I'm being a bit more bold with the article and making some changes there, all of which I've explained with an edit summary. I'm also going to continue arguing for the inclusion of more of my changes...
  • Particularly the lead. Sorry to be blunt, but I'm really not understanding why you prefer it to have more information about McCay's history in animation than production information about this film...at the moment, I don't see it as a full, proportionately accurate summary of the article, which means it is failing WP:WIAFA criterion 2a. There is no mention of the release or reception, for instance. And I honestly think the line I wrote about his background is all a reader needs to know at this stage of the article: we want to get that stuff out the way as quickly and smoothly as possible. Why go into specifics about the "the technical dexterity of his cartooning" here, all that needs to be said (as I had) is "his talent". That alone tells us that he was an excellent cartoonist. Why do we need to know about his chalk talks? Mentioning that the film was released as part of his vaudeville acts speaks for itself (although the current version doesn't even include that). I also don't think mentioning "McCay displays his attention to detail as the titular mosquito's body fill consistent with its bodily structure, rather than balloon-like" is the most interesting thing to mention (I think most artists would have done this?); the fact that he managed to give the animation "realistic timing, motion, and weight" (as I wrote) is by far more impressive. And doesn't the article say that this was one of McCay's main concerns, along with wanting to have a story? So it should be mentioned in the lead.
    • I'm sorry, but I don't really see what the issue is with McCay's history—it makes it clear that he was a "name" long before the film came out. The second paragraph gets to Mosquito by the end of the second sentence. That's a pretty conpact history, considering McCay had been a professional artist for twenty years before Mosquito came out
      • Two long sentences though, in a pretty short lead. My point is that his back ground isn't essential information for people wanting to find out about this film. I completely agree it's worth mentioning that he'd been a successful cartoonist and already produced one film, but I think it should be said as quickly and concisely as possible. I really don't think the vaudeville act and chalk talks need to be mentioned, especially as it says later that he released the film on vaudeville (which indicates that area of his career to readers). You've now added info on the release/reception to the lead, so the balance is looking better, but...I've just never come across a film article that gives so much of the creator's history in the lead, even ones with a large lead.
        • McCay had a long, busy career. Out of that career, certain things, I think, have bearing on this article. He achieved his greatest fame with Little Nemo, which was at its peak when this film came out—there's certainly no dropping that (you've kept it in your version). Vaudeville is obviusly important, as the film was included as part of the show. When I think of vaudeville, though, I think of singing, dancing, acrobatics, and joke-telling. What would a cartoonist be doing on the vaudeville stage? Without mention his chalk talks, we're only going to leave question marks floating over the heads of the readers. It may be possible to snip a word or here to tighten it up, but I think it would be a big mistake to remove any of the actual content from that sentence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "consistent with its bodily structure" is definitely unusual in animation, especially pre-Disney. I've dropped it, though, and replaced it with "naturalistic timing, motion, and weight." I've otherwise tweaked the lead. Could you take another look? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for taking on this suggestion.
  • As for the first para of the lead, I tweaked that because having two sentences beginning "The second...", "The film..." sounds a bit stilted. I really think the one in my sandbox reads better. I wonder if the other people who've commented here, or anyone else reading this, could chip in over all this?
    • I agree that "The second of his films, it..." is a little clunky. It's a minor point, but it could be improved. I'm not sure whether the sandbox version of the lede is the best way to go or not, but I do encourage the nominator to reword that bit, one way or another. – Quadell (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the "Contents" stuff worked pretty well the way I had it, no? The main thing is that you've switched the info around so that the synopsis comes first (before, it was weird to read about the style of the film before we'd been told what happens in it), so I'm glad about that. But the "Style" section on its own is very short, which is why I decided it probably wasn't worth having. It is all relevant under "Contents", anyway. Apart from, actually, the sentence, "It has also appeared under the title The Story of a Mosquito." This has nothing to do with its style or contents, which is why I had deleted it - and honestly, I think just referencing the alternative title in the lead is all that's necessary. Otherwise, the sentence should be moved to the "release" part of the article.
    • I actually thought it read a lot better the way it was—giving a short introductory section before the synopsis. I don't think having the synopsis and style mixed together is good at all, expecially mixing "in-universe" and not-"in-universe" writing in the same paragraph.
      The lead is supposed to do no more than summarize the contents of the body. If Story of a Mosquito doesn't appear in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead—and, really, refs should be avoided in the lead except as a last resort (as in for controversial statements). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film capitalizes on strengths of the new film medium such as physical, visual action." > This sentence reads awkwardly, because it talks in present tense but then describes the film medium as "new". The way I reworded this solved that problem, and I'd strongly suggest doing something similar.
    • I agree it's awkward, but I don't think "Capitalizing on strengths of the film medium, which was in its infancy, the animation makes use of physical, visual action" solves the problem—somehow it doesn't seem clear to me that it's saying the "physical, visual action" is the strength that's being capitalized (it feels somehow ambiguos to me).
      How about: "The film capitalizes on strengths of the film medium, then in its infancy, by making use of physical, visual action."? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think there's enough information for a separate "Production and release" section? I definitely do, and it's helpful to break that up for the reader. I definitely recommend doing this.
  • It doesn't sound like it would be inaccurate or misleading to say "Originally it included a live-action prologue"? The fact is we know there used to be a prologue but now it is lost. I think it makes all that stuff flow better, so if it can be added that would be good.
  • "The film was released at a time when audience demand for animation outstripped the studios' ability to supply it. When most studios were struggling merely to make animation work, McCay showed a mastery of the medium and a sense of how to create believable motion." - I had moved this to the legacy section, since I thought it was a pretty interesting point about the importance of the film. And of course, its talking about McCay's achievements (possibly in an overly-peacocky, POV way...even if accurate)
    • You're right, I've moved it. I've missed some of the edits you made in your sandbox, partly because I can't see the differences in a diff. If you do this kind of thing a lot, maybe it would be a good idea just to paste and save the whole article into your sandbox and then make changes, so they show up in a diff.
    • "peacocky": well, yeah, that's how the sources tend to talk about McCay. I'm open to a rewording. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't doubt that the sources talk about him in this way, but WP can't adopt such a definitive voice on these matters. Like WP:PEA says, "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." Or at the very least, indicate that people think he showed a mastery of the medium, rather than stating flat out that he did show a mastery. --Lobo (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added an "According to animator Chris Webster, ", though I don't thik a technical mastery of a medium is an "unprovable claim"—we're talking about something technical: either your perspective is consistently correct or it's not, etc. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line about his talent not being matched until the Disney features would carry far more weight, and be 100% convincing, if you mentioned the names of those scholars who believe this (like you did here at the FAC). Again, strongly recommend doing this.--Lobo (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of tweaking here and there; I feel it makes the text clearer. If it isn't, feel free to undo and lemme know. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Okay, I'm happy with the article now. It looks much cleaner and better organised; it's brief, but surely as comprehensive as an article on this little film could be. One thing I still find awkward is talking about the prologue in the present tense when we're discussing what was seen 100 years ago (the whole section is talking about the release 100 years ago - everything there is past tense), and since the prologue doesn't exist anymore, it doesn't feel right for it to be in the present. I would strongly recommend changing this, but I'll put you out of your misery and support anyway. ;) I hope you haven't seen this review as a nuisance but agree that the article has improved as a result. --Lobo (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always find these things a "nuisance" while they're happening, but appreciate them when they're done ;) Thank you! Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:33, 5 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Grace Sherwood

Nominator(s): PumpkinSky (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a woman tried for witchcraft and tested by ducking in water in 1706. We, the co-nominators, have put in a lot of effort, with help from many other editors, to get this former FA back to FA status. It has just completed a Peer Review. We look forward to your comments to make this article even better. PumpkinSky talk 21:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment as co-nominator. We've done quite a bit, and asked others to weigh in, to eliminate the problems with this article which are fairly well known. That being said, if there is residue, we'll deal with it. I believe the article is of sufficient quality to gain the community's consent to have the star restored.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checklinks: I put the article through Checklinks and a couple minor issues popped up:
  • The "Something From The Cellar" reference needs an access date.
It is my understanding books, even if web-accessible, do not require an accessdate. I see many FA's with google books links with no accessdate. If I am mistaken, this can be easily added. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My very humble opinion is that it may be unneeded for hardcopy, but everything eventually winds up in Google books, and so having it would make a future update a little easier. But I'm too involved with editing this to be a reviewer, so JMO and FWIW. --Montanabw
Definitely no access dates for Google books links; the source is the book. Eric Corbett 19:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that true for other online books, such as this one? PumpkinSky talk 19:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Eric Corbett 19:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've cut that book accessdate (only one I found). If I missed one let me know. The two items mentioned on my talk page have also been taken care of. PumpkinSky talk 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure, but I'm glad we got that cleared up. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Witch of Pungo: 300 Years After Her Conviction" reference from the Virginia Historical Society redirects back to the Society's main website.
Added the archive url for this. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Grace Sherwood Day at Ferry House Plantation" reference is coming up 404 and showing it has been dead since August 8.
Cut since it's just an ext link. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the practice on Google books is that it's OK to skip the accessdate but you have to be consistent, either have all of them or none of them. I'm indifferent.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still around and the FAC will be continuing as normal. Best wishes to PumpkinSky, obviously.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for the concern and to Wehwalt for babysitting the FAC on Grace. For those interested, here's a Cliff's Notes version of what happened: User_talk:PumpkinSky#IMPORTANT. PumpkinSky talk 13:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
    • Wehwalt had asked me to weigh in at the PR, but I was just flying back from HK and was exhausted. I'll try and help here though.

Image review

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Prose comments moved to talk page
Crisco spotcheck moved to talk page
First batch moved to talk page
If you don't mind, could you do a few that are not used so many times?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the next batch, no problem. I'd like to see these concerns taken care of first, however. As a note, however, usually when I spotcheck sources I go for the most-used ones first, simply because that will a) allow me to conserve bandwidth and b) often be a general indication of issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gotten through most of yours. I want PumpkinSky to look at 13k, the rest are either explained or dealt with.
Crisco and Wehwalt. Thanks for the thorough reviews. I can get to this later today and we will get through it. All the "not supported" ones are the results of copyediting moving refs around. Everything is in a good ref. I'll work that later too.PumpkinSky talk 11:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like 13k was taken care of and moved as closed to the talk page. PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it looks like all I have time for on this article. Leaning support, but as with Laser brain I'd like to have some further spotchecks from other editors. No matter how this turns out, I congratulate you both on bringing Sherwood back here and working to put the past behind us. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source spot-check by Laser brain

  • Ref 24 - I can't figure out what this is supposed to be supporting. Was there text about the lucky horseshoe that was removed at some point?
  • Ref 25, not OK
  • Article text: "Virginia's witchcraft fears were more often rooted in folklore than in theology"
  • Source text: "witchcraft beliefs in Virginia 'had more to do with folklore than theology'"
I think these are too close. Also, the thesis is actually quoting a different paper in this section, so your citation needs to reflect that (an entry needs to go in your Bibliography for the Davis paper, and then you have to make your citation something like "Davis 1973, as cited in Newman 2009, p. 37."
I'll do a tweak of ref 25, as I have deliberately not read any of the underlying material, just in case a close paraphrase concern arises. Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26, OK
  • Ref 27a, OK
  • Ref 27b, OK
  • Ref 27c, OK
I would encourage further spot-checks to make sure all items are ironed out, especially since PumpkinSky indicated some refs have been moved. I accept that others may not share my definition of close paraphrasing, so I'll leave it to the nominators and other reviewers to determine if my note is actionable. --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Drmies

Well, it's a pretty article. I made a few tweaks here and there, but there's a few issues left for me. Mind you, I did not look at the references to see what they do and do not support.

  • I don't like, in the infobox, how the birthdate and possible location are run over three lines. Adding "in" might help, but it's still not pretty; maybe putting "most likely" after the place, in parentheses, is best.
It's going to be a minimum of two no matter what based on the coding. I've cut the word "most", does that help?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Witchcraft and Virginia" section is a bit long (given that there is a main article), but the link with the subject is nicely done.
Thanks on behalf of both of us. I'm inclined to let it stand. I think it's necessary exposition.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Wehwalt. 99.9% of the people have no idea how pervasive the fear of witchcraft was back in those days. The topic needs to be covered extremely well for people to understand what occurred better. I think it should stay too. PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Wehwalt and Psky, and I did a fair bit of copyediting on that section. (Full disclosure: I also teach American History as an adjunct prof at a local college, and this cultural/regional history stuff is sort of "my" area) Given the much better-known Salem witchcraft hysteria in Massachusetts (where a significant number of people were executed for witchcraft), as well as the general cultural differences between Virginia and the New England colonies, I think the section is critical to understanding the rest of the story. The "main" article doesn't discuss Virginia at all, and is mostly focused on witchcraft in Europe in earlier times, so the material is not repeated elsewhere, and perhaps a bit too geographically limited to add to the main article. So I'd urge it to stay pretty much as is. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main problem, really, is the next three sections, "Initial accusations", "Ducking", "Aftermath". That is, as far as I'm concerned this whole thing should be one section with level-3 headings, and "Ducking" as a title is out of parallel with the other two titles (I really think it ought to be changed).
Done. I've done my best with the titles, if you have further suggestions there, feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Drmies (talk)
  • "The tale of Grace Sherwood may also be heard in "Cry Witch", a courtroom drama". "Cry Witch" should be italicized, I suppose--but I don't like the "may also be heard" phrase.
Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Drmies (talk)
  • Who is Nash? The person is talked about as if she was mentioned before.
She is, in "Family background".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now--but that's a lot of ground to cover for the eyes and the memory. Drmies (talk)
Fair enough. Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a lot of External links. "Coyote Run" gets top billing; do they deserve that? They're not mentioned in the article. The Carolshouse link, that does not strike me as in agreement with WP:EL (it's just a website with some pictures but no additional information, and it's not an RS). Same really with the White Moon link (unreliable personal meditation, maybe), and the World History Blog is nothing--well, it's a reposting, it seems, of the article by Batts that's already linked and used in reference 52. In fact, the other links strike me as redundant as well. I don't see the need for (more) pictures of the marker, rootsweb is not a reliable source and adds nothing that's not already in the article, and that the Girl Scouts cleaned the statue is not of encyclopedic relevance. In other words, scrap the entire section... Sorry, gotta run--baby is crying. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not screwing around, Wehwalt. Drmies (talk)
I rarely do anything with external links in my article improvements. It's not much to me if they stay or go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did them alphabetically, not by a perceived importance. I also don't particularly care if the go away. PumpkinSky talk 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see now why we're here. Well, as I said before, I didn't look at the sources (I know that I'm doing a half-ass job here), but I will try to do that in days to come. But let me note that one of the FA criteria, 1c, requires high-quality, representative sourcing. I read over Uncle G's comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1, and while he's usually verbose he's also usually right. Anyway, my uncle makes some suggestions for scholarly sources, six of 'em, but only one is currently in the article. That suggests that it might not pass as not broad or properly researched enough. (Update: I'm browsing through JSTOR, which lists a number of articles not yet in here, but more importantly, the reviews lead me to recent scholarship such as this book, Witchcraft in Early North America (2010), with a sizable chunk on Sherwood.) In fact, I hope my uncle will come by to maybe do some article work. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. I've downloaded a couple of the JSTORs (forgive us, we had taken material from there but missed those). We'll revise and add hopefully some stuff today.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the Games book you cite, there really isn't much on Sherwood. There are three references to her, and an appendix with an introductory paragraph, and then the primary source material people have been working from on Grace basically over the past 120 or so years. Plus the pardon by Kaine. Might be useful for further reading.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No harm in adding it as an additional resource, but I do think the name of the defendant unnecessary though I won't argue about it if someone things otherwise. I've got to go out now, but I'll add it as an additional reference at that point in the article if no one else has later.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Notes on scholarship and ducking--a bit rambling, I'm afraid.] I have some doubt about the manner in which she was bound during her ducking. The reference given is to Beach: A History of Virginia Beach, not the most academic of publications, and it cites (for the entire ducking passage) an article in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot (a 1949 article not cited in our article and seems to be inaccessible). Anyway, a review of Johnson, Witches and demons in history and folklore, criticizes that book for a picture of the (?) ducking of Sherwood in the fashion described in our article, "which shows a woman tied thumbs-to-toes (as recommended) dangling under water from a rope fastened under her arms. This drawing not only fails to convey the horror of the event, but shows a deplorable lack of research, since the victims of most public duckings were tied to a ducking stool." Or, what other sources are there that corroborate the rather weak History of Virginia Beach? (Speaking of unreliable sources, this is a review of a book which claims, apparently, that she was an African-American conjurer...)

    Richard Beale Davis, "The Devil in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century", has a page or two on Sherwood; it's well-written stuff and really ought to be cited, in the Witchcraft section and in the Allegations. For instance, it comments that she must have been considered a nuisance, which is why in 1705/6 the circus started all over again. But more importantly, it contradicts our article in one or two points: our article says that the first jury searched the house and the second her body (or was ordered to); Davis says that a first jury was ordered to search her house, and a second to search both house and body, but that both refused. That strikes me as an important difference, and Davis's article is based on Burr--note that the section in our article is based on two much less reliable sources, Hume and Newman, the first a local book and the second an MA thesis. Whoever has Burr at hand needs to check this carefully.

    Back to ducking, while Davis does not describe it, he has a telling footnote, "For a description of a ducking platform and stool, see Susie M. Ames, Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth Century (Richmond, 1940), p. i9o; or E. M. Earle, Curious Punishments of Bygone Days (New York, 1896), pp. 18-20." [copied without formatting from the PDF] This clear suggestion that the expectation is that a ducking stool was involved led me to browse around a bit more, and I found plenty of instances: "sentenced to a seat in the famous ducking-stool" (cited here as well) and here, though this hit "infers" the opposite. To cut a long story short, while the evidence for either stool or rope (so to speak) is missing and all these sources seem to draw inferences (and again, I don't know what Burr says), we cannot state categorically that she was bound finger to toe, and thus the image needs qualification as well. Unless Burr or some other source gives positive evidence, both options (or none!) should be given equal treatment, and we should cite Davis and give his article the proper weight--that is, more weight than Hume and Newman. Phew, this is much longer than I foresaw. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent observations, Drmies. Thanks to Wehwalt for starting on these comments. Real life precluded me from working on them til now and I'm working on what's left now. PumpkinSky talk 18:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note on the ducking...in this ref you mention "sentenced to a seat in the famous ducking-stool", a few lines down, it says "a sentence never inflicted", referring to the ducking seat. Also see the photo of the site, very flat land, wide body of water. I agree that ducking by being tied to a stool was more common, but being thrown in for the "float test" did occur. In the 1893 W&M Quarterly ref, it says..."subjected to the water test--being cast into the river"...""she swimming therein and being bound contrary to custom""--this second part I have in double quotes becaused it's quoted in the ref itself. Davis quotes this same passage and says "the poor woman floated even though bound". IMHO this is clear evidence she was thrown into the river, it says "cast into" and she couldn't go swimming from a chair. PumpkinSky talk 19:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Davis and Burr notes...Burr gives much credit to the Edward James W&M Quarterly articles, which we already have in as refs. On the ducking, Burr says "assistance of boats (wouldn't need boats if she were dunked from a chair hanging over the river's edge)....put her in above a man's depth and try her how she swims therein (seems to refer to "float test")". I see Burr mentioning one jury refused, not clear on other one but Davis clearly says they refused.--I've changed the article. PumpkinSky talk 19:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note on being African-American....We saw that somewhere and dismissed it. Good refs state her parents English and Scottish, yet very few Africans were in the UK at the time. The book review says the book is full of errors. The paragraph about Sherwood starts off "the book contains other questionable assertions...", listing Sherwood being African as one of the shaky claims. The Johnson book review you link to also criticizes it for "carelessness in editing and proofreading". I cannot support this African claim nor the chair claim. PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Butler ref also says she swam. PumpkinSky talk
I've added Cushing as a ref. PumpkinSky talk 21:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pumpkin. So, let's get this straight: Burr doesn't say "ducking stool", so it is not likely that it was a ducking stool. Right? Let me make a suggestion (more work): devote a brief section to documentation. That is, if Burr's is the authoritative account on which all subsequent articles and books are based, then say so, and say something about what's in there--it looks like transcripts and commentary, no? (Are there reviews of his book that support some statements? I'll look around.) Then, in the account of the proceedings, lean on Burr for footnotes--don't lean on those really not so great sources (signaled above); after all, they're middle men. What I like to see in articles like this (where we have primary documentation) is what I saw in another witchy article, Pendle_witches#The_Wonderfull_Discoverie_of_Witches_in_the_Countie_of_Lancaster. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make a note on documentation--this says Burr reprints "several important accounts". This one I'd use: it talks of "masterly introduction", "classic", "edited by a master hand", etc., and mentions the reprint of the 1950s (our bibliography should mention that, besides his full names, George Lincoln). And here is a contemporary review: "Professor Burr's editing is all that could be desired. The notes are copious, accurate, and illuminating wherever light is needed". Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying we should have a section singing Burr's praises, but these reviews can be helpful in fleshing out a paragraph on the documentation that underlies the entire article. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above, Burr isn't the first and he says he relied heavily on Edward James. Cushing is now used, which has transcripts of the legal records. Thanks for all the great pointers. We'll be working on this. PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find anything that talks in any great detail about the sources, so I've settled for a footnote. If there's more, we can move it into the body of the article. I am hesitant to express too much praise for Burr (even though he's dead 3/4 century), but did a bit of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, those three refs certainly establish Burr as a preeminent scholar of witchcraft in America. Burr's book was from 1914; he mentions James by name, which we have from 1893-1894. He does not seem to mention Cushing (1833), from whom we have legal transcripts, by name, but he does mention transcripts of the proceedings, so he may well have known of Cushing's work. The three refs you found are almost totally about the Salem trials, which were in Massachusetts, not Virginia. Burr devotes 10 pages to Sherwood. Levermore just two lines, and Norton none. Therefore, I think it would be hard to have a whole section like the one you link to in Pendle witches, maybe a small paragraph. I am willing to give it a shot if you like, no problem at all. For now I've added Norton and Levermore to further reading. For the record Burr must have seen the original legal records (then 207 years old) as in a footnote to the intro section on Sherwood, he says "1 Though the old record book through which these entries are scattered is still in good condition, the passages relating to this interesting case are begin- ning to suffer from wear, and from the first four lines of the entry for July 5, which come at the bottom of a page, a few words have crumbled away, and are preserved only by the transcripts. In the margin of the entry for May 2 are the words "Ag* Grace Sherwood for witchcraft," and in that of the entry for June 6 the words " Bousch Att r for Queen vs. Sherwood". They would have been in better shape in Cushing's time, when they were only 127 years old. PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He had to have known of Cushing's work. According to the reviews Drmies was kind enough to supply, Burr was a librarian at Cornell, having in his charge a significant reference library on this subject matter. He had to have had Cushing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was heavily involved in the recent peer review, during which time the article changed quite significantly. Some of those changes were instigated by me; I don't feel, though, that my involvement is sufficient to prevent me from supporting the article's promotion. However, I think it is appropriate to wait until the issues arising from Drmies's sourcing enquiries are settled before doing so. In the meantime, I have one minor question of wording in the first lead paragraph, which reads: "She was tried several times for witchcraft; at her final trial, in 1706, she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill..." etc. It appears from the text, however, that although she was charged with witchcraft several times before her 1706 trial, these charges were not actually brought to trial. Her "final" trial was in fact her only trial. That being so, the wording should be changed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Change made. Good catch! PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Now that the sources issues have been resolved, and my own minor issues (above) dealt with, I am happy to support this article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your great help on this and the support. PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are very appreciative, thank you. Given the history. ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

I am pleased with the way my suggestions were taken in the PR. A few minor points:

  • the pic caption "This spot intersects with Muddy Creek Road." doesn't help me.
  • "According to Leslie M. Newman, this may have been due to local poverty." - makes me want to know more without opening a pdf.
  • Suggest to explain what ducking means where it is mentioned first.
Done all of the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trial ...:
  • Pic caption beach: say first that it was the place, then details? (The name says it, but I noticed only the second time.)

That's it, fine legendary article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. We will do the image comments, I need PumpkinSky to look at them.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Did the photo bit. PumpkinSky talk 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More spotchecks Ok, I did a second (third?) round of spotchecks since it was requested. It looks to me like the citations are accurately paraphrased and represent the sources well. I checked references# 7, 11, 20, 31, 32 (in two locations), 42, 53, 54, and 58. I've included the text of the article's sources along with the article's text for reference on this review's talk page in case anyone wants to check my work. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Crisco and thank everyone, we really appreciate your being willing to stick your necks out for us.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Had the time to do a review of the old FAC, the old FARC and the current PR and FAC. I found a few issues with close paraphrasing, mainly off the USA Today source which I hope I have adjusted with some wording tweaks. Just ran Citation Bot and cleaned up a few issues with the cites, nothing of real issue. The main concern in the past was the issue with copyvio and close paraphrasing which now seem to be rectified. Automated peer review suggests watching out for weasel words, but I didn't spot anything that wasn't backed up. The article is neutral, comprehensive and follows summary style.--MONGO 22:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much for your work with the article and review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Thank you for this thorough and dedicated work, not to mention the support. That's 5 supports now. PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 7 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Whaam!

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating the opening paragraph from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 (henceforth FAC1): 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.

FAC1 was a very controversial nomination with 221,314 bytes plus 132,512 bytes archived to the talk page for a total of 353,826 bytes of content (call it 354KB) after 4 weeks. It had 2 supports (Curly Turkey and Binksternet) and 2 opposes (Modernist and John). John's oppose was on a 2-week-old version of the article. Modernist had wavered between oppose and support in the discussion and his oppose was an hour and a half old when the discussion closed. However, the reason for his most recent opposition stance had been reverted. At closure, several active discussants were undecided (Bus stop, Masem and Ewulp). Other undecided discussants with notable contributions to the discussion were Hiding and to a lesser extent Theramin who was an active editor of the article. Mr Stephen also made several edits to the article during its prior candidacy, but did not engage in the discussion. At one point, GrahamColm moved 97,268 bytes of Bus stop's comments (and responses by others) to the FAC1 talk page with the edit summary "I see this as peripheral to FAC criteria". Other discussants noted Bus stop's tireless and tiresome discussion style. Curly Turkey described it at various times as a filibuster and treadmilling. Masem, the most neutral of discussants on several issues, stated "Bus Stop's complaints are trivial and nuanced at best"

The prior discussion was contentious because WP:COMICS discussants (Curly Turkey and Hiding) wanted more detailed explanation of topics that WP:WPVA discussants (Bus stop and Modernist) felt were out of scope for this article. More specifically, COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments. The issue is how much of that criticism actually belongs in this article. For WPVA I have 6 (3 paintings and 3 sculptures) of the 56 FA-Class visual arts articles and 25 of the 112 GA-Class visual arts articles including my first GA and first FA, Campbell's Soup Cans. However, many of these crossed over into COMICS since June 2012 and I now have 2 of the 31 FA-Class Comics articles and 8 of the 159 GA-Class Comics articles. I have attempted to both be impartial and use my longstanding relationships with WPVA members to move the discussion forward. Due to the possibility of a 50th anniversary TFA and the unusual nature of the 354KB controversial nomination, a delegate has granted permission for a relisting after only 48 hours. Hopefully, four weeks from now we have reached a resolution of this discussion rather than accumulated 100s of KB of more contentious debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My concerns were addressed at the first FAC, that the comics aspect should be given proper weight, naming the writers/editors/artists of the comic book which inspired Lichtenstein. My support is contingent on this material remaining in the article. If someone were to argue successfully that very little about comics was to be in the article then I would oppose the FAC. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak opposeSupport with changes in BG section. Most of what I had issue with was dealt with in the first FAC (in removing much about the appropriation aspects to other articles, keeping this focused on Whaam!) This still leaves me with the "Background" section that needs improvement, as I find it too disjointed towards guiding the reader to understand why Litchenstein went to create this. It currently is focused too much on Litchenstein's past (Which should be in Litchenstein's article) and little on the pop art movement at the time. It should flow from the pop art state to Litchenstein's work to Whaam. This is easily fixed though I don't feel I have the knowledge to be able to do it justice. It's a simple barrier to get over. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure how to respond to this concern. The section now has 4 paragraphs. The first explains that he had a military background that included pilot training. The second says that he transitioned into comics-based works. Paragraph three says that this was unusual subject matter, but Lichtenstein enjoyed it. Paragraph four discusses the themes of Lichtenstein's work at the time and their relation to this image. Where would you like to see pop art added?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I am not sure what is requested. Are you requesting content similar to the first half of Roy_Lichtenstein#Rise_to_prominence?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be less a bio about Litchenstein, and more about the pop art movement at the time when Whaam was conceived and created, which likely includes Litchenstein's contribution. Yes, the fact he was in the military and that he transitioned to comic book works is important, but we don't need as much details about him here, and are lacking details about the art world at the time. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW at the time Lichtenstein painted and exhibited Whaam! Pop art was still in its infancy; the movement was in the process of becoming a movement; the artworld in the early 60s was in a state of transition as abstract expressionism and realism was on the wane and color field painting, geometric abstraction, minimal art, and pop art were beginning to attract more and more artists. In my opinion we don't really need to include any of this as context and I prefer the focus being on Lichtenstein's history...Modernist (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, there you go, stating pop art was at its infancy. That's good to add, that gives the reader the idea this was early in the period. The problem with it now is that the focus on Litchenstein's past is that we have a whole article dedicated to him, so if someone really needs to know the detailed bio, they can go there, as it is out of context for the painting. There are elements of his bio that are needed here, that he's ex-military, that he never had a love of comic books but saw them as a challenge, and a few other things, but not as much as there is now. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying those details aren't appropriate either, but right now the section weighs far too heavy on Litchenstein's detailed background (which is already at his personal article) and very little on the state of the art world at the time. We don't need his military record, but just to know he was in the military as to understand his fascination with that topic area. Similarly, pointing out that he wasn't a fan of comics but saw the use of comic-based work for his art as a challenge is an appropriate statement. But the lack of discussion to place where the state of the art world, and specifically pop art, is what this should start off at as to guide the reader to understand Litchenstein's desires better. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet—you are asking "how comics were viewed"[7]. I think the answer to that is simple: comic books were viewed as being part of "popular culture". That is why their imagery was drawn upon by artists seeking to represent the imagery of "popular culture" in their paintings. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem is raising a good point but responding to it in our article would hinge upon the availability of sources addressing the question of how Lichtenstein's employment of imagery closely related to comic books fits into the pop artists' more general employment of a wider variety of images culled from what is commonly referred to as "popular culture". Masem says "This still leaves me with the "Background" section that needs improvement, as I find it too disjointed towards guiding the reader to understand why Litchenstein went to create this. It currently is focused too much on Litchenstein's past (Which should be in Litchenstein's article) and little on the pop art movement at the time. It should flow from the pop art state to Litchenstein's work to Whaam. This is easily fixed though I don't feel I have the knowledge to be able to do it justice." I don't think anyone has "the knowledge". Unless you find a source assigning significance to Lichtenstein's embrace of the comic book form seen in for instance the Whaam! painting, the Drowning Girl painting, and others, I think there is no way to fit Lichtenstein's choice of imagery in such paintings, into the more general category of images relating to "popular culture". Lichtenstein, in other paintings, certainly does avail himself of other types of images aside from those relating to comic books. I did find one comment in a source which I think slightly sheds light on the distinction that his comic-book-related images have which sets them apart from pop art imagery generally. In this article in The Telegraph, Alastair Smart says the following: "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." I think that in that comment Alastair Smart is distinguishing between the comic-book-related paintings that Lichtenstein has made, and just about all other works of pop art produced either by Lichtenstein or any other pop artist. Rather than try to paraphrase what Alastair Smart says I think we should just place his quote into our article: "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." Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Context

I added this here just for us...Modernist (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

At FAC1, there was last-minute controversy around the images. GermanJoe, had approved all the images except for File:Drawing for Whaam!.jpg. After I removed the image, Modernist opposed because he felt that the image review suggested that more content was needed related to the image rather than the image be removed. I have since added content related to the image. GermanJoe, suggested that I now request Masem's opinion on the images based on his intimacy with the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we start on the assumption that File:Drawing_for_'Whaam!'_cropped.JPG is a free image - which shows good detail of how Litchenstein would have proceeded to paint the painting from his sketch, then File:Drawing for Whaam!.jpg is extranous non-free as we basically currently have 4 drawings of the same "thing" in the photo, but the details provided by the cropped version do just as an effective job to help explain Litchenstein's creation process.
I will however state my concern that the cropped drawing being called free. I know I doubted the text balloon crop as being a free image before but was demonstrated wrong at Commons, a rationale I understand, but I think the cropped is far more than just text (more than the text balloon) and hard to argue as ineligible for copyright. I would recommend getting commons experts to review the image there. If they say its free , then my above statement stands. If it is not free, the full sketch is reasonable to remain behind, since the user can manually zoom in to see the coloring guide detail. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "more than just text" do you mean something like a notable quotation. I wouldn't oppose removing the cropped text balloon, if we can keep the cropped drawing as free. I just need one free image for the main page in case of being eliigible for a WP:TFAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One image of the sketch is sufficient to show, in line with the text, how he did a "paint-by-numbers" type approach to the sketch prior to projecting and painting it. The non-free, full sketch image is sufficient resolution to be able to see that in the WHAAM letters, so we don't need the higher resolution. However, if the cropped version manages to be free, then that image should be used. Basically, we don't need the sketch to show the layout of the art for the 3rd/4th time, but to show the paint-by-numbers scheme, so a finer detail that would happen to be free would be just as appropriate and better than a non-free full version. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You feel that even with the additional content the full drawing is redundant with the crop? Keep in mind we don't have the image at a high resolution for zooming. IIRC, when i ran my first FA, Campbell's Soup Cans, at WP:TFA, they allowed me to crop one can for the main page. That is sort of what I am doing here. In the long run the article may be better with the full image than the crop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Modernist: Since you opposed the removal of the full image of the drawing, you may want to comment here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Campbell's Soup Cans was a TFA back in 2007, prior to the adoption of our current non-free content policy, I suspect that what could go on TFA was not as rigorous as it is now (though looking at the talk page of that, it does appear that no image was allowed on Main Page, and the blurb page has no image period, so I don't know what exactly happened). Today, zero non-free can be on the front page (there was even a recent discussion about this a few months ago) Now, as explained at commons, the speech balloon crop is free so that's at least something because it is just text - for all purposes. Here, you actually have elements of the flames and the like behind WHAAM, meaning it is more than just text, and ergo is more a possible problem that there are still copyrightable elements in the crop, hence why I would get commons to review if that crop is tight enough to leave something uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And just to note, I do see that there was an image called "Campbells_Soup_Cans_MOMA_reduced_80%25.jpg" used in a May 5, 2007 version of the Soup Cans blurb, but given that with my admin powers I don't see it here, I suspect was since deleted at Commons, meaning that it was not considered free later. Your speech balloon crop is clearly okay for a TFA front page, since commons says that crop is sufficient for ineligible copyright, so you have something. I just feel that you can't call the crop that you have around the WHAAM in the draft image includes too much that is beyond lettering to be ineligible for copyright, which is why I suggest a call over to commons to help review. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To help out, I posed the question at commons: [9]. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the full image - it shows that he actually drew the entire picture not just the blown up crop depiction of Whaam with numbers - it's somewhat deceptive. Frankly we can dump the text balloon - which is really gratuitous and keep the full drawing and if possible the cropped drawing too...Modernist (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The complete drawing in the article with the painting makes the article - gives it quality; clarity and power. The full drawing belongs and aids in understanding how the painting was made it must be kept...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, there's nothing in the text to support the full drawing if the cropped version around WHAAM is free. You have the final piece of art which doesn't vary significantly, so there's little comparison to be made there; the more interesting comparisons are between the original comic panels and the final art, and the final art and the parody work. You do want one of the two images of the sketch to show the mechanics Litchenstein used, but you don't need both, and if the cropped version is free, the full version has to go under NFCC#1. But if the cropped version is not, then the full version is fine (and then to meet TFA, you need the text balloon crop as the free image). --MASEM (t) 01:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full drawing belongs and aids in understanding how the painting was made and the cropped version really should go - hopefully it isn't free (and one of these days you guys should change those rules so common sense dictates)...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but we have a mandate from the Foundation to reduce non-frees and encourage free content creation. The (possible) free image shows the process in as much depth as necessary that the sourcing in the text provides as the large one does, and there's nothing that demands the reader to see the large image to understand the processes any better than the cropped version does. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am more than willing to go to the mat to buff up the content related to the drawing to show its relevance, but I do not have sources supporting such. Is there a chance that with additional sources providing greater relevance to the drawing that it might be kept. There is already significant amount of text in the article discussing the differences between the original conception and the drawing and then the drawing and the original. It is not clear that this alone is not sufficient justification to present the entire Drawing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here is that we are looking at NFCC#8, second part, that the reader's understanding of the topic of Whaam! would be harms if we removed the non-free, full sketch. As we have the final colored art and the original work it was based on, composition elements are visually shown, so this aspect is not lost to the reader, nor am I seeing anything in text that describes major changes in placement between the draft sketch and the final art to a degree that needs visual imagery (There is the factor of how the plane and explosion were moved closer together in the final image, but that's something easily described in text). I do agree that seeing the paint-by-numbers approach is helpful and removal would be harmful, and thus if we do have to resort to a non-free image (the full drawing) to show this, that's fine. But there's a potential for free content to show the same thing and if that can be used (per the commons discussion) then we are required to do so and forego the full size draft image. If more can be found that describes the critical importance of the draft image (as a whole, or more on the copyrighted elements) on the final art, then that would lead to justifying the full non-free draft image, but I'm not reading that at this time. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of whether the crop is free, I think it might be more free if I cropped only the upper left letters so that no shapes other than letters are visible. The non-alphabetic shapes are somewhat artistic and make arguments against free possible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could do some not linear cropping out of elements to preserve only the WHAAM text in the drawing.---TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably other ways to crop the image to show the same essence (the paint-by-numbers approach) while increasing the likelihood of copyright ineligibility, but let's wait on commons input on the current crop. I certainly think this is the right way to go, I just want to make sure its clear. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Follow along at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing for 'Whaam!' cropped.JPG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I commented there...Modernist (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New images
  • I agree the yellow Whaam is extraneous here but keep that around for your TFA, since that's much more obvious than the text balloon snippet as representing the painting. I would almost argue that as long as these are free (they are at commons and not leaving there) that you also don't need the zoom of the text balloon (it will remain at commons), since the reason you had that to start was for the TFA image, but I think the yellow Whaam is much better. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm only evaluating the yellow Whaam and the text balloon images as free and whether they are really necessary, and not in an NFC light (where the inclusion would be a lot more rigorous). I'm working on the assumption based on my previous questions on the text balloon zoom that the text balloom image, the close-up of the sketch, and the simulated render (yellow Whaam) are all free, established by the reasoning from the text balloon discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I have an oppose on the images at this point, as long as we have affirmation from Commons that the cropped version of the sketch page is copyright-ineligible, though I leave the question about the need for the colored Whaam and the text balloon images as being necessary. On the caption "Cropped and edited portion of Drawing for 'Whaam!' (1963). Color notations (w for white) can be seen in the titular letters.", I would reword it as such "Cropped and edited portion of Drawing for 'Whaam!' (1963). Litchenstein marked sections of Drawing with color notations when creating the final work, such as the "w" for white in the above titular letters". If the rendered Whaam is NOT kept, then its caption can be merged above. Also, please feel free to link - either as a reference or EL - this Tate page for Drawing [10] as while we shouldn't include the non-free image, we have no limitations against linking to it by the museum. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't the the images serve much purpose in the article. Why not just save them for the TFA? At the very least drop the redundant "Cropped and edited portion of Drawing for 'Whaam!' (1963)." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe TFA can only use images hosted in the article. (In fact it may be a main page rule). I think I am just going to let an image reviewer give us rulings on all current content. I will probably request a review in the next 24 hours. Don't know when it will come.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check

Image check - all OK. 1 image should be removed (Done). I'll focus on the "problematic" images, all other images have been discussed already in previous reviews. Thanks to Masem for the valuable input and analysis.

  • File:Drawing_for_'Whaam!'_cropped_2.JPG and File:Just_whaam_no_bg.svg => OK. Editors at GraphicLab did their best to make those crops as "trivial" as possible. IANAL, but both seem simple enough to be kept. Technically they are derivatives, but compared with the size and details of the original work, they don't infringe on that copyright beyond de minimis.
  • File:Drawing_for_Whaam!.jpg => OK (close call). It shows a) the initial separation of two panels, b) the sketch style of the artist for the final work c) the truncation of the left panel (all mentioned in the article) and probably more tiny details, that may be interesting for an expert. Note: a simple 1:1 sketch of the final work without notable details would not meet fair-use.
  • File:Whaam!_text_balloon.jpg => not OK, suggest removal (Removed) for several reasons:
  • The depicted text can be easily formatted and replaced as quote box. The graphical elements are not needed.
  • The complete text bubble is more significant than a single word, thus more likely to infringe on the artist's rights.
  • Cropping trivial elements out of copyrighted works is already a slippery slope and would benefit from a thorough discussion at Commons. It should be restricted to the most trivial cases - if the crop is not needed or not trivial enough, such usages should be avoided to stay within the spirit of our copyright policies.

A final note to clarify, image checks are no unilateral decision - everyone can oppose/support based on their own analysis of the image situation or request a second and third opinion from other editors. GermanJoe (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Prose:

Images:

  • I'm stridently unconvinced that File:Drawing for 'Whaam!' cropped.JPG and File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg are PD-ineligible, no matter what the FFDs for those two images did or didn't conclude previously.
    • Can you provide separate concerns for each so that I can understand what the matter is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I think the former is more likely to survive a PD assessment than the latter. I really only need one of these to survive so that I can have an image for the desired WP:TFA. I created the latter before learning about the source from which the former is cropped. I would sacrifice one easily, especially if it is the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remain uncertain of the claim that an identifiable cropped excerpt from an unquestionably copyrighted work can itself be considered in the public domain. I am aware that Commons has accepted this (and several other images) under the theory that a crop from a copyrighted work performed such that the only visible elements would fail to meet the standard for creative expression in and of themselves, does not possess any of the copyright protections of the parent work, even when the use of that crop is directly in the context of the original work. A cursory search hasn't provided me with any case law that's directly informative, and given the state of current copyright law, there may not be a firm "correct" answer here. Let me dig a little further on the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This nomination will not close without a separate image review for WP:NFCC concerns. It is my belief that alphabetic characters, basic fonts, basic colors, and basic shapes are not copyrightable. This the onomatopoeia is very likely PD without any of the artistic shapes. I don't know if you noticed that the sketch crop previously had some background flames and such. This review has a separate "unofficial" image review section. The prose may have some greater copyright level and the text balloon is less likely to remain. I may remove it before the official image review begins.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting:

Other:

Leaning oppose at the moment, primarily due to my concerns over the Reception section's overall structure and the use of direct quotes without naming their speakers, but I'm confident the shortcomings can be remedied within the FAC period. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

Addressed comments moved to talk page'. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I still strongly believe the bit about Hergé is an anachronism in relation to this painting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bus stop

Scope at one particular paragraph:

The paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…" which is found in the Reception section of the article is problematic. There is actually only one notable individual raising concerns over the similarity between the imagery that is in the painting Whaam! and the imagery that is found in that painting's comic book sources. That person is Dave Gibbons and his comments can be found here and here. I completely endorse that Dave Gibbons' comments and point of view should be in this article. Yet the name Dave Gibbons does not even appear in the paragraph that I am referencing. That paragraph, problematically, speaks in general terms about unspecified paintings and unspecified comic book imagery. Dave Gibbons, by contrast, speaks specifically about the relationship between the painting Whaam!, which is the subject of this article, and a specific comic book image created by a comic book artist named Irv Novick. This is precisely the sort of commentary that should be in the paragraph to which I am referring and yet it is absent. Instead there is general commentary about unspecified paintings by Lichtenstein and their unspecified comic book counterparts. I feel that all material in this paragraph should relate specifically to the painting Whaam!. This article is not the same as a more general article such as the Roy Lichtenstein article or the Appropriation (art) article. Those kinds of articles have scopes that make them appropriate for discussions of Lichtenstein's imagery generally and its relationship to its source material such as comics. A more full treatment is possible in an article such as the "Roy Lichtenstein" article or the "Appropriation" article and therefore I think there would be a greater likelihood of achieving a neutral point of view in such an article. I think this article should be kept free of general commentary on Lichtenstein's paintings and their relation to source imagery as found for instance in comic books. There are several commentators from the art world who feel that the paintings by Lichtenstein bear little visual similarity to the comics to which they relate. These commentators point this out and explain in concrete terms why they believe this to be the case. Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That very paragraph names at least one other person Ernesto Priego. Gravett shares this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—can you tell me why this article should not be required to remain within the realm of its own scope? You say at the top of this page:

"COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments."

This article is not a playground for editors you refer to as "COMICS folks". We actually have reliably sourced criticism of Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in the painting Whaam! and yet it is not in this article. I am referring to only one paragraph in all of my comments here. That is the paragraph in our article beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…". It is at the present time found in the Legacy section of the article. At the top of this page you say:

"The prior discussion was contentious because WP:COMICS discussants (Curly Turkey and Hiding) wanted more detailed explanation of topics that WP:WPVA discussants (Bus stop and Modernist) felt were out of scope for this article. More specifically, COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments. The issue is how much of that criticism actually belongs in this article."

In point of fact there is included in the article virtually no substantiation in sources that there is "impropriety" in Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in the painting Whaam!. The sources are available. But they are not used. Instead the article has opted for general criticism of Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in an unspecified number of paintings. This is outside of the scope of this article. Please note that this is an article on one painting.

The Ernesto Priego "criticism" that is in this article is actually criticism of "National Periodicals". It is not criticism of Lichtenstein or his use of comic book imagery in Whaam!.

By far the most substantial source of criticism of Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in Whaam! is Dave Gibbons.

We have a BBC source written by Alastair Sooke in which Sooke relates Dave Gibbons' comments. Gibbons is quoted as saying "I’m not convinced that it is art"…"A lot of Lichtenstein’s stuff is so close to the original that it actually owes a huge debt to the work of the original artist. But in music, for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune no matter how badly without crediting or getting payment to the original artist." Can you please tell me why none of this is included in the article? Is it excluded from the article because it happens to be within the scope of the article?

We have another another source (gravett.com) in which the same individual—Alastair Sooke—asks Dave Gibbons if he feels Lichtenstein is a plagiarist . Gibbons replies "I would say ‘copycat’. In music for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune or perform somebody else’s tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick’." That is genuine criticism that is 100% within the scope of this article. But instead of on-topic material we find generalized criticism of an indefinite number of Lichtenstein paintings that happen to use comic book imagery. Why should't this article remain within its scope and why shouldn't this article be required to remain on topic? Oh, I forgot—the "COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein". It doesn't matter if a contingency of editors have a point-of-view to push. We should remain within scope. There are other articles at Wikipedia (Roy Lichtenstein, Appropriation (art)). Well-sourced information should be able to find a home on Wikipedia.

Instead of including in-scope material, this article has inexplicably opted for including generalizations about wrongdoing applicable to an indefinite number of Lichtenstein paintings. That is a misuse of this article. Again, I am referring to only one paragraph in all of my comments here. That is the paragraph in our article beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…". It is at the present time found in the Legacy section of the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. I am not going to start out by humoring you. You need to make your comments much more brief. Look at everyone else's comments. I will not respond to anything that you post that is longer than 1500 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Tony here, Bus Stop. You're repeating yourself, probably for the third or fourth time from the first FAC. You have points that are valid, but no one is going to be able to read through your comments to figure out what is implementable. If you shorten up to get your point out, there's a better chance a solution can be had. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, Masem—I think a final sentence that should be included, as I've pointed out before, is:
"The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."
This is well-sourced to MoMALearning, which is a Museum of Modern Art web site. We are an encyclopedia. The quality of sources should be considered a significant factor on what information gets included in the article as well as the emphasis it receives. As long as material extraneous to what is strictly the scope of the article is being included willy-nilly, why not include a sentence that includes information that has been vetted by an especially relevant source such as a museum of contemporary art? Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed this very topic in the past. Note that the article already includes the following sentence "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—[77] in Whaam! and other works of the period." Footnote 77 is the very one that you mention above. It is used to cite the dashed parenthetical explanation of appropriation (borrowing of imagery from other sources). I do appreciate your patience, persistence and attention, but this is fairly strong compromise the way I have incorporated your suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—why does that sentence say "such as"? Are there any other "perceived improprieties"?
Furthermore, what is there to "compromise" about? You say "I do appreciate your patience, persistence and attention, but this is fairly strong compromise the way I have incorporated your suggestion."[11] If you see an issue, can you please explain that issue to me?
We are talking about perfectly straightforward, factual information. The source is telling us that "Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture".
The first sentence of the very brief article says, "Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects."[12] Is something unclear about that?
This is an article on a painting. The painting is an example of pop art. There were many pop artists. The ones named utilized what the article is calling "appropriation". Is there some reason that we should not share with the reader that other pop artists utilized "appropriation" too? Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, Tony's point is you keep repeating yourself at length, even though he believes he has addressed the issue already. You're far too wordy and circle around the issue without saying it. Get to your point, a statement "This article must include a statement on 'blah'", and don't quote endlessly about the issue. Otherwise, your points will be ignored or overlooked. And if you've already made a statement about something, just link back to it. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the usage of appropriation in the Pop Art movement should be be talked about—not in "Reception", but in the "Background" section, which is ghostly thin on details of the contemporary art world. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already say he was parodying other artists in the history section. I am open to a paragraph about appropriation in the background. What content would you like to see there? (Bus stop be brief if you choose to respond).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about maybe a short paragraph or so summing up "what the art world had been up to" (as @Binksternet: puts it above). In the last FAC @Modernist: talked about "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". It's not clear if he was recommending adding these things, but I do believe it's exactly the kind of thing Binksternet is calling for (in which case, I agree; I think this may be what @Masem:'s looking for as well). In such a paragraph, a brief explanation of appropriation would fit nicely, especially adjacent to (maybe leading into?) the stuff about comics in the "Background". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "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"- if there are content deficiencies which both the art guys (represented by Modernist) and the comics guys (represented by Curly Turkey) view congruently (and in concurrence with our neutral parties Masem and Binksternet), I am very interested in rectifying them. First, let me repeat that you guys are all more expert than me. I have only learned about art by going to museums for entertainment and to the library for wikipedia. I have never taken a course and have no experience. For a sentiment like this a source would be great. Better yet, since both of you are more expert than me, you can feel free to jump in. Yes let's add some content related to this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed some content (some of which you've added, some of which I'm awaiting your feedback on), but the artworld stuff is probably best handled by those who've already brought this stuff up. Right now, I see the lack of artworld background as the article's greatest deficiency. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the paragraph beginning with the wording "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties", presently found in the Whaam!#Legacy section, I think the following is called for:
  • We are not so much concerned that "Some have denigrated" the painting "Wham!" as "mere copying". We should be told who has denigrated the painting "Wham!".
  • We are not so much concerned that "Critics have raised concerns" about the painting "Wham!". We should be told which critics raised the concerns about the painting Whaam! and what specifically were those concerns?
  • We are not so much concerned that "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the comic book artists" relating to the painting "Wham!" but rather who raised that criticism of the painting Whaam! and what specifically was that criticism?

The general problem that I perceive in that paragraph is a failure to relate specifically and concretely to the painting that is the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe these statements are inactionable, as long as there is a reliable source behind each that effectively states "there are some that believe X", without stating who that some are. If the article did not source those statements and there was no quote, then I would definitely expect that the statement would have to be followed by explicit examples and quotes/summations from a few of those as to justify it. But the sourcing give for each of the above are equally vague about who explicitly made those statements, but those sources are also reliable (eg BBC), so we are not making the claim of that broad generality but letting the RS make it. Further, in relationship to Whaam, the details of "who" are not so important here and would move away from the topic. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—this is an article about the painting Whaam! and the only person supporting the sentiments expressed above in relation to the painting Whaam! is the person Dave Gibbons. These are your sources: [13] and [14]. The expressed sentiments should be attributed to Dave Gibbons. The present wording suggests that others share Dave Gibbons' sentiments. If any others do in fact share Dave Gibbons' sentiments, that information can be included and that information too should be supported by sources. We should be articulating specific sentiments attributable to specific individuals concerning specifically Whaam!. Again—this is an article on the painting Whaam!. I don't think that this article should switch into a more general mode in that paragraph. Let us stay on the topic of the painting Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the only person that sources seem to articulate is Gibbons, (BBC's calls him "One of them", referring to the negative critics), and there's a section about Gibbons' parody work in the Legacy section, where his specific commentary on Whaam! is best suited as to understand the rationale behind the parady. The only paragraph in Legacy that seems out of place because it doesn't mention Whaam directly is the one that begins "Comic books were in turn affected by the cultural impact of pop art.", though the statements it has are relevent to the subsequent discussion of Whaam. Again, I think you're issues are inactionable to the level of detail we expect for WP and given available sourcing. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—the article has a scope. There is no justification (that I know of) for straying outside of the scope. The material is sourced to a specific individual. Are you arguing that we should not say who that individual is? I would argue that not only should we name the individual but we should allow him to speak for himself. Quotes are provided in both of the sources that I mention above of the actual language Dave Gibbons uses in relation to the subject of this article. The subject is a painting. The scope of this article is tied to the painting Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating two issues.
  • Issue 1 is of scope. I agree that we should stay focused on Whaam and anything that is broader (about Litchenstein, about pop art, etc.) probably should be discussed in depth in those articles. But it is not a crime to have a brief statement that will lead readers to those other articles in the context of Whaam. Thus, the paragraph that begins "Comic books were in turn affected by the cultural impact of pop art." may be a bit out of scope since Whaam is not directly mentioned but it is a reasonable thing to attach to Whaam if it can be tied in better with the other text around it. Basically, the key is a reading flow to help the reader as much as possible, and if one has to step away from specifics about Whaam! to note this, then that fine. (This is necessary here for the appropriation aspect as without that discussion, Gibbons' parody makes no sense)
  • Issue 2 is of opinion attribution. We as WP editors cannot make claims that "some critics felt X" (a statement of OR) without either immediately showing the sources of critics that felt X, or going to a RS that has that statement. As we have the latter case, we don't have to outline who those people were. Gibbons is unique, since he was specifically called out and shown to have done a parody work of Whaam! on the issue of appropriation, so calling him out and his opinion is fine. However, all the other "some critics felt X" statements are those made about the broader issues and not about Whaam! itself, so it makes little sense to go into detail about it here (Issue 1 again), and thus asking to call out the specific critics really doesn't make sense. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—how many "improprieties" are there? We read "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—in Whaam! and other works of the period." Isn't there only one potential "impropriety"? Isn't that one possible "impropriety" called "appropriation"? I believe it is. Shouldn't we add a sentence to the end of that paragraph reading: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[15] If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got such a bug up your bum about the word "improprieties", then maybe you should stop ignoring the wording I kept proposing to you. Curly Turkey (gobble) 19:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriation is already linked in the article, and unnecessary to link again. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indopug

Inclined to oppose

The organisation of information is a little all-over-the-place, a problem arising from large and unwieldy sections. Either create more sections or sub-section the existing ones. Then you need rearrange stuff logically for better flow and less redundancy. Take the last para of History: it begins with the 1966 Tate purchase (info that is repeated in Reception), moves to Drawing, jumps to its 2006 acquisition, a 2012-13 retrospective (which is mentioned again, twice, in Reception), before returning to a justification for what happened in 1966.

Reception is also highly disorganised: I suggest going about it chronologically. Start with 1960s reception, and then come to the present (maybe in another, Legacy?, section). The section is also a confusing mix of critical reception of the painting itself, and the influence the painting had in the art world. There's stuff that should be in other sections: 'Lichtenstein's procedure entailed "the enlargement and unification of his source material...' (Description) and 'The Tate Gallery controversially bought...' (History).

The Background section also talks of too many distinct things: (a) what RL was doing before Whaam!, (b) the status of comic books at the time and (c) a summary of RL's comic-inspired work.

Prose: watch out for wordiness and repetitiveness. "Lichtenstein", for eg, features in pretty much every sentence of the article.—indopug (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be quite honest. At the FA level, my organizational skills are kind of week. Probably about a third of my FA credits benefited from reorganization by another editor. I am fairly certain that I will not ba able to sufficiently rearrange the content in a satisfactory way. I had tried to divide the reception into positive and negative subsections, but these were removed in favor of chronological reception. I don't know how else to subdivide things. I have put in a request with a veteran WP:WPVA editor to help me organize this. He has helped me organize a recent successful FA Look Mickey that was also by Lichtenstein. I am not sure how interested he might be in helping on this one because the WPVA people seem to have some issues with the content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, did the reorganization by Ewulp suffice?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may get a makeover. It seems that Ceoil (talk · contribs) has graced us with his magic hands. He is one of the best WP:WPVA copyeditors out there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ewulp

I agree with much of what Indopug says; "Reception" was for me the least satisfactory section; I hope I've made it a bit more digestible. Some more adjustment may be needed: possibly some of the details of comic-book history could move to the "History" section. After Ben Day dots are described in paragraph 2 of "Description", there needn't be a second detailed description in the section's last paragraph—something should be trimmed there. Ewulp (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception is copy-edited a bit more. Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Modernist

Modernist, My guess is that this content was largely copied from another article possibly written about 3 or 4 years ago. two of the URLs are now dead ([16] and [17]). Do you have refs to replace those?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is the WP URL for ref 72 supposed to be present? --Another Believer (Talk) 06:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stray text removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: I'm getting happier with the prose. My impression is that the bones of a fine article lay here, but its a few copy past edits from it yet re a re-org. - Only. I am very impressed with Tony's work on this so far. He has responed well, and I think should be allowed now time to move sections about and then come back to people. It should be appreciated that he took on an FAC on a very difficult and tangled work of modern art, one that a lot of us have strong feeling about. But it can be done. Ceoil (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In ways, it seems that the article has tried to skirt around the fact that ther images are...couching...borrowed. Rewording to make this more explicit. The work is what it is, take it or leave it, that's beside the point here. It can only be said so many times...thats the whole point, he was out to aggrivate. Its pop art for FS. This should not impact on its suitability for FAC. I'm dissapointed that the artice has not been taken on its own mertits, but instead has been drawn in to a broader argument. Ceoil (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil—the article is reading "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation…" Are there any bona fide critics raising such concerns? I think "critic" is being misapplied. Or perhaps one is stretching the meaning of the term "critic" to include a wider group of people than is usually intended by the term? Shouldn't this require sourcing—either in the form of several examples of "critics" raising these concerns, or in the form of a reliable source telling us this? One problem here is that the term "critic" in the context of a work of art may imply art critic. I think very few "art critics" raise the "concerns" referred to. If some do, than that should be offset by inclusion of the opinions of those who argue the opposite. Many responsible and genuine art critics writing for publications with for instance the imprimatur of the Museum of Modern Art state quite clearly that the painting is visually quite distinct from sources in comic book imagery. I will try to locate some opinions in this regard expressed by art critics, as they offer opinions that differ sharply from mere concerns with superficial similarity between painting and comic book imagery. Now that I think of it—one immediately comes to mind: "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."[18] That is by Alastair Sooke. But there are several others that I have encountered. The gist of what they say is that elements of the painting decisively set it apart from comic book imagery, but some provide specific, concrete details on the visual factors that set the painting apart from the comic book imagery. (Alastair Sooke's quote lacks these concrete details.) Bus stop (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've already addressed this point, Bus Stop. As long as the RS's use do a hand-wave around "critics" or other details, it is not required for our article to resolve that or go beyond that, as there's no OR going on. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Busstop: adressing, but my feeling is that you are raising a more general point, unfairly, in the context of this specific FAC. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO MASEM is right about this. You are trying to raise a meta issue that is perhalps out of scope here. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil—the paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation…" is problematic. It is condemnatory of Lichtenstein. It doesn't even point out that most if not all of Lichtenstein's fellow pop artists were also engaging in the appropriation of imagery that they found in "popular culture". We learn from MoMALearning that Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein engaged in the taking of imagery from preexisting sources in "popular culture". Our article is failing to point out that the borrowing of preexisting imagery was standard operating procedure for pop artists. When we read that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's..." we assume this is a problem particular to Lichtenstein. But it is obviously not a problem particular to Lichtenstein, but rather a practice that was used by pop artists in general. The paragraph is basically in violation of WP:NPOV. The paragraph is mostly condemnatory of Lichtenstein. Furthermore the notion that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation" is also largely untrue because many if not most art critics do not raise such concerns and many argue quite the opposite. Consider the following. This is from a book published by the Museum of Modern Art:
"Many in Lichtenstein's audience of the early 1960s considered the subjects of his paintings to have been no more tampered with than Duchamp's store-bought objects—images lifted almost intact from their commercial sources. It was a reaction the artist was looking for: "The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content." But, he added, "I think my paintings are critically transformed." Girl with Ball's deviations from its ready-made inspiration amply bear out Lichtenstein's assessment. On the most obvious level, a shift in scale from a one-column newspaper advertisement to a life-size image, combined with a transition from black-and-white printed reproduction on newspaper stock to Mondrian-like harmonies of red, yellow, and blue on canvas, necessarily produces an intensity of mood beyond the reach or ambition of its source. Aside from these elemental changes, the artist manipulated the girl's figure to endow the painting with something of the visual impact of hard-edge abstract painting. To paraphrase Lichtenstein, he was at the time aiming at "anti-Cubist" composition, defined by him as the isolation of an "object on a blank ground," thus defying "the major direction of art since the early Renaissance, which has more and more symbolized the integration of 'figure' with 'ground."[19]
The main point in the above is that Lichtenstein images are not"lifted almost intact" from "their commercial sources." For instance there is "an intensity of mood beyond the reach or ambition of its source." Our paragraph which begins with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation" is perpetuating a debunked myth. Certainly there are some people who say that Lichtenstein merely copied comic book artists. But that opinion should be balanced out in our article by strong sources stating otherwise. MoMA is an especially reliable source on points such as these. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very paragraph you are talking about goes to lengths to debunk myths you are concerned about. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—we don't say that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period" because that is what appropriation is, in essence. Appropriation is the direct referencing of imagery from other sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—we've long established that we all know what appropriation is. We've also long established that people still have issues with it. Christ, man, life ain't black and white. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to analyze what is wrong with it, this is not good writing: "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period." There is also a problem in that paragraph in that it fails to mention the relevant point that it was not only Lichtenstein who practiced appropriation at that time. It was probably all Pop artists. This little source confirms for us that many well-known names in Pop art working at the same time as Lichtenstein were also involved in indulging in "appropriation". Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, how widely realised actually was it at the start by the art world, just how closely Lichtenstein was working from underlying sources? Was this something that was commonly known from the outset (but might or might not have been considered of much interest), or was Lichtenstein merely considered to be working in the style of comic-books, until the detailed analysis of his sources was presented by afficionados of the original works? Jheald (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. User:Modernist would probably know more about that. My guess would be that it was known though perhaps imperfectly. Modernist posted this above. It might be relevant to the question you raise, although it is from 1966, which may be a few years after his first comic book style paintings. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)By the 1963, Lichtenstein was in heated debates with the artistic community on what constituted original work. In 1962, he did Portrait of Madame Cézanne which was quite controversial (although not comics-based). By the time of this work, he was being debated as a copycat or artist in leading publications.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Masem (background section)

The background section is still disjointed, and I really don't understand why there's a split here. I'm reading it carefully and its still focusing far too much on Litchenstein's detailed past that can be summarized to lead to the work better. Below is a rough attempt to reword it for this:

By the late 1950s and early 1960s the American art world had grown accustomed to and tired of the subjective angst and "hot" look of abstract expressionism.[1][2] A new generation of artists emerged with a more objective "cool" approach characterized by the art movements known today as minimalism,[3] hard-edge painting,[4] color field painting,[5] the neo-Dada movement,[6] Fluxus,[7][8] and pop art (which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery)[9] re-defining the avant-garde contemporary art of the time.
Lichtenstein was considered one of the initiators of the pop art movement in the 1960s. Many of his works in the late 1950s and early 1960s were derived from comic books, which at the time were considered "the lowest commercial and intellectual kind", according to Mark Thistlethwaite of the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth due to the perceived connection between comic books and juvenile delinquency. Litchenstein's works would take small source panel images from comics and enlarge them, use techniques he learned during his non-combative career as a draftman for the U.S. Army. Litchenstein himself was not a comic book enthusiast but enticed as an artist by the challenge of creating art based on a subject remote from the typical "artistic image"; Litchenstein had stated that "I was very excited about, and very interested in, the highly emotional content yet detached impersonal handling of love, hate, war, etc., in these cartoon images."[16]
His earlier comic-based works were based on popular animated characters such as Look Mickey. By 1963, the year of Whaam's creation, he had become more reflective and started to work with comic imagery from romantic or war-related situations, drawing from his past military career and interest in aeronautical themes. These works took heroic subjects from small source panels and monumentalized them. Litchenstein considered "the heroes depicted in comic books are fascist types, but I don't take them seriously in these paintings—maybe there is a point in not taking them seriously, a political point. I use them for purely formal reasons."

(Please note, I would expect a good copyedit of this for wording; also I didn't leave in some references but what ones should be used should be the same). My point is how this keeps it from pop art to Litchenstein's comic book art and then to his specific military-themed comic art. Just enough of his bg is necessarily give to understand that he was in the Army and where he learned to enlarge works. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can other people chime in on this proposed restructuring.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence Lichtenstein was considered one of the initiators of the pop art movement in the 1960s. should remain where it is.
  • This seems too simplistic and basically inaccurate: Many of his works in the late 1950s and early 1960s were derived from comic books, which at the time were considered "the lowest commercial and intellectual kind", according to Mark Thistlethwaite of the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth due to the perceived connection between comic books and juvenile delinquency.
  • I prefer leaving things be...Modernist (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside just saying, - Initially Lichtenstein claimed to take a bubble gum wrapper as his first commercial art source for a painting; in a spirit of absurdity - anything goes - and then he sourced commercial art; and then he got onto comic book art...Modernist (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion a good comment specific to Lichtenstein's "comic book art" is the one made by "Alastair Smart" in The Telegraph: "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."[20] This is a comment directly about Whaam!, directly about "comic book art", and the observation I think has applicability to both Lichtenstein's "war-themed" and "romance-themed" "comic book art" paintings. It is not a bad comment/observation. I think it should be placed in the article intact. I think it would be pointless to try to paraphrase it or to only use part of it. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind this addition, but Masem seems to be trying to shorten this section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much shorten, but focus. Much of Litchenstein's past is not directly related to Whaam, hence the refocus. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Masem's only talking about compressing the first paragraph of the "Biographical context" section. I agree it could be cut down without anything important being lost. Things like "After entering training programs for languages, engineering, and piloting, all of which were canceled" for instance are pretty tangential. Also: why was the Background section divided into Art world and Biographical sections? The section wasn't nearly long enough to warrant this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (mostly to Curly and Masem): Pilot training shaped his career. Be careful what you say to cut. Also, keep in mind that everything in the WP:LEAD is a summary of the main text. I.E., the main text has more detail than the LEAD. Don't cut things out in the main body without cutting them from the LEAD. No one seems to be complaining about the LEAD that makes it seem that his military training greatly influenced his career.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, his pilot training should remain, but overall, a lot of this material can easily be compressed without losing anything of substance to the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting folks know that Ceoil has stated his support of Masem's thoughts and has made some edits in that regard. Not sure if Ceoil is done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is note that what Curly says above is true - There are some parts of Litchenstein's bg that are directly relevant, but much of the rest of that one specific para about his bio is not really well fitting here but should at least be in Litchenstein's article. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment that I believe I am satisfied with the background section as it stands now. Its not exactly how I'd write it but the flow/concept approach is much better now, and I have no opposes to it at this stage. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary removal of relevant material

TonyTheTiger—you say in this edit summary: "Legacy: rv User:Bus stop's change here. Not so concerned about other artists in this article". Nor am I "concerned about other artists in this article". The concern is purely with Lichtenstein. He is not the only Pop artist using appropriation at the time. Lichtenstein is a member of the "Pop art" movement and virtually all of the members of the movement employed appropriation. Reliable sources tell us this, such as the one I provided from the Museum of Modern Art. We don't just make arbitrary decisions that exclude information for no reason at all. The paragraph that we are discussing says explicitly or implies certain negative qualities associated with Lichtenstein, all of which are associated with the practice of "appropriation" in his artwork. We read for instance in that paragraph, and entirely related to "appropriation" that "Critics have raised concerns of impropriety". We also read within that paragraph that "Some have denigrated it as mere copying". This is obviously a reference to "appropriation". The term "plagiarism" is invoked, and we also read in that paragraph that "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources". This is all related to Lichtenstein's use of "appropriation". Yet nowhere in the paragraph is it mentioned that virtually all of the biggest names in Pop art used the same technique. The paragraph is heaping wrongdoing on Lichtenstein without allowing the reader to know how widespread the practice was within the "art movement" in which Lichtenstein operated. If you disagree with the MoMA source that I provided then please provide a source displaying a differing opinion. Please replace the material in that paragraph that allows the reader to see the art historical context in which Lichtenstein "appropriated" the comic book imagery. I find it a contrived limitation on well-sourced, and educational, and relevant material to arbitrarily decide that the reader cannot know that "appropriating" images from popular culture was standard operating procedure within the art movement in which Lichtenstein operated. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure this is longer than the 1500 KB upper bound of what I said I would respond to. However, I'll give you a minute. Basically, if you can get WPVA guys like Modernist or Ceoil to agree that this is an important change without causing Curly Turkey to protest, then you can make the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already stated that I think it does belong—in the Background section. Not as a POV rebuttal in a paragraph already chock full of rebuttals.
  • The word "impropriety" has already disappeared from the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly, if you two opponents agree it should be incorporated in a section that is currently quite contentious (it has its own section of this FAC). Why don't you work it in to the article as you see fit. Given the amount of attention that the background is getting right now and Masem's interest in making it more focussed (keep in mind Masem is one of the dissents in the current 5–2 vote), either directly add your preference to the article or post a propose exact wording in the discussion section above where that section is being debated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—I am not an "opponent" of anyone. Nor can you derive that something is contentious from its having "its own section of this FAC." The first two sentences in the paragraph that we are discussing are sourced to two different sources—bbc.com and paulgravett.com. But the assertions in both sentences are really being attributed to Dave Gibbons. We are supposed to write about contemporary art from a relatively enlightened point of view. We can allow for the representation of countervailing views in our article. But multiple problems are initiated when you overrepresent minority points of view and also fundamentally go outside of the scope of the article by for instance discussing many other Lichtenstein paintings besides the one that is the title of the article. This paragraph is not only discussing Lichtenstein's paintings in general but it is giving undue weight to a minority view about those paintings. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that since you two frequently disagree, it is good that you agree on necessary content. However, you seem to want to add it to a section where people seem to agree that we should be shortening. Additionally, with a current 5–2 vote, you should note the primary proponent of shortening is one of the dissenters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that people are looking to shorten that section, it's that some of the biographical information has no bearing on this article (the fact that he studied languages?) We want to see the fat trimmed, but I don't think anyone is averse to adding material that will enrich the article.
I think the line "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" should be replaced with a clearer statement about appropriation—the meaning of the line will be totally opaque to most readers.
How about:
"By the late 1950s and early 1960s the American art world had grown accustomed to and tired of the subjective angst and "hot" look of abstract expressionism. A new generation of artists emerged with a more objective "cool" approach characterized by the art movements known today as minimalism, hard-edge painting, color field painting, the neo-Dada movement, Fluxus, and pop art, re-defining the avant-garde contemporary art of the time. Pop art and neo-Dada frequently used Appropriation, a technique in which images from other sources were borrowed and altered. Lichtenstein achieved international recognition during the 1960s as one of the initiators of the pop art movement in America."
I'd wait to hear from the someone like @Modernist: or @Ceoil: before making this change, though. Obviously subtleties in the wording can be contentious. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it's inappropriate to stick that in the middle of the paragraph. If this Pop art and neo-Dada frequently used Appropriation, a technique in which images from other sources were borrowed and altered. is used at all it begins a new paragraph and basically a new subject. Appropriation art is more a late 70s-80s issue, certainly not crystallized at the time Whaam! was painted...Modernist (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" is not about appropriation then? What is it about? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the late 50s - early 60s abstraction had dominated the art world in the US and in Europe; imagery and realism were out of fashion; simply the notion that anything can be made subject or be used as an image in a work of art became interesting again - especially if used in new ways. Chamberlain crushed cars, Rauschenberg made a painting using his bed, Johns replicated beer cans and the flag; Thiebaud painted pies and cakes, Oldenburg made plaster replicas of hamburgers and other things, Dine made color charts, Indiana made LOVE symbols, Wesselmann added TV sets to his work, Warhol replicated Brillo boxes and soup cans and Lichtenstein began painting commercial objects and imagery was back. Appropriation grew out of this period; but wasn't really discussed until much later. ...Modernist (talk)
Do you think many readers will understand thay's what "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" was supposed to mean? Do you have some objection to briefly explaining appropriation in the Background section? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above discuss appropriation in a separate sentence or paragraph following the background context of the art scene in the late 50s early 60s and keep it direct and simple...Modernist (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could do that? Also, do you think you could clarify "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" for the readers? As written, it'll be opaque to the majority of readers. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reader should be afforded the opportunity to see the context in which Lichtenstein engages in the "wrongdoing" that Dave Gibbons alleges. This is made possible by apprising the reader that the quoting of "commercial" imagery was fairly standard practice among pop artists. We have a source supporting this. Mention can be made in more than one section of our article that material is visually "quoted" in pop art paintings. In differing sections of our article differing emphasis can be found, with variations on the kind of information presented. In my opinion this is not a zero sum situation. There is room for flexibility. There is enough commentary in sources that the information itself can differ depending where in the article this topic is found. We don't have to decide on one place in the article to mention this topic because variations on this topic can be found in more than one part of our article. If an editorial objection is raised after that material is in place we can address it at that time. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Back on the treadmill again:
  1. The BBC article takes it as a given that the "wrongdoings" have been both brought up and addressed throughout the time since the painting first appeared. The fact that the BBC article doesn't name names is indicative of nothing more than that it's taken as a given. Tony below brings up the point that the "accusations" have haunted Lichtenstein since before Whaam!, and also outside of the context of his appropriations of commercial art.
  2. The paragraph as is counters every accusation made already. What you want to add is unbalanced POV bloat.
  3. Gibbons has gotten extra exposure because (a) he happens to be a celebrity as he drew one of the best-selling graphic novels in the English language (b) that best-seller has recently been made into a movie, and (c) he drew his criticism just in time for a big Lichtenstein exhibition. If this article were written last year, all the criticism would remain the same minus Gibbons. Highlighting Gibbons is bloat and dilution (trying to make it look like only cartoonists have these issues). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—no one is trying to make it look like "only cartoonists have these issues"[22]. Dave Gibbons is virtually the only person on record expressing a certain view on Lichtenstein or the painting Whaam!. He is expressing a distinctly minor view. This one individual. Is there a second individual expressing thoughts anything like these? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bus Stop, we have Alistair Sooke on record telling us these claims are widespread and go back decades. We also have Tony telling us below that the criticism preceded this painting and context. We've also had you trying to eliminate or distort this information since day one. The paragraph as it stands is well-balanced and represents its sources. You've wasted an inordinate amount of time on your POV filibustering. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not cited any sources and we are still left with only the two sources—gravett.com and bbc.com—that only cite Dave Gibbons. Again—the problem with Gibbons is that his views are very minor. They deserve only a slight mention in our article. Mainstream views are virtually the opposite of those of Gibbons. A person involved in arts education has this to say: "Appropriation artists deliberately copy images to take possession of them in their art. They are not stealing or plagiarizing. They are not passing off these images as their very own. Not at all."[23] I would contend that is just about the opposite view on the use of preexisting images in artwork as that put forth by Gibbons. I think Gibbons only warrants minor representation in our article. A brief mention is all that is called for. I think I have correctly cut down that viewpoint from two sentences to one sentence. And I think I am correctly adding that according to as reliable source as the Museum of Modern Art, the deliberate copying of images was practiced not only by Lichtenstein but some of the most recognizable names in 1960s pop art. We are writing an article intended to be educational. This source would support an assertion in our article that Lichtenstein was hardly alone in copying preexisting images. In this regard he was in the company of Rauschenberg, Oldenburg, Warhol, and Wesselman. We are permitted to cautiously use sources. I have presented a suggested version for one paragraph in this post. Please comment or offer your own counterproposal. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop - As soon as the BBC (a very reliable source) says "Some critics...", that means there's more than just Gibbons that share that view, and we don't have to prove that any further, unless you want to put the reliability of the BBC into doubt. Just because they only cite Gibbons doesn't mean Gibbons has a minority view here, but because they don't cite others, we can't name others, but its not required for this claim. So this is pretty much inactionable. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—I think what you are saying is almost entirely consistent with the wording I am suggesting for our article. Please note my suggested wording here: "Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a 'copycat'."[24] Aren't you saying pretty much the same thing I am saying when you use the wording "Some critics"[25]? Is our difference of opinion simply whether we should say "Some" or "Some critics"? I will reluctantly agree to "Some critics". Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just said you think Gibbons point is minor because you claim he is the only one with that point, I'm saying that the BBC, an RS, says "some critics" and later explicitly Gibbons with that viewpoint, so the viewpoint is not minor as you claim. Just because we don't have other names doesn't make it minor given the claim that the BBC has set forth for us. You're arguing on extreme trivalities that would easily fall into the realm of WP:LAME if this were an edit war, and hence much is inactionable. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not argued for inserting anything in our article implying that Dave Gibbons' view is "minor". Here again is the wording I suggested for inclusion in our article. There is absolutely no implication in my suggested wording that Gibbons' view is minor.
In my personal opinion is Dave Gibbons' view "minor"? Yes. Why do I feel that way? Alastair Sooke is described at the The Daily Telegraph website as an "art critic" who "also reports for The Culture Show on BBC Two". Sooke is actually refuting Gibbons. 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."[26] Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—you're just going back to arguing ad nauseam the same points you've made over two long, long FACs. These points have been refuted time and again, and still you're no closer to consensus. I don't believe for a nonosecond that there's a counterproposal you'll actually agree to. Tony has enough real, actionable concerns to deal with. Could you please drop this horse manure now? (Yes, yes, I know, your response is a 22kb "no"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modernist—can I ask you your opinion of a new version I have posted below at 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—there are two problems with the paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns." One problem is that Lichtenstein paintings besides Whaam! are being considered. This is outside of the scope of this article. The other problem is that the view being discussed is minor. Dave Gibbons doesn't represent a major view. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is obviously why you want to dilute the paragraph by highlighting Gibbons. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—no more weight should be given to Gibbons than what sources support. We have the words of Gibbons in two sources. The first sentence of our article reads "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources[86] in Whaam! and other works of the period.[28]" That is sourced to paulgravett.com. Only Gibbons articulates the views that support that first sentence. The second sentence of our article reads "Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways.[64]" That is sourced to bbc.com/Alastair Sooke. Only Gibbons articulates the views that support that second sentence. Only Gibbons expresses any view remotely approximating this: "A lot of Lichtenstein’s stuff is so close to the original that it actually owes a huge debt to the work of the original artist. But in music, for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune no matter how badly without crediting or getting payment to the original artist." That is from bbc.com/Alastair Sooke. And only Gibbons expresses any view remotely approximating this: "I would say ‘copycat’. In music for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune or perform somebody else’s tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick’." That is from paulgravett.com. Gibbons represents a minor view. Those two sentences can probably be consolidated into one sentence, and the "view" should basically just be attributed to Gibbons, because nowhere else do we hear Gibbons' view expressed. Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, I need to remind you again to stop repeating everything verbatim. You are running around in circles on the same point and muddling it by requoting and restating every cite. Which source is which is pretty obvious (if you say "BBC" we know its the Sooke article, for example). Keep your responses short and to the point, and explain exactly what you want, don't be passive about it or otherwise it will be considered inactionable. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—did you see my post immediately below, at 22:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)? I have suggested wording for the paragraph under discussion. Obviously you can weigh in with an opinion on my suggested wording. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is this:
Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a "copycat".[1][2] In response 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.[3] Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources;[2][4][5] Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.[6] The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries.[7] Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Sooke article that accusations of being a mere copyist are long-standing, and that Gibbons' is only the latest: "And there are still people who believe that Lichtenstein – the so-called architect of pop art celebrated for his distinctive cartoon style – was a copycat, not an artist." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—This is not a bad web page of commentary on the subject we are talking about. Note that the author teaches art history. Would that not imply that her views are fairly mainstream? Do we see accusations of "copycat"? Of course not. The mainstream view is expressed in a few sentences such as these: "They are not stealing or plagiarizing. They are not passing off these images as their very own. Not at all. Appropriation artists want the viewer to recognize the images they copy…" Contrast this with the views put forth by Dave Gibbons. This is why I say that Gibbons' view represents a minority view. Consequently only brief mention should be made of it in this article. Bus stop (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me throw out there for consideration yet another version of the paragraph we are discussing:
"Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a "copycat". In response 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. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit 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 books. Other Pop artists aside from Lichtenstein derived imagery for paintings from sources that preexisted in popular culture. In the visual arts this has sometimes been referred to as "appropriation"."
I removed what was the last sentence and replaced it with two new final sentences. My aim with this change is to place less emphasis on any strict definition of "appropriation" that might exist. Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok to me - keep it simple...Modernist (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was already simple. What is the motivation behind bloating it? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are Curly Turkey and Masem on this proposed change?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing why appropriation is being pushed to the end since this is the key idea of this paragraph. "Whaam! and other works from Litchenstein and other pop artists at the time are considered a form of "appropriation", deriving new works from sources that preexisted in popular culture." as the first sentence, continue from "Some such..." as Bus Stop has abvoe, and nix his last two sentences. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—"the key idea of this paragraph" are the accusations or insinuations that Lichtenstein engaged in wrongdoing by quoting images found in whole or in part in comic books. The person leveling those charges is Dave Gibbons. But Lichtenstein wasn't the only pop artist in the 1960s quoting images from other sources. A source lists Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein as engaging in related practices regarding sourcing of images for artwork. In the context of the accusations of wrongdoing we should apprise the reader of the widespread use of similar practices by other pop artists. Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—out of seven (!) citations in that paragraph, only two include Gibbons' comments, and neither focus exclusively on Gibbons.
"A source lists Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein as engaging in related practices regarding sourcing of images for artwork."—Again, this belongs in Background, not as extra padding to protect poor Lichtenstein from his detractors in a paragraph that already refutes every claim made against him. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Same opinion as before: if what Lichtenstein did was appropriation, then that needs to go in the background section. What is the argument against that?
  2. I see no sense in foregrounding only the latest critic (Gibbons, in 2013) when the article makes it clear that such critoicism goes all the way back to the 1960s ("Roy Lichtenstein’s critics said he was a plagiarist, not an artist."; Fifty years later "there are still people who believe that Lichtenstein ... was a copycat, not an artist."; "“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."; "Surely, in 2013, it is time we stopped accusing Lichtenstein of plagiarism once and for all."), and Gibbons' criticism has already been made elsewhere in the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—all of your references in the BBC article are to anonymous people. The only exception is Dave Gibbons. My suggested wording, a few posts up, at 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC) is: "Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a "copycat"." The word "some" refers to anonymous or unnamed people.
Also, in the BBC article Alastair 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." Should that be in our article?
Also, you are saying "Gibbons' criticism has already been made elsewhere in the article". This is on an unrelated topic. Gibbons' criticism "elsewhere in the article" is not on the topic of plagiarism, wrongdoing, impropriety, copying. Gibbons says elsewhere in the article: ""This to me looks flat and abstracted, to the point of view that to my eyes it's confusing. Whereas the original has got a three-dimensional quality to it, it's got a spontaneity to it, it's got an excitement to it, and a way of involving the viewer that this one lacks."" He is simply saying the painting doesn't appeal to his sense of taste. That is unrelated to accusations of wrongdoing. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gibbons' criticism "elsewhere in the article" is not on the topic of plagiarism, wrongdoing, impropriety, copying...That is unrelated to accusations of wrongdoing"—so why foreground Gibbons in a paragraph that is about those issues?
  • "all of your references in the BBC article are to anonymous people"—they are not my references, they are the BBC's. I'm certainly going to take the word of the BBC over that of Bus Stop.
  • "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." "Should that be in our article?"—Sure, or a paraphrase, if it's not already redundant. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You ask "so why foreground Gibbons in a paragraph that is about those issues?" Dave Gibbons is a major proponent of a minor view. Is there someone else that you feel should be forefronted instead of Dave Gibbons?
When I used the term "references" I either misused the term or was using the term loosely. There aren't BBC "references" to anyone named—except for Dave Gibbons. Anonymous "references" cannot be pinpointed in any way, hence I've suggested the wording: "Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a 'copycat'." But if you have alternative wording please suggest it. Bus stop (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that appropriation is a Background element. In relation to Whaam, these claims could only happen after Whaam was publically displayed, so the specifics of appropriation w.r.t. Whaam chronologically follow. (A question to others: when did characters of appropriation against Litchenstein actually start? Was he already accused of it before he started drawing Whaam? - if this was the case, then maybe there's an element to this but as I read it, not sure...) --MASEM (t) 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument—you seem to interpret "appropriation" as negative criticism, rather than a legitimate art technique. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say it is negative or positive, just what it was called, setting the framework then others like Gibbons specifically called out Litchenstein on Whaam (and other works) for "stealing" despite being part of this practice. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an art technique (which it is, with a long history) then chronology doesn't play into it. Criticism of its usage is a different matter, but introduce the technique in the context of criticism is jumbling up the issues. The technique and the critique are orthogonal to each other, and should be treated separately. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, above someone asked whether at the time of this work the controversy surrounding whether he was a copycat was a fringe theory or a popular debate. My response was that the year before he had produced Portrait of Madame Cézanne and at that time he was widely debated on the originality of his work and his use of sources. Should the background present something to that effect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say yes, briefly, as part of the Background section talking about appropriation in Pop art, whenever someone gets around to writing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If is the case that appropriation (and criticism of it) was not new by the time of Whaam, then yes, explaining that in the BG section is appropriate, and splitting off the specific criticism of Whaam (eg Gibbons complains) should be in the Reception. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand why it would go in "Reception", when Gibbons' commentary happened fifty years after the painting was first exhibited. The "Reception" section is short enough that I don't think it would hurt to merge with "Legacy" into a "Reception and legacy" section, so we wouldn't have to argue the grey areas. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, it's probably a legacy issue. That said, to simply the factors: "appropriation" (whether that's a term used for better or worse) should be brought up in the Background section in context of what pop art was doing at this time. But there is also something (whether legacy or reception) involving specifically Whaam's appropriation, which leads to Gibbon's statements. All the info is there, it's just organization. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are addressing in that paragraph the use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. The reference in that paragraph to "copying" is a reference to the possible use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. The reference in that paragraph to "plagiarism" is a reference to the possible use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. The reference in that paragraph to "failure to credit the original artists" is a reference to the possible use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. We should not deliberately withhold relevant information. Therefore after mentioning possible wrongdoings such as "copying", "plagiarism", and "failure to credit the original artists", we should add that these potential blemishes are not unique to Lichtenstein. The way we accomplish that is by adding that Lichtenstein's contemporaries in the Pop art movement also used imagery to which others might have ownership rights.
One version:
Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other 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. In response 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. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit 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 books.
Another version:
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. In response 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. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit 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 books. The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries. Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be honest. I don't really want to tinker with the article now that it has 5 support, 1 neutral and 1 oppose, unless the 4 active discussants really agree on something. I believe I am hearing that there is agreement to add something to the BG about the point raised above that by the time of Whaam! Lichtenstein was already being widely discussed regarding his use of original sources. Then there is much less agreement about other refinements related to appropriation. Can I get you guys to draft and agree on a sentence or two that should be added to the BG while you continue to entertain each other debating the other refinements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modernist made this edit, which I think covers it decently, though there's no mention of the word appropriation (put it back in "See also, where it was before?). I think the Madame Cézanne bit would be a beneficial addition, but I wouldn't fight for it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A very long and confusing run-on sentence needed fixing; in context the Mme Cézanne bit seemed unneeded. The background section already says pop artists appropriated images from commercial art, consumer objects, and popular culture. What does the mere mention of this work add to the reader's understanding of the background of Whaam!? If the intention is that the reader will click the link and learn more about the accusations of plagiarism leveled at Lichtenstein, maybe work it into the legacy section where this controversy is discussed? Alternatively, if you prefer this matter to be in the background section, add a line there that says, more or less, "Lichtenstein's Portrait of Madame Cézanne (1962) had already provoked accusations of plagiarism", and add a source. The internal llink to Portrait of Madame Cézanne absent any explanation of the related plagiarism issue was not adequate, and was useless to any reader who doesn't click the link. Ewulp (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more proposed change to the same paragraph I've been discussing immediately above:

There is more to the question of "copying" than just that "Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways", as our article presently says. I think I find the following in a reliable source:

"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."

Our article, in addition to explaining that "Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways", should explain that he challenged the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time.

The paragraph presently beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns", found presently in the Whaam!#Legacy section of the article, is addressing issues relating to originality. We should include reference to what at least this one source is telling us is the intentionality behind this aspect of his work. If anyone has a copy of "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", by Bernice Rose, 1987, the Museum of Modern Art, New York[28], we can confirm the quoted wording, as I am only getting that wording from this web site. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, this is an example of why each of your points should be limited to 1500 characters. You are wearing down other weary discussants.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—we are not trying to convince the reader of the obvious. It is more a part of our purpose to provide the reader with insights into what might not be obvious. We should especially be interested in the light that can be shed on less than obvious aspects of the painting by especially noteworthy sources. In this case a book published by the Museum of Modern Art specifically referencing Lichtenstein might be of importance to us. It is very obvious that many of Lichtenstein's paintings bear a very strong resemblance to source material such as comics. A brief mention of that in our article is all that is called for. After briefly mentioning that the Lichtenstein painting is very much like its source material, we should want to provide for the reader the most relevant commentary from the best quality sources relating to the very curious similarity of image in both painting and source material. The Bernice Rose commentary above would seem to me to be important because by her explanation the "copying" under question in the paragraph was purposeful. Her explanation is that Lichtenstein wished to challenge the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time. If you disagree with the inclusion of Rose's point in the article, please tell me the basis for your disagreement. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a possible rewrite:

"Whaam! as well as other works by Lichtenstein has engendered its share of negative responses. Those speaking from the perspective of comic book artists have seen the copying of imagery as somewhat dishonest. Lichtenstein has never been sued for copyright infringement. Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books. Other Pop artists aside from Lichtenstein derived imagery for paintings from sources that preexisted in commercial sources or popular culture in general. Bernice Rose writes that Lichtenstein was interested in "challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time.""

Can we consider the above wording? Note that Dave Gibbons is not mentioned as had been requested. "Dishonest" happens to be a term used by Gibbons. He's sourced at gravett.com as saying "I find there’s something slightly dishonest about it". "Appropriation" is not mentioned, as had been requested, but it is alluded to indirectly. An additional idea added to the paragraph would be the last sentence quoting Bernice Rose. It would be sourced to "Bernice Rose, "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", Museum of Modern Art, 1987." Bernice Rose is writing under the imprimatur of the MoMA. Therefore I think her view is worth mentioning. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this edit. I've rewritten the paragraph because there was too much emphasis on wrongdoing and too little emphasis on explanations for what appears to be copying from preexisting works of art—in this case comic books. The relationship between comic book imagery and the painting is very obvious to every viewer. But what was missing were explanations found at good quality sources for why an artist like Lichtenstein seems to be merely copying from comic books. The Bernice Rose commentary provides the sort of explanation that I think an average reader would be looking for. Bus stop (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of problems with this:
  • There's no consensus for it, and it's clear it's a controversial edit.
  • "Those speaking from the perspective of comic book artists"—the BBC makes it clear that it is not only from the perspective of comics folk.
  • "Lichtenstein has never been sued for copyright infringement."—Far too blunt, and far inferior to the way it was handled in the pre-edit.
  • "Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books"—implicates National Periodicals in what? The pre-edit version makes it clear that not giving attribution was what Priego was implicating NAtional Periodicals for. This sentence is gibberish.
  • "Other Pop artists aside from Lichtenstein derived imagery for paintings from sources that preexisted in commercial sources or popular culture in general."—Again (and again and again) this belongs in Background, not here.
  • "Bernice Rose writes that Lichtenstein was interested in "challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."—Interesting, but a non sequitur. Why does this belong here?
Bus Stop, you've made gibberish of this paragraph. Please revert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the previous version was better. Among other things, the new edit suggests that the only complaints about Lichtenstein's appropriations came from the comics world. But didn't art historian Erle Loran file a lawsuit against Lichtenstein over Portrait of Madame Cézanne (1962)? Ewulp (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this controversial edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check out his follow up edit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got that one too. PLEASE STOP MAKING EDITS THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY CONSENSUS. We don't want this FA to fail due to lack of stability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—you are removing relevant material from the article. In this edit you remove a statement saying that "Bernice Rose writes that Lichtenstein was interested in challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." It is sourced to a MoMA publication. I believe I have the support of User:Modernist in this edit. I have discussed this with him on his Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—you point out that "The word "impropriety" has already disappeared form the article."[29] This may be so. But the paragraph under discussion is a paragraph on "impropriety". That is a fair topic for inclusion in our article. Some feel that there is an element of wrongdoing in the activities of Lichtenstein. This is the subject of our paragraph. Is everything pointing to wrongdoing? Of course not. We have explanations from the Museum of Modern Art saying that many of the most important artists within the Pop art movement working alongside Lichtenstein were stealing images from the world around them. Does this excuse Lichtenstein? It is not for us to say. But we are writing about art and peripherally we are writing about an art movement. This article has been expanded way beyond its proper scope. I've resisted that. But as long as this article is addressing material beyond its scope, it has to do so in a balanced way. Exculpatory material has to be added. We can't be content to say that Lichtenstein was dishonest or that he was a copycat (as Dave Gibbons says) and leave it at that. There is an art historical context which may help to put the subject of the article into perspective. What were the aims of the Pop art movement? What were Lichtenstein's aims? What do reliable sources have to say about Lichtenstein's aims? We have the Museum of Modern Art in the person of Bernice Rose explaining a moment in art history:
"Copying from another 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."
Does she suggest any wrongdoing or impropriety? No, she does not. She is referring to copying. Dave Gibbons calls Lichtenstein a "copycat". She is explaining why Lichtenstein would steal artwork from a comic book artist. The reader can be left to reach their own conclusions as concerns any possible impropriety. Our job is to present relevant information in a balanced way. The scope of this article has been expanded way beyond its proper bounds. Nevertheless we have to maintain balance. Bus stop (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph needs a rewrite in my opinion. As a start, the comment of Bernice Rose should be re-added. I believe I have the support of Modernist concerning the comment of Bernice Rose. I have therefore made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seriously think I'm going to re-re-reply to your neverending broken record, do you? Bernice Rose may have an interesting point, maybe even worth including, but you insist on placing it in an inappropriate place—in a single paragraph you are obsessed with distorting in some way. You don't understand balance, you don't understand NPOV, you don't understand context, you don't understand consensus, and you don't understand communication. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—Bernice Rose is writing for the Museum of Modern Art. She is providing us with her evaluation of the underlying reason that Lichtenstein virtually stole imagery from comic book artists. Information in an article goes where it is needed. We should not be writing a one-sided, condemnatory paragraph. If we have the evaluation of appropriation in the case of Lichtenstein presented in a non-condemnatory fashion, by a good quality source, we should include that evaluation. Furthermore, information can be presented in different ways at different parts of an article. You are single-mindedly arguing that certain information may not be included in this paragraph. This is information that tends to excuse Lichtenstein for what some might regard as apparent wrongdoing. This information is part of a balanced presentation to the reader and is therefore in keeping with WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a one-sided, condemnatory paragraph"—good luck getting anyone to take you seriously when you spout baldfaced horeshit like that one, that's been refuted down to the smallest details ad nauseam. Here's that "one-sided, condemnatory paragraph", folx:
Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other 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. In response 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. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit 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 books.
Keep your distance, gentle artlovers! Such bile could eat a hole right through your heart!
(Har! Har! Har! Ain't I hilarious?! I'm using the plural when there's only one other editor with the foolish persistence still to wade through this ocean of repetitive kBs!)Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—you are not even addressing the issue of whether or not Bernice Rose's commentary should be included in this paragraph. She is explaining, from a very informed point of view, that Lichtenstein was, or may have been, trying to challenge notions of originality. I realize this sounds like arcane jargony stuff that could only be found in the world of contemporary art, but what would be your reason for leaving this material out of this paragraph? Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—you are not even trying to comprehend the words that are before your face. Try to absorb what people have been saying before you flood the page with more repetitious "arguments". Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P. S.—I have addressed "the issue of whether or not Bernice Rose's commentary should be included in this paragraph". You neither bothered to read it nor comprehend it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—When the Museum of Modern Art, in the person of Bernice Rose, provides commentary on a subject, it should be included at the point(s) in an article at which it is relevant. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment demonstrating your total lack of interest in giving any time whatsoever to digesting any point that may be presented to you. That "communication" thing, Bus Stop. You're talking in non sequiturs. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—Bernice Rose puts into context the appropriation of images found elsewhere—images that arguably "belong" to other artists. The theme of this paragraph is propriety. In this paragraph we are addressing the propriety and/or impropriety of Lichtenstein's use of images potentially belonging to other artists. Rose's commentary sheds light on why Lichtenstein chose to copy material which arguably belonged to other artists, albeit comic book artists. Incidentally, we also have it from another MoMA source that the "appropriation" of images in this way, was a common or even standard practice of many Pop artists working contemporaneously with Lichtenstein. We should be putting this into context. The alternative is a one-sided paragraph that misleads the reader. Art movements have aims. That is why they are coherent as "movements". An "art movement" is not a ragtag group of artists who happen to live in the same vicinity and/or make art at the same time. Lichtenstein was an exponent, by means of his artwork, of a point of view that was expressed by the Pop artists. This should be expressed in our paragraph. That is why we should include Rose's comment. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—what is your point of view? Should this edit, which I made, be included in the article? You removed the added material with this edit. The wording that I placed in the article in this edit is relevant to the paragraph in which it is place and it is well-sourced—being sourced to the Museum of Modern Art. At this point the only User:Curly Turkey is weighing in specifically in opposition to the inclusion of the comment by Bernice Rose. User:Ewulp did not express opposition to specifically this, and User:Modernist seems to support this, based on conversation on his Talk page. You have not weighed in with a position on this. In my opinion you might consider articulating a reasoned response on the (Bernice Rose) material under consideration. You are not just an impartial editor. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about we refrain from making edits to the article without obtaining consensus here until this review is over.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—why did you remove the observation made by Bernice Rose that Lichtenstein threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time? Do you feel that this is not relevant in a paragraph addressing the propriety/impropriety of using material that is not original? The original images were made by comic book artists. Rose supplies a reason for Lichtenstein's use of such images. Do you somehow feel this is not relevant? The book in which she writes this is published by the Museum of Modern Art. You are not explaining your removal of material which adds balance to the paragraph. Rose is providing an explanation for Lichtenstein's actions. Her explanation represents new information in the paragraph. Whereas others may see Lichtenstein's actions as dishonest or as mere copying, Rose is saying something different. Rose is saying that the appropriation is for the purpose of "challenging the notion of originality". I am wondering on what basis you feel this doesn't belong in the paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no consensus to include it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bernice Rose is an important curator at MoMA and her comment is probably one of the most interesting things that I've ever read about Lichtenstein - I re-added it and it stays because it's both intelligent and valid...Modernist (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editwarring is inexcusable at the best of times, much less during an unreasonably long-drawn-out FAC.
  • The Bernice Rose comment is in a totally inappropriate place. If its "one of the most interesting things" you have read, then why bury it in the article? We don't just throw quotes willy-nllly into articles. We use our heads and find the most appropriate places for them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what way did he challenge the notion of originality? In the context of a paragraph questioning Lichtenstein's lack of originality—"dishonest", a "copycat"—it is obvious what the challenging of the notion of originality is in reference to. But when you move this brief quote to another part of the article, its significance becomes less clear. At its new location a larger portion of the quote is necessary for this to make sense:

"Copying from another 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."

The above should be set aside in a quotebox. I used a brief section of the quote because it responded directly to the material that was above it in its paragraph. In its original location it had relevancy. Certainly it can have relevancy at other parts of the article too. But without the context of the paragraph that it was in, it must provide its own context, hence the need for the quote above.

Lichtenstein elicited the responses from people like Dave Gibbons by challenging the notions of originality. But without the "Dave Gibbons"-type comments in immediate proximity, the significance of challenging the notions of originality becomes less clear. More context in the form of the total quote above restores significance that is lost by moving the quoted material away from the comments by people such as Dave Gibbons. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think you need the whole quote - in context now where it is the idea of using imagery from 'commercial art' is mentioned and which leads into the Rose quote; less is fine. Add the whole quote to the bio page...Modernist (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could condense and paraphrase the whole thing:
"The once-common practice of copying had fallen out of favour by the mid-20th century; Lichtenstein challenged the contemporary avant-garde emphasis on originality and invention by making his copying impossible to ignore."
—Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the whole quote should be included in this article. This article has gone way far outside of its scope. As such, the Bernice Rose quote should be included in its entirety:
"Copying from another 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."
The above is outside of the scope of this article. It is not commentary that is particular to the painting that is the title of this article. But since much of the material in this article is outside of the scope of this article I see little reason that the above quote should not be included in its entirety. Bus stop (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero reason for paraphrasing. The whole quote can be put in the article if putting the whole quote in the article seems warranted. Or the whole quote can be left out of the article. What is of inarguable importance is putting the implications of the quote in the article. Those implications can find applicability at more than one point in our article. I'm striking through my above post and I am considering my revised thinking on this point to be reflected in this post. Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An all-or-nothing kinda guy, ain'tcha, Bus Stop? "What is of inarguable importance is putting the implications of the quote in the article": in what way is this an argument against a paraphrase? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nobody has agreed with you that the article is out of scope, and several of us have disagreed with you at length. You seem to have no appreciation for context.
  2. If the quote is out of scope, then exact quoting the whole thing would be the opposite of what you would want to do. So why not drop it entirely?
  3. You have not even provided an argument as to why quoting should be preferred to paraphrasing.
  4. Please stop quoting in full what you have already quoted verbatim multiple times. The previous full verbatim quote is still visible on the screen.
—Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—we have a good quality source telling 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".

We have another good quality source (Bernice Rose, "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", Museum of Modern Art) telling us: "Copying from another 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."

We have a paragraph beginning with the words: "Critics have raised concerns" in the Legacy section of our article. That paragraph explores Lichtenstein's use of preexisting images to which he is not necessarily entitled. We are asking ourselves in this paragraph if this practice is proper, and what motivations prompt Lichtenstein to do this. Both of the above sources, which happen to be Museum of Modern Art sources, are supplying us with possible answers to these questions. To use these sources to address these questions I would add the following wording to our paragraph:

"Lichtenstein was not the only artist directly referencing images from other sources. Many other prominent artists in the Pop art movement made use of imagery found in popular culture. Bernice Rose, a curator at the Museum of Modern Art, expresses the opinion that Lichtenstein quoted preexisting sources in an obvious way in order to challenge the notion of "originality." Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop, please stop repeating those quotes in every single one of your replies. You are being pointlessly wordy and you are not making any direct arguments. We well know those quotes exist, it doesn't help in any bit to keep repeating them. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—I am aware of our policies such as WP:BECONCISE. I think I am being very considerate of everybody having to read my posts. Consider the fact that there is no virtue in being cryptic, in that too short a post may not succeed in clearly communicating. We also should be aware of those who may be just joining the thread—if a few more words helps that newcomer quickly get up to speed on what the rest of us are discussing, the tradeoff may be worthwhile. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any hope when an editor has been told to "Please stop quoting in full what [he] have already quoted verbatim multiple times" replies by quoting in full what he has already quoted verbatim multiple times? We've tried ceasing to respond to this guy. He reacts to the silence by making contentious edits directly to the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey—I have suggested wording for inclusion in the paragraph in our article that begins with the wording "Critics have raised concerns". My suggested wording is found a few posts up, at 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC). Respond if you wish to. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it's been rejected by several editors. Put the stick down and walk away from the dead horse. Similarly, there is no reason to include the full quote because it doesn't say anything profound that can be paraphrased (as CT did a bit earlier with The once-common practice of copying...) with citing that source for it. It's not a profound statement of opinion by the author which is generally the only situations where quoting is really important. (If we had a direct Litchenstein quote that said along the same lines, that would be different). --MASEM (t) 23:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey, Masem—let me revise my thinking on this yet again. I think we can distill down one very simple sentence from our two MoMA sources. That sentence would be:
"Lichtenstein like many other Pop artists were challenging traditional notions of originality."
This should be added to the end of the paragraph we have been discussing. Any comments? Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
  • Surely you see the problem with "traditional"—the stigma against borrowing & copying in the arts is largely a 20th-century thang.
  • Further, the sentence lacks sufficient context: what "traditional notions of originality"? The idea that originality is important? The idea that recontextualizing didn't constitute originality? The idea that changing and mixing sources didn't constitute sufficient originality? Something else, technical, political, or cultural?
  • Lastly, I hope "the paragraph we have been discussing" isn't the one you keep trying to distort. Placed there, it is a non sequitir. If it's important enough to place in the article, then it belongs in the Background, as it is background information.
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a paragraph that begins with the words "Critics have raised concerns". I think we want to add context to that paragraph. We find in this source the following three quotes:

"Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist."

"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."

"Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated…"

And finally from a separate source we have Bernice Rose: "challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time".

I have added the bolding in all of the above quotes. Based on the above quotes we have support for the following sentence:

"Lichtenstein like many other Pop artists was challenging conventional notions of originality."

This should be added to the end of the paragraph under discussion. The sentence I am suggesting is adequately supported by sources. Both sources should be provided. Bernice Rose is of course speaking specifically about Lichtenstein. The other MoMA source is speaking about Pop artists in general but it specifically mentions Lichtenstein among them. Bus stop (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An even shorter version would be: "Lichtenstein, like many Pop artists, was challenging notions of originality." I think this provides informative context. The paragraph contains within it for instance: "Some have denigrated it as mere copying…" There is nothing wrong with that as it represents a valid area for exploration. But there are relevant factors that are at this time left out of that paragraph. One such factor is that Lichtenstein, as most Pop artists, was appropriating imagery as a means of challenging notions of originality in fine art. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, the issue is not sourcing, it's communication. Please reread what I wrote above, because you obviously didn't the first time. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: you don't need to explain these things to me, Bus Stop, but to make them clear to the reader. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—we are abiding by the findings of sources. We know sufficiently well what "originality" refers to. We have two sources using that term. Both of those are sources connected to the Museum of Modern Art. I personally find no difficulty relating to the term "originality". You say we have to "make them clear to the reader"[30]. I don't think the reader will encounter any difficulty understanding the sentence that I suggested. The paragraph in our article that we are discussing makes reference to the concepts of "copying" ("Some have denigrated it as mere copying…") and "plagiarism" ("In response to claims of plagiarism…"). "Copying" and "plagiarism" are concepts inextricably linked to the concept of "originality". Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bus Stop, the meaning of that sentence is opaque. I am astounded that you cannot see why. Even more so since there is no consensus to put it where you want—the info's in the Background section where it belongs, and you have the support of no other editor to have it moved. This particular thread of the discussion started off by discussing whether or not the info should be quoted in part, in full, or paraphrased, but you and you alone are trying to bulldoze it back into that one paragraph that you are single-mindedly obsessed with. Meanwhile, the 50th anniversary will come and go, and you still won't be pleased with anything but the total distortion or outright elimination of that one paragraph. I'd love to just ignore your horseshit, but you've made it abundantly clear that ignoring you just means you'll resort to editwarring the actual article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—please look at the paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns" found in the Legacy section. It has a theme. It has an underlying subject. That theme is the curious relationship between the imagery found in commercial art sources and the imagery found in what is called fine art. The question is largely one of propriety, as well as one of meaning, or significance. Does an artist have a right to usurp ownership of an image arguably belonging to another artist, albeit often a "commercial artist"? Reliable sources come down on both sides of this question with various points and observations. For instance we read in our paragraph that "Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways." That sentence, already in our article, presents one view in the first half of that sentence and a different view in the second half. We are permitted to include in this paragraph material that is both reliably sourced and relevant to the subject of the paragraph. The MoMA weighs in on exactly the subject of this paragraph. I have presented above, two sources, both of which are related to the MoMA. Those sources support that the use of imagery in this way was common practice among Pop artists and that there was a reason that Pop artists used imagery in this way. That reason was that they wanted to challenge notions of originality. Both of the sources in fact mention Lichtenstein. One of the sources only speaks about Lichtenstein. The MoMA sources are providing us with information relevant to the subject of this paragraph. Therefore that information should be included in this paragraph. I have suggested that a brief sentence be added, referenced to both MoMA sources, indicating that the intention of Pop artists in general and Lichtenstein in particular was to challenge the concept of "originality". There is nothing unclear about the word "originality". We are not using it in a technical way. Two MoMA sources are using the term. It is not "opaque". Furthermore, our paragraph already references concepts such as "copying" and "plagiarism". The idea of "originality" is crucial to those concepts. We don't have to define something to the umpteenth degree. We are merely talking about interpretations of a painting. The MoMA is an eminently valid source for this sort of an observation. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, you are trying to push a POV here. The combination of sources to get there is in SYNTH territory now. There is no requirement that WP articles need to include every source and concept from those sources in a topic, we just need to be comprehensive. The entire idea of appropriation - whether around pop art or Litchenstein's works - is already explored in depth in other articles and it only has to be touched on here to 1) set up the stage of what was happened in pop art/Litchenstine's work at the time of the creation of Whaam, and 2) the obvious nature of this and subsequent criticism by some specifically tied to Whaam (eg Gibbons stuff). The details provided in the current article do that job without veering into excess. You're trying to get them to add more to fit this specific view that you have, and I really don't see how that's going to improve the article, since both sides of the appropriation issue are already discussed. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—on the contrary I am not "trying to push a POV". Nor is there any semblance of a violation of WP:SYNTH. Whaam! resembles a panel from a comic book. Obviously, comic book artists made that panel. Why is Lichtenstein brazenly stealing another artist's work and presenting it as fine art? This is the subject of the paragraph. MoMA weighs in with an opinion on this. MoMA says that the Pop artists and Lichtenstein in particular were concerned with "challenging notions of originality". Why should that be excluded from the paragraph? Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because "challenging notions of originality" is a fascinating insight into the thought processes that motivated the painting, not an after-the-fact defence against its detracters. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey—the paragraph already contains what you would probably call after-the-fact defenses against its detractors. Aready included in the paragraph is the assertion that "…others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways." Yet you are not objecting to that assertion. Our obligation to the reader is to present that information that is relevant to the subject and reliably sourced. The MoMA sources are completely aware of the scandalous implications of fine artists brazenly usurping images belonging to other artists. The MoMA sources are providing us with an explanation for the practices that are under examination in this paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?!?!? You desparately need to reread what I wrote. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reread your post. It says: "Because "challenging notions of originality" is a fascinating insight into the thought processes that motivated the painting, not an after-the-fact defence against its detractors." The MoMA observations contain no defenses against detractors. The MoMA is not disagreeing with anything Dave Gibbons for instance says. The MoMA does not for instance say that Lichtenstein is not a "copycat". Gibbons characterizes Lichtenstein as a "copycat". The MoMA does not for instance deny that Lichtenstein is "dishonest". Gibbons characterizes Lichtenstein as "dishonest". The MoMA is weighing in with an observation about originality. I think the primary theme of the paragraph is originality. The MoMA sources are telling us that one of the concerns of the Pop art movement was the challenging of prevailing concepts of originality. The MoMA sources tell us this about the Pop artists in general and about Lichtenstein in particular. This is the context in which any charges relating to any degree of plagiarism should be seen. Bus stop (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you misread CT's point - it's about where the information is best placed, not what the articles say. The MOMA source has zero to do in any specificality to Whaam. As such, the aspects of appropriation it talks about are best suited to the Background (pre-Whaam's creation) section, and not for the reception on Whaam, whereas Gibbons' complaints are specifically on Whaam, and thus talked in detail in the reception. And because the Background already discusses appropriation, there's no need to detail it more. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Because it is not a defense against the painting's detractors it does not belong in that paragraph—it belongs in the "Background", as it gives insight into Lichtenstein's creative process. See: WP:SYNTHESIS. And, no, the paragraph is not about "originality" as a concept. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem: I do think the appropriation stuff could be explained in a more elegant, elightening, and clear manner, though. I made an attempt above, but it looks like everyone's too pooped at this point to give it any thought. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did say I think what you paraphrased it to was ok, but at the same time, it's also reiterating what's effectively said. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter—I "supported" long ago—but normally these would be the kinds of fine details that would get discussed in an FAC. It would be nice to see a this as TFA that represented the best a Wikipedia article could be, rather than something that just manages to cross the threshold. But, no, I have no intention of holding up this FAC any further with something like this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem; Curly Turkey—related pieces of information should be in proximity to one another. Why would we not tell the reader in the same paragraph in which we are enumerating complaints about wrongdoing concerning the use of imagery belonging to others, that according to some sources, the artist may have done this intentionally and that any resulting impropriety was deliberate and precisely the point of taking the imagery that belonged to other artists? There is no justification for omitting from this paragraph, on-topic material derived from the MoMA sources I've presented. We have one source—the book "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", published by MoMA and written by Bernice Rose, a curator at MoMA—telling us that: "...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." It is ludicrous to think that in the same paragraph that complaints are being lodged against the artist for improperly accessing imagery that didn't belong to him, that we would not apprise the reader that, at least in the opinion of two MoMA sources, he did this intentionally to challenge the notion of originality. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop{{subst:emdah}}"related pieces of information should be in proximity to one another": they are only "related" because you've made them related through WP:SYNTHESIS, and are unfortunately trying to downgrade an interesting insight to the status of mere rebuttal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—WP:SYN involves the use of more than one source. You say "they are only "related" because you've made them related through WP:SYNTHESIS". Even if we look at only one source we can see that the material in that source is related to the subject of the paragraph. Let us consider the source which is a book published by MoMA and authored by a curator at MoMA named Bernice Rose. She writes: "...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." Now compare that to the paragraph that begins with the words "Critics have raised concerns", which is the fourth paragraph in the Legacy section. We find in that paragraph "some have denigrated it as mere copying". The topic is exceptionally closely related to the topic that Bernice Rose is addressing, and there is obviously no WP:SYN violation because only one source is being considered. WP:SYN exists when two or more sources are used to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The important point in our discussion has nothing to do with WP:SYN or any other kind of WP:OR. Bernice Rose is saying that in her opinion the "copying" that is already at this time addressed in our paragraph was done brazenly by Lichtenstein. Bernice Rose is saying that Lichtenstein wanted it to be known that he ripped off the comic book artists. Bernice Rose is saying that he did this to "challenge[ing] the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." The paragraph is lopsided without the inclusion of this commentary. This is commentary from a prominent curator of contemporary art addressing a topic under discussion in a paragraph in our article. The commentary is saying that what may appear to be an unexplainable "theft" may instead be a principled stand worth taking note of. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis (against NOR) can occur even using the same source, if the two facts are not explicitly connected. And for the love of Pete, please stop requoting the sources ad nauseum in your replies. We know what they say by now. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—I could just rehash my arguments as you rehash yours, but I think its time for some comics (from a master who has had things to say about Lichtenstein—so it's all on topic, right?). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—thanks for that comic relief. We are discussing the relevance, if any, of the above Bernice Rose comment, to that material which is already in the paragraph under discussion. Let us not mince words. By speaking in stark terms perhaps we can better see what is under discussion. Let us therefore substitute a word like "stealing" for a term like "copying". Wouldn't we have to ask ourselves why Lichtenstein would "steal"? My question is one of "why". I think this is a serious question that as editors, we cannot sweep under the rug—not if we have reliable sources responding to that question. Our paragraph is saying that he "directly references imagery from other sources". But is our paragraph offering any possible reason "why"? No, it is not. Our paragraph is suggesting that "[s]ome have denigrated it as mere copying". But is our paragraph suggesting any possible "reason" that Lichtenstein would be "copying"? Do you see the point that I am making? Bernice Rose, in her commentary, is offering a reason why he would "steal". According to her, he is not "stealing" for pointless reasons. On the contrary, according to Rose, he is stealing to make a point. The point, according to Rose, is a direct assault on prevailing notions of originality. This is material that is on-topic. In fact this is material that is very important to the topic of that paragraph. No, don't tell me that this is WP:SYNTHESIS, because I am not suggesting putting my above reasoning into the article. What we should probably simply do is provide a quote from Bernice Rose at the end of that paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree for all the reasons I've already stated above. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you disagree with. Do you doubt that Bernice Rose is offering a possible reason, or explanation, for Lichtenstein's stealing? I think it is obvious that she is saying that Lichtenstein's "stealing" is anything but pointless. Bus stop (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote you'd see plain as day that I never made anything like a claim along the lines of "Lichtenstein's 'stealing' is pointless"—in fact, I said the exact opposite: that Ms Rose's statement is so revealing and insightful that the article would greatly benefit from the ideas it contains being explicated in the "Background" section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A source can be used to support material at more than one point in an article. The material supported by that source, appearing at each point in the article, need not be identical, therefore repetition need not be a problem. And even if there is repetition, that may be tolerable (in my opinion). There is reason to mention this in the paragraph in the "Background" section. I don't argue for its removal from the paragraph it is presently in. But there is ample reason to mention this in a paragraph such as the one we are discussing. Perceived impropriety may not be due to the simple "stealing" of imagery from other artists, such as comic book artists, but may instead be a deliberate and perhaps provocative act calculated to achieve a certain response in the viewer, which may include the response of indignation. It is possible that some of us may see in these works a so-called fine artist ripping-off the work of mere comic book artists, and that may provoke a response of indignation. Bernice Rose is providing us with an explanation for an impropriety that at least exists in our perception. The paragraph we are discussing, in the "Legacy" section, is the location in the article at which we are expounding on the negative responses that some have expressed. It is therefore the location in the article at which we should supply the reader with the ideas articulated by Bernice Rose. Importantly, she is saying that this is deliberate; she is saying that "he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it." Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically asking for the information to be repeated in the latter section which is not necessary at all. That's why discussion of the general trend in the BG section sets the stage to jump into immediately the issues around Whaam in the Legacy section. You're asking for pointless duplication. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think repetition is the issue. The information itself simply is not a rebuttal to criticism, but an explanation of Lichtenstein's motivation. Not by the any stretch of the imagination does that qualify as "Legacy". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—if any explanations or important commentary on Lichtenstein's "copying" or "plagiarism" are available, they should be found in this paragraph. Related pieces of information should be found in proximity to one another. You are presenting an untenable argument when you say that relevant material has to be omitted from this paragraph. Bernice Rose is the author of a book on Lichtenstein. That book is published by the MoMA, where she is a curator. She is commenting on the topic of the paragraph. Our paragraph is saying that "[s]ome have denigrated it as mere copying". Bernice Rose has informative commentary: "[Lichtenstein] made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it." That comment is within the topic of the paragraph. What she is saying is that he did not do this surreptitiously. She is saying that he did this in a way in which it would be obvious that he was copying. This paragraph should not simply be implying that Lichtenstein failed to be original. That would be a misleading point, in light of Bernice Rose's commentary on the subject. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"explanations or important commentary on Lichtenstein's "copying" or "plagiarism" are available, they should be found in this paragraph"—no, they shouldn't. The paragraph is not about copying or plagiarism per se, but about the criticisms of those who disagree with it (and the direct rebuttals of those criticisms). If the paragraph were indeed about "copying" or "plagiarism" per se, it would belong in the "Background" section, not the "Legacy" section.
Curly Turkey—the comic book artists created panels for publications that sold for relatively low prices in formats that were relatively small and which used production methods that were relatively low quality. Lichtenstein usurped these images and made them his own by enlarging them considerably, rendering them in good quality materials using good quality techniques, and sold them in fine art galleries for considerably higher prices than the comic books sold for. Dave Gibbons is expressing a valid view when he says that there is something dishonest about Whaam! or that Lichtenstein is a copycat. Representatives of the MoMA are not unaware of this criticism. Their understanding is that they consider such actions to be a challenging of notions of originality. Should the reader be apprised that a curator at the MoMA maintains this view? I think so. Why shouldn't the reader be afforded a glimpse of the thinking of those steeped in the relatively arcane world of contemporary visual art on the question of Lichtenstein's "stealing" of imagery? Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Should the reader be apprised that a curator at the MoMA maintains this view?": Of course they should—in the "Background" section, as this is a background concern, having to do with Lichtenstein's purported motivation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the comments of Bernice Rose absent from the paragraph, we are misleading the reader. A topic is raised in a paragraph. It is condemnatory. The paragraph that we are discussing already contains within it the information that "[s]ome have denigrated it as mere copying" and that Lichtenstein "directly references imagery from other sources" and that there are "claims of plagiarism". That information is on the same general topic as Bernice Rose's comments. The perspective may be different. And the conclusions may be different. But the topic is the same. Related pieces of information should be found in proximity to one another. Bernice Rose refers to Lichtenstein "[c]opying from another’s artist’s work" and to "resorting to old-fashioned copying" and to Lichtenstein making "it so obvious that he was copying" and to "challenging the notion of originality". Bernice Rose is speaking about the same phenomena as is already addressed in our paragraph. The phenomena is the striking similarity between Lichtenstein paintings and comic book imagery. Our article points out that some "denigrate" it or consider it tantamount to plagiarism. But Bernice Rose makes a point of articulating that in her opinion there is nothing surreptitious about Lichtenstein's close adherence to comic book source material. Bernice Rose also makes a point of articulating that in her opinion Lichtenstein is "challenging notions of originality". The same topic is being addressed by Bernice Rose as the topic we already find in our article. Bernice Rose does not have the final say any more than Dave Gibbons has the final say. The paragraph already has a form. Additional material should be on the same topic as is already found in the paragraph that we are discussing, unless we decide to change the focus of the paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out repeatedly, every issue raised in the paragraph is balanced with a rebuttal—ones aimed directly at the individual issues raised. Why do you keep ignoring that? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the paragraph is not criticism and rebuttal. The subject of the paragraph is originality as it applies to Lichtenstein paintings. Lichtenstein paintings are unusual in that the source material is very conspicuous. Some are indignant about this. Yes, we created a paragraph to document the criticism articulated by those who are indignant that Lichtenstein paintings appear to be ripping off comic book artists. But the subject of the paragraph is not the criticism of those who are indignant that Lichtenstein paintings appear to be ripping off comic book artists. The subject of the paragraph is the originality or the absence of originality in Lichtenstein paintings. If there is reliably sourced commentary on the originality or absence of originality in Lichtenstein paintings, such commentary can be considered for inclusion in this paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The subject of the paragraph is originality as it applies to Lichtenstein paintings.": The subject of the paragraph is no such thing. The subject of the paragraph is those who have issues with Lichtenstein's borrowing, e.g. the ethics of borrowing without attribution. We don't have to agree or disagree with any of it, only to report on those who have so criticized the painting, and those who have refuted those criticisms. The paragraph is not about "originality" as a concept, which would be grotesquely out of place in the "Legacy" section of a painting whose "point" was to challenge contemporary conceptions of "originality". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—you say "The subject of the paragraph is those who have issues with Lichtenstein's borrowing, e.g. the ethics of borrowing without attribution. We don't have to agree or disagree with any of it, only to report on those who have so criticized the painting, and those who have refuted those criticisms."
If that is the case, why isn't Dave Gibbons mentioned in the paragraph? And where do you see refutation in the paragraph? Allegations of wrongdoing are a serious matter. I don't think we refute allegations of wrongdoing by merely stating that "others have countered". If we wish to refute we could include Alastair Sooke: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others."[31] The topic of the paragraph we are discussing is the derivative nature of Lichtenstein paintings. Most sophisticated commentators do not take issue with these paintings on the basis of originality. Alastair Sooke is an art critic. Bernice Rose is a curator at MoMA and the author of a book published by MoMA on Roy Lichtenstein. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of note: Curly Turkey has been blocked from editing for edit warring unrelated to this FAC for 24hr [32] --MASEM (t) 18:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. I won't be responding anymore unless Bus Stop attacks the article itself again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 19:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—our purpose in formulating wording for a paragraph on the originality or lack of originality in the painting Whaam! and similar paintings should be to present the reader with a rough approximation of the views on this topic found in reliable sources. You have been calling for "rebuttal". Alastair Sooke provides rebuttal: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others."[33] Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have some feedback on a possible version such as that which I'm posting below? Note that Dave Gibbons is mentioned by name and quoted. Also Alastair Sooke is mentioned by name and quoted. I would be amenable to lengthier quotes from Dave Gibbons if that is a concern of some. I happen to think that what I have included is sufficient. But alternative wording may be just as acceptable. Please consider the following and please provide feedback:
"Some have expressed displeasure with Lichtenstein's drawing upon the imagery of others to create Whaam!. Dave Gibbons, a comic book artist, characterizes Lichtenstein as a "copycat" and the painting Whaam! as "dishonest". Others counter that Whaam! differs from the images found in the original comic book panels. Alastair Sooke, an art critic, writes that "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." In response 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. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit 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 books." Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another voice—that of Rian Hughes:
Some have expressed displeasure with Lichtenstein's drawing upon the imagery of others to create Whaam!. Dave Gibbons, a comic book artist, characterizes Lichtenstein as a "copycat" and the painting Whaam! as "dishonest". Graphic designer Rian Hughes says "Almost every painting [Lichtenstein] ever did was appropriated without asking permission or paying royalties. If he was a musician, he would be facing a copyright lawsuit". But others such as Alastair Sooke, an art critic, writes that "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." In response 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. As concerns criticism that Lichtenstein failed to credit 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 books.
I think the advantage to the above version is that it is a sampling of actual commentary on the subject of the paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I almost reverted your change today out of principal. We are almost ready to be promoted. Please don't disrupt the delicate balance of the article. Unless you can get both one COMICS guy and one WPVA guy to agree with your change or two of the neutral guys, just leave things alone. The last time I looked at text involving Hughes, the important elements were actually said by his interviewer. Don't change without support.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—why do you say "The last time I looked at text involving Hughes, the important elements were actually said by his interviewer"? I'm finding sources attributing the quote to Rian Hughes here, here, here, and here. Bus stop (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, you are extremely particular and I am grateful that Curly Turkey expended so much energy considering the validity of each of your points on this FAC and to Hiding for doing so on the early discussions. At this point have driven away both of the COMICS guys by your voluminous considerations. I am trying not to take either of their places. So I again encourage you to either limit yourself to compact enough considerations that one of them will evaluate or get the neutral guys like Masem to consider your arguments. You have wasted enough of everyone's time with your incessant nitpickings. In regards to Hughes, maybe this time you have good sources. If so build consensus among the other discussants and I will make the change after you do so. Right now, I have nearly unanimous support and I don't think it is a good idea to risk rocking that boat, given that most of your past suggestions have been hotly contested by others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—Comment on content, not on the contributor. Bus stop (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

An enjoyable and comprehensive article. I have noticed the picture at the Tate but assumed it was one of several, and am interested to read its history, very nicely set out here. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Comment - fixed the Bader ref (had to create an artificial harv anchor). The basic problem is using "cite book" as short ref and as full biblio entry at the same time, a regular harv ID can't handle that. GermanJoe (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whammy on the Whaam! 50th anniversary drive

My apologies to all the editors (especially those from WP:WPVA and WP:COMICS) who have been intimately involved in the vast improvement in Whaam! since the June 15 inception of its 50th anniversary drive for a September 28 WP:TFA appearance that was announced at Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!. I thank you for the interest, concern and expertise expressed through over 650KB of discussion at those two initial discussions and Talk:Whaam!, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2 and here at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2 in the last 12 weeks. There is some mystery (or possibly some gamesmanship) going on at WP:FAC where since attaining consensus support for the nominee I requested a source review at WT:FAC on 16:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (over 19 days ago) and again at 14:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC) (over a week ago). Although Whaam! seems like it would be a five-point article by the TFA scoring system, there is apparently a two-point article seeking the same date (125th birthday of H. C. McNeile). Through the very mysterious FAC review process, this article has plodded at a curiously slow pace in its pursuit of timely promotion in order to compete with the two-pointer. I have been assured by Crisco 1492 that the slow process has nothing to do with the personal discord between he and I and his extensive involvement at FAC. Also, TFAR scheduler Bencherlite has stated that the seeming impending promotion of the potential 5-point article would not sway him to delay him from scheduling the 2-point article or any other article he sees fit for the September 28 date a week or two in advance even if it means your 650KB of interest and effort in perfecting the 5-point candidate in this 12-week drive is all for naught. Actually, exact quote "I will schedule as and when I am ready to do so - I'm not going to hold off scheduling for late September as and when I get there...just because you say you want to compete for the Sept 28 slot" At User talk:Bencherlite#September 28 and elsewhere, he has reminded me that although Whaam! may appear to be a 5-point article waiting in the wings, it is a zero-point article unless it can make it through the mysterious process that is FAC in time to be a nominee. I am very grateful that Nikkimaria has initiated this complicated source review at 03:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC) and for the assistance from no less than six other editors in addressing her concerns to improve the article so promptly and thoroughly in the subsequent 7.5 hours. As I have watched Nikkimaria's repeated visits to WP in the days since the responses to her source review concerns, I continue to hope that at some point soon, she will be able to make time to reconsider our efforts. I apologize to those six prompt respndents and many others who have contributed to the 650KB meeting of the minds on this subject who are still interested in the prompt promotion of this article. The FAC process is such a mystery that I am at a loss for how to get Whaam! promoted any more quickly and the point at which the die will be cast is fast approaching.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 8 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [34].[reply]

Atlantic Puffin

Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is of a sufficiently high standard. The Atlantic Puffin is an interesting bird with an unusual lifestyle. I was inspired to choose it by finding a fascinating book about the bird at my local public library. Jimfbleak has done a thorough good article review and I have got the book out again from the library and look forward to answering your comments! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is the word puffin sometimes capitalised and sometimes not? --John (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where the article is talking about a particular species of puffin, it should be capitalised. When talking about puffins in general, as in the sentence "... the family Alcidae which includes the guillemots, auks, razorbills, murrelets, auklets and puffins" it should not. Having said that, I looked through the article and have made several corrections where I had got it wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? I think that aesthetically it looks awful and practically it may be confusing to use this convention which most readers will not be aware of. --John (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC);;[reply]
The convention on capitalisation of bird species names is for clarity and the explanation given above is correct. However, there is only one species of Razorbill, so the pleural should be capitalised also. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now...Comments from PumpkinSky
The range in the lead doesn't seem to match the map nor the range as described in the article body, towit: in the the lead it says the southern range is Maine/UK but the body and map say/show North Carolina/Morocco-Spain. Perhaps this can be clarified.
I have redrawn the line on the range map showing the southern limit of the summer range, Maine/UK. In winter the range extends southwards to North Carolina/Morocco-Spain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image check
Can we get an English translation of the description of File:Macareux en pêche (2).jpg and File:Fratercula arctica001.jpg
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way you did that made the French descriptions not display. I've fixed that. PumpkinSky talk 10:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lundeunge.jpg and File:Stora dimun puffins for kitchen.jpg need a source.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source page for File:Fratercula arctica -Firth of Forth, Scotland -flying-8.jpg says it is copyrighted all rights reserved, but the bot says it was free on date uploaded. I'd like another opinion on this issue.
PumpkinSky talk 02:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The uploading bot, i.e. File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), can be trusted that File:Fratercula arctica -Firth of Forth, Scotland -flying-8.jpg was available under a CC-BY-2.0 license at September 9, 2011. It is not uncommon that Flickr users change their mind but as Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked, this image stays at Commons and can be freely used at en-wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User AFBorchert is correct. I uploaded this image, when the Flickr photographer published it with a CC licence suitable for Commons. He subsequently stopped publishing it under that licence. On Commons the template, {{Flickr-change-of-license}}, on the file explains that the original copyright licence can still be used. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick initial comment: I'm not super-keen on copying a cladogram as PD (IANAL), and I also wonder if there are access issues. You could perhaps get around both of these issues through use of Template:Cladogram? J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is just names and some lines, not eligible for copyright. It is neither copyrighted text or a discernible design. But personally, I also think "code" cladograms are more practical. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Puffin cladogram.jpg is below the threshold of originality according to US law as it consists of text, lines, and braces only. Thereby, it is in the public domain. However, access may indeed a point. If you are looking for an alternative cladogram, take a look at this de-wp article and scroll somewhat down. {{Clade}} is a similar template at en-wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never made a cladogram and the wikitext looks quite repellent, so I was delighted to find this JPG. If necessary I will attempt to make one but will not do so if the copyright status of the present image is deemed to be OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As elaborated above, the present image is not eligible for copyright according to US law. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have solved this and added a cladogram. Reid,iain james (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thank you for making the cladogram, a considerable improvement on the image I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk

  • I will give this a read before long, but until then, the lead does not mention that the winter plumage is different (or that it even has it), and the beak dramatically so, I think that should be noted. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence. I don't believe the plumage is different in winter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions some differences in the non-breeding season, such as duller and browner feathers. Furthermore, here is a site which mentions even more differences than are stated in the article, which I think should be added: "After the breeding season, the adult puffin sheds the colourful plates on its bill and around the eyes as well as the feathers on its head and neck. Its face becomes dark, especially around and in front of the eye. The Atlantic Puffin looks so different in the winter that people once thought it was a different species."[35] FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an extra sentence using your source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence needs a source: "It mostly moves by paddling along efficiently with its webbed feet and seldom takes to the air."
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following needs a source: "Most oil spills happen in winter when the Puffins are far out at sea.[citation needed]"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think adding an image of the egg[36] would be helpful, but space might be an issue.
My source says the egg is white, possibly with a few faint markings. I doubt whether this image is actually an Atlantic Puffin egg. The shape is wrong too, being the sort of shape designed not to roll off a rock ledge. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it looks like the egg of another kind of auk, but maybe the uploader made a mistake when labelling them, I'll try to check the source.[37] FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly, the source says 48 and 49 are "Macareux", which should mean puffin in French. Looks more like the egg of a Razorbill, but since the source is so old, who knows how the name could have changed meaning?. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying not to use the word "release" twice in the same sentence. I have changed it round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although it has been found experimentally" Found through experiments? Sounds a little odd.
Removed the word. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The white shell is usually devoid of markings but soon becomes soiled." The source I linked above says it is soiled by mud. Could be nice to add. One could think they were soiled by excrements or some such... FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. That's what my source stated too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sand eels (Ammodytes marinus)" Not a big deal, but everywhere else you wikilink the common name, not the binomial. Any reason?
Corrected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Support - I think it is a very nice article, I saw a large puffin colony on Iceland a month ago, and they're really cute birds. I think it is really good how many images you have added of behaviour, could be great with a photo of an egg, but seems we have none. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim I did the GA review, so the following are just minor points arising from a second viewing with FAC-grade beady eyes. I look forward to supporting soon. COI declaration: I appear to be second only to the nominator in terms of edits to this article, although I played no significant part in its upgrading. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newfoundland, Maine, moults, gulls, skuas.— link at first occurrence
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three subspecies have traditionally been recognized but size seems to be the only difference... Puffins from northern populations are typically larger than their counterparts in southern parts of the range. It is possible that these populations are separate subspecies, but this is disputed. —you seem to be saying essentially the same thing in two widely separated places
Removed one Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • countries (as opposed to states and provinces) are normally not linked at FAC, if you choose to link, it should be at the first occurrence
That's the rule I have tried to adopt Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thieving— bit anthropomorphic imho
Rephrased Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wingspan... and on land it stands...— subject as written is "wingspan"
Rephrased Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • it will struggle to the water— always?
Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15,000,000 to 30,000,000 square kilometres (5,800,000 to 12,000,000 — personally, I'd write in millions, but up to you
Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • an adult bird needs to eat about forty of these per day— is that correct as stated, or does it need to catch that number when it's feeding young?
That's correct. The source says 40 fish to survive but does also mention an average length of 70mm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • It copes with the excess salt that it inevitably swallows — a bit misleading, afaik the auks actually drink sea-water, so it's not necessarily accidental ingestion
Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • have a fidelity—I'd be inclined to say "show fidelity" or "are faithful to"
Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • steppes — is this right? I'd expect tundra
You are right Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • you don't need to repeat the scientific names each time you mention eg herring
Done, I think Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, changed to support above. It hadn't occurred to me until I saw a young guillemot on the Farnes in July just how uncommon it is to see a juvenile auk in the water Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Snowmanradio
  • Should the Alcidae cladogram be placed on the Alcidae article rather than the article about this species. If it belongs on this species page, then it would also belong on all the other species in the family as well. Why is there 23 species in the family on the Commons cladogram File:Puffin_cladogram.jpg and only 20 in the new Wiki mark-up cladogram? Snowman (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is that two of the taxa in the image are not Alcids so I took them out to make it an Alcid-only cladogram. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel that. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the cladogram has been amended. Should it be deleted from this article and placed in the family article? Snowman (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why it couldn't just be placed in several articles. Certainly no need for deletion here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find anything. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also nothing. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is really interesting that chicks have their eyes open at hatching. Snowman (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where's that? Reid,iain james (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My source says "head" and I think its wings are big enough for this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an image of a sleeping puffin and it shows part of the beak (not the whole head) under a wing. Snowman (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My source states "the parent spends most of the incubating period asleep with its head under its wing or staring down the tunnel in a trance-like state". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some more photographs of puffins asleep or resting and all with part of their beak under a wing. Why would they sleep in a different posture when sleeping in the burrow? Snowman (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think sleeping with its "head under a wing" is an expression meaning "tucked back among the plumage at the base of the wing" rather than a literal description of the head's position. I will change the word to "beak" if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not change it to something that is not potentially misleading? Snowman (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is Wikipedia, we write what the published sources say, not what we decide from interpreting Google photos. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the Wikipedia, information can be reliably extracted from a number of reliable sources including photographs. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the said photo is described in a written work. Sorry, original interpretation is original research. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The interpretation of a photograph need not be original research. In many cases it is clear what a photograph shows and it is simple to write down what it shows. Information can also be simply extracted from a map. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are wrong. I may have to ask uninvolved FAC editors to join in, because this is not appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not wrong. I have discussed extracting information from images a long time ago at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_34#Extrapolation_from_RS. I have raised the topic of the birds sleeping posture for discussion and showed an image to stimulate discussion, which is entirely appropriate in a FAC. Snowman (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the expression "head tucked under wing" is widely used about birds roosting. Take a look at this Google search for ""head tucked under wing" image". The birds depicted have their beaks tucked under their wing and not their heads tucked under. I quoted above the exact words used by my book source. I think the wording should stay as it is in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be saying that the phrase "head under wing" is commonly used and then add that the pictures indicate that it is wrong. I would accept that is what your 1995 source says, but what if more recent sources said something different about the sleeping posture of birds? What if articles that focus on the sleeping posture of birds contradict your source? Sleeping posture is considered in this article about a duck. The paper is used in the Wiki article about birds to source this; "Sleeping birds often use a type of sleep known as vigilant sleep, where periods of rest are interspersed with quick eye-opening peeks ...". I would guess that if only the beak was under the wing then the bird could simply open its eye to look around without moving its head. I would guess that moving the whole head from under the wing to look around would probably make the bird noticeable and more vulnerable. I can not access the full article (that I linked about the duck), but I wonder if there is anything there that can be added to the article about the sleeping posture of birds in general. I would think that one or more RS could probably be found to explain the sleeping posture of birds and this would prevent using "head under wing" which I would regard as an inadvertent over-simplification in a 1995 general book about puffins that should not be replicated in the Wiki article. I see no reason for perpetuating "head under wing" here, but if you must leave "head under wing" in the article, then it may be reasonable to add a footnote to explain the sleeping posture of birds using a RS at the end of the footnote. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is interesting but not relevant in this instance as we are not talking about the sleeping posture of the Puffin in general. An adult incubating an egg in the darkness and safety of a burrow is in a very different position to one roosting in the open air. My source states that "the parent spends most of the incubating period asleep with its head under its wing or staring down the tunnel in a trance-like state". One of the authors is the warden of the Skomer Island National Nature Reserve in Wales. He lives on the island and sees the birds every day during the summer period. He went to the trouble of creating an underground hide from which the "goings-on" in a Puffin nesting chamber could be observed and photographed. If he states that the bird had its head under its wing, that is good enough for me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, you need to show sources that contradict the other sources, or simply let it go. This is Wikipedia, you cannot go beyond the sourcs. You cannot demand adding info that is not found in the sources, especially when you base it on original research, as you did with the photo, see comments from admin below. Furthermore, "head under its wing" would cover "beak under its wing" as well. FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of improving the Wikipedia an am trying to advance discussion about the sleeping posture of the puffin, so that the article can be improved. Describing obvious features of a photograph is not original research. I am not demanding anything and the conclusion here will be a consensus. Snowman (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fledglings emerge from the nest and try to make their way to the sea but sometimes get confused, ending up in the village streets." Should this be in the culture section or the reproduction section? The source mentions the moonlight and street-lights, so I wonder if more details should be added to make it more logical. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The children collect them and liberate them on the beach next morning." The source does not mention "beach". Are the young birds rather venerable to predators if left on the beach in the daylight. Should this be in the conservation section or the reproduction section? Snowman (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased to better correspond with the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been found that adults bringing fish to their chicks tend to arrive in clumps." Does this mean that they land near clumps of grass? Does it mean arrive in a group with other puffins? Snowman (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arriving in groups. Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a curious error. Could the original have said something like; "... arrive in groups near clumps of vegetation"? Snowman (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source states "... puffins arrived clumped, with more puffins than expected arriving within intervals of less than or equal to five sec of each other". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article organisation: A section has the heading "Ecology", which is a big topic. I think that many of the other sections include ecology, so I think that the heading structure is illogical. WP Birds suggests guidelines for a heading structure on their main page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds and it includes a section headed "Behaviour and ecology"; however, their suggested structure is often adapted to suite a particular bird species. I would encourage using a more conventional and logical heading and sub-heading structure. Snowman (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this bird has an unusual style of life that does not easily fit into the WikiProject Birds suggested article layout structure. What do other people think of the present layout? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate to adapt the heading structure. However, I find the heading structure created here is illogical, because ecology is a vast topic that incorporates several topics that are the main content of sections of the article that are not under the "Ecology" section. Snowman (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would look better to me if you made "life at sea", "the colony", "reproduction", and "ecology" subsections under a "behaviour" or "life history" section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Juveniles are similar in appearance to adults"; to me the young look completely different to the adults owing to the different colours of the beak and feet, different shape of the beak, and more grey on the head of the juvenile. Snowman (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the cladogram to include these new species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the expanded cladogram, but the reference for the new part is not provided. The citation at the end of the caption remains the same. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a ref to the updated cladogram. Reid,iain james (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the great auk and a reference for its inclusion. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, we cannot add anything to the cladogram that is not in the one in the source. The placement of the added taxa is original research. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the ref for the Great auk says it is closest to the Razorbill. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not the ref for the cladogram. Combining the two is original synthesis. We need a cladogram which includes them all, we cannot make our own original cladogram based on different sources. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to find a ref that has all of them included. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two images in the "Life at sea" section are of puffins in the sea quite close to land and they are in breeding plumage. Hence, these are puffins that are most probably going back to land daily. These are not puffins in the phase of spending a substantial continuous time at sea. I think that the position of these images and their captions are together potentially misleading. Also, I think that the heading "Life at sea" could be more specific. Snowman (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you think the pictures are of birds close to shore? They probably are as Puffins are spread out over the sea in winter and therefore seldom seen. However as they do not moult till about January, I do not think the images are misleading. What heading would you think better than "Life at sea"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates on Commons of the images show that both images are of puffins near to the shore. Yes, I expect that the puffins behave in water in a similar way near to the colony and far out at sea; however, I think that the captions should give the locations of both birds and that they birds are near to land in both images. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the new captioning. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Then it empties for the night as the birds fly out to sea to roost...". I presume that this is not literally true, because chicks and perhaps adults incubating eggs will be in the burrows. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible inconsistency owing to a change of emphasis. In the introduction; " It is possible that these populations are separate subspecies, but this is disputed". In the taxonomy section; "There are generally considered to be three subspecies:[12]". Snowman (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of ecology, as I understand it, is the way organisms react with each other and their environment. Feel free to suggest an alternative section title. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganised and renamed it. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed: Life in the colony. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some information on tourism. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good start, but it is focused on North America. Probably needs a more holistic account. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can find. The sort of irresponsible tourism shown in the image recently added is bad. Don't those people realise that traipsing among the shallow burrows can cause them to collapse with fatal consequences? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the image should be removed? Do you think that the caption should indicate the dangers to puffins? Is there anything in the literature about irresponsible tourism? Snowman (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the caption to indicate the irresponsible behavior. I think it is fine to leave it in like that. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the new caption is a little presumptive. Perhaps, there is something about tourists affecting breeding colonies in the literature that might help. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can find mention of a few boat trips to view puffins and other sea birds in the UK and Iceland, I'm not sure that this and this are reliable sources. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if each would be classified as a "self publication" or not and I do not know about their editorial processes. However, the BBC is generally considered a RS for the Wiki, and the BBC has something here and here. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence about Iceland. I think in general, puffin tourism is a rather low key affair with local entrepreneurs offering boat trips. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least the article mentions some tourism outside North America now. I think that it is often difficult to find RS about tourism, but there may be plenty of "adverts". More RS on tourism may turn up. Snowman (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... , the chick sheds its down and the adult plumage is revealed." Adult plumage is most probably the wrong expression for the first plumage after the fluffy-down phase. Snowman (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware that the introduction describes the puffins bill when it is colourful in the breeding season. However, the introduction has no remark about how striking and noticeable these colours of the beak are. I think that this is significant enough for emphasis in the introduction. I have been looking at the introduction for a while, so it might not choose the right words at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The St Louis Zoo is the source of that image and its puffins are not Atlantic Puffins. I think that it is unnecessary to mention puffins being kept in captivity in this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another instance mentioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... it emerges from the burrow, usually for the first time, and walks, runs and flaps its way to the sea.". This may be contraindicated is this BBC wildlife video, which (I think) indicates that young puffins explore around the nest for a while prior to going out to the sea. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added further information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has two images of juvenile puffins and both are outside the nest. One has down and is too young to go to sea. I think that the text of the article is not consistent with young puffins being outside the nest. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text says "usually" and that indicates that it may, on occasion, emerge from the nest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The weight at fledging is already mentioned. The adults do not abandon the chick according to my reliable source, but the volume of fish may reduce somewhat. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is also a reliable source. I have not got a lot of time for looking for other sources. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have used this source and added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your book source is a "coffee table" book with fine photography and text by a professional bird book author and I note that it has an index but no references. I think my source is fine because the bird's behaviour and habits is not going to change over the years. However I admit that new information might become available as in the above example of beak-to-beak feeding. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... likes to land in a location where other birds are not already present." I presume that this means that puffins likes to land where there are puffins. To me, "other birds" looks too vague. Snowman (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Conservation" section has some paragraphs that are clearly about conservation, but other paragraphs are about pollution or climate change without any conservation. I wonder if a little re-organisation is needed. Would another heading be better? Does the section need to be split? Snowman (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To show what I am describing, I have split off the climate change paragraphs. I think that the chemical pollution paragraph can stay with the conservation section. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made another attempt an re-naming one section, but I think that it is not quite suitable, because "environment" is a very broad topic. "Pollution" might work for most of it, but not the paragraph about invasive plants. Can invasive plants go in another section? Any comments? Snowman (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a bit more section organisation, because two of the paragraphs fit under a pollution heading. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has both "northern Atlantic" and "North Atlantic". Both are the same thing, because the Atlantic is divided into North Atlantic and South Atlantic by the equator. It there a reason for using both these two terms or could consistency be improved? I think that using "North Atlantic" consistently might be better. Snowman (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are different. The North Atlantic might be the part of the Atlantic north of a line joining West Africa with Brazil - some of it is tropical. The northern Atlantic means the colder more northerly parts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some uncertainty. The Wiki article Atlantic Ocean might have some answers. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are places, as in the Taxonomy section where "puffin" is more suitable. I thought I had sorted out the other places where it should be "Puffin" but have now done so again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Latin "fratercula" means "little brother" according to the google translator. This meaning is also given in the Wiki puffin genus page. I do not know much about Latin. Why does this article say that it means "friar"? Snowman (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is what it says in the source. The word "brother" comes from the same source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand Latin. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 60% of the total puffin population nest on Iceland, so I think it is reasonable to add a bit more about the puffins there. Apparently there was a 30 year ban on puffin hunting after marked declines noted in 1900, also there have been recent calls for another total hunting ban on Iceland following recent population declines. I have linked web pages to advance discussion of the topic, but they might not be reliable sources. Perhaps, books on the history of Iceland might have more on the near extirpation of Puffins from some of the Icelandic islands and the 30 year hunting ban, if the linked website is correct. Snowman (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a bit more is needed about the Icelandic populations. The marked reduction in the Puffin population on Iceland around 1900 and the 30 year hunting ban sound very significant in the history of the species to me and I think that these are significant omissions in the article, if the linked website is correct (the same webpage is used as a RS for something else in the article). Snowman (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information on the Icelandic population. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression. The article is good, but I am still finding issues with the article and I think that more copy editing is needed prior to promotion to FA status. Please note that I do not have a lot of time for editing at this juncture, but I might have a little time each day or every other day to look at this article. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also busy at the moment, people keep inviting themselves to stay unexpectedly, but I will deal with your comments shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression 2. I edit bird pages and I have edited this article mostly during the FAC, so I might have a conflict of interest; however, I have tried my best to be objective. At this juncture, I think that the article has nearly reached FA status. I have not focused on MoS issues. I have not systematically spot-checked sources. I think that there is a significant major omission about fluctuation of puffin populations on Iceland (where about 60% of the world's Atlantic Puffins nest) and a 30-year hunting ban there in the early 20th century (if the web-page that I linked above is correct). Also, I think that there are a few minor issues that need further discussion and perhaps actioning before FA status is achieved. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FA status. I think that the article has achieved FA status. I have read the article from beginning to end. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Snowman, for your detailed comments on the article and your support. You put a lot of time and effort into your review and I think the article is the better for it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Snowman's comments - Snowman seems to be misunderstanding sourcing principles. He suggests changing the article based on a photo he has found on Google, which supports his own interpretation of sleeping posture, and ignoring what the actual written sources say. That is original research. Furthermore, he demands adding taxa to the cladogram that are not even mentioned in the source the cladogram is based on. That is original research as well. Those comments are disruptive, and are degrading the reliability of the article, not improving it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting photos found on Google is definitely in the realms of original research and not usable (e.g. none of us here can use our own expertise to assert the implication of that photograph). Perhaps Snowman can locate a source that would support his viewpoint? However, with reference to the Cladogram, all of the changes mentioned appear to be sourced - it is definitely fine to ammend/modify the Cladogram with the latest information as it emerges. It does not have to explicitly rely on only one source. --Errant (chat!) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. My problem with the cladogram is not that it should rely on a single source. it is that you can not add information to the cladogram that is not in the source the structure is based on. For example, the Great Auk is not included in the 1996 cladogram. Yet it is well known that its closest relative is the Razorbill. But since it was not included in the genetic study the cladogram was based on, it is very misleading to add it to the cladogram here. Who knows where in relation to the Razorbill it should be placed? We cannot interpret that ourselves. And we cannot build on a published cladogram and combine with information not based on genetic studies, or even other genetic studies. The resulting cladogram would be an original construction, not allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the cladogram, a possible approach would be to stay with the 1996-based one, stating specifically that that's how it was in 1996, and to follow with statements sourced to the more recent science. Keeping the statemnts separate like that would avoid synthesis. Regarding the photo, half the beak is pretty obviously visible, but it's surely OR to say that the puffin is asleep. --Stfg (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said above that the Great Auk is not mentioned in the cladogram. I have not suggested adding it to the cladogram. May I suggest that the caption or a footnote could say that the Great Auk is an extinct member of this family, and its position is not known (or whatever reliable sources say about the taxonomy). Alternatively, I wonder if the complete family cladogram is within the scope of this species article. Snowman (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new cladogram including all the species from a phylogenetic analysis of Pan-Alcidae. How is it? Reid,iain james (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My first impression is that the new improved cladogram is much better than I expected. I note that it includes the recently extinct Great Auk and that you have used what looks like an up-to-date 2013 source. Please place a copy of the cladogram on the family page. Snowman (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Reid,iain james (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone would like me to expand the cladogram then I can. The source has a cladogram going all the way to Charadiformes, not just Alcidae. Reid,iain james (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you, if you want to expand the cladogram or not. I think that a cladogram of the order of Charadriiformes would be interesting for the page on the order of birds, but not for this page. I think that making such a big cladogram looks like an interesting challenge. Would it fit on the page? If you need to discuss it, then you could start a new topic at Talk:Charadriiformes? Snowman (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to add it to Talk:Charadriiformes when I'm done with here. Reid,iain james (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have discussed using images as reliable sources a long time ago at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_34#Extrapolation_from_RS and the general conclusion is that images can be used to extract non-controversial information. The image I linked above of a puffin with part of its beak under its wing was only one example of several I found. Some are captioned "resting puffin" and I could probably find more images with descriptive captions. My aim is to advance the discussion here to assist the development of the article and I was pointing out a possible inaccuracy in the article for discussion. The article says that the Puffin sleeps with its head under its wing on the basis of one reliable source. I think that it is appropriate to discus this claim here in view of apparent photographic evidence that it might sleep with only part of its beak under its wing. May I suggest that the discussion could be advanced with a literature search and perhaps an image search to attempt to find more about the sleeping and resting postures of the puffin. Snowman (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I have found another range map and would like to know which we should use. Also I think we should go through the images here and find the best images. Reid,iain james (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original image shows both the breeding range and the overwintering range. The alternative map has a red area but does not state what it represents, nor from what information source it is derived. I prefer the original. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current map is probably adequate, but the lines look like they have been written with a shaky pen. The good thing about the current map is that is shows where the breeding colonies are. Perhaps, two maps are needed; one map can show where the colonies are and another map can show where the range is. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could add the one not in use currently to Distribution. Actually we should. Reid,iain james (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the original range map file. PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are both included in the article now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about the map with the red range not having a source in the image description on Commons. Can this image be used on the Wiki? Snowman (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I am sure that range maps should have sources, so I have removed the map with the red range from the article. It may be possible to contact the author or to make another map. One published map of the puffins range is on BirdLife International. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original range map provides essentially the same information as the BirdLife International one though it does not have a northern limit for the winter range. I think the present map is adequate. The birds are so seldom recorded when over-wintering at sea that the precise delineation of their winter range becomes problematic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 3 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [38].[reply]

Hurricane Diane

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I spent a lot of time writing and researching this destructive hurricane earlier this year. I always intended to nominate it, but I never got around to it until now. I hope you all find the storm as fascinating as I did. It's my first FAC in a while, but as I've said since my first FAC here goes nothing! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a. The writing needs work. I started fixing stuff in the lead, but after finding more (still in the lead), I stopped reading. Random examples:

  • "just five days after Hurricane Connie struck the same general area" I don't think the word "general" is doing anything.
  • "The storm produced the state's largest flood on record, which effectively split the state into two after destroying bridges and cutting communications." I think you mean by, not after, unless the flood destroyed bridges, cut communications, and then did something else to split the state.
    • I think they both work work. I'm not quite sure what your comment means ("and then did something else to split the state"), but yes, the floods were responsible for destroying the bridges and cutting communications. I'll change it to "by", but I don't think it matters much. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "30 stream gauges reported their highest level" (levels)
  • "Floods destroyed a large section of downtown Winsted, much of it never being rebuilt." (much of which was never rebuilt)

I think this would benefit from a fresh set of eyes. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I requested a copyeditor, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tackled the lead a bit, although there were some parts I had a hard time rewording. For example: "The storm turned to the northeast, and fueled by warm waters in the Atlantic Ocean, it dropped record rainfall across the northeastern United States." I don't feel like this sentence flows properly (the "... , and fueled ..., it ..." is a little awkward), though I'm not sure how to rephrase without changing the meaning too much. Please see if my edits were an improvement. Auree ★★ 17:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much improved. I merged those clauses, about the rainfall, so hopefully it works better now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of fine-tuning the prose from top-to-bottom, and I should be done by tonight or tomorrow morning. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it over briefly and it looks improved—I'm striking my opposition. If I can find time to look more thoroughly, I will come back and see if I can support. --Laser brain (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article is very well written, and it deserves to be an FA class. One comment from the New England impact section: "In Rhode Island, damage was estimated at $21 million, mostly in Woonsocket, and there were three death." - change "death" to "deaths". Otherwise, I see no obvious mistakes. Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I addressed this. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article looks good, but I think the sections might be a bit big. Otherwise, it's good.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I've done some spot-copyediting (is that even a thing?) where I thought the writing could be made clearer, and I could probably spend hours more rejiggering the wording of the article. At the end of the day, though, the writing is professional and clinical, and more importantly the content is rich and well-sourced. I feel comfortable agreeing that this is the best single account of Hurricane Diane available on the internet. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks!! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD NOAA, PD USGS - tweaked tag, own work). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment - I have two minor qualms that should be fixed/addressed before I switch to support.--12george1 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Throughout Pennsylvania, the disaster killed 101 people and caused an estimated $70 million in damage.[nb 2]" - I notice here that you have a link to the note stating that damage figures are in 1955 USD. However, for some reason you mention 1955 USD in this sentence: "Monetary losses totaled $754.7 million (1955 USD), although the inclusion of loss of business". Move "(1955 USD)" to the sentence with the note attached or remove it altogether.
    • "$754,706,000 in damage (1955 USD), of which $600 million was in New England,[2] making it the costliest hurricane in American history. ... This contributed to 1955 being the costliest Atlantic hurricane season on record.[2]" - These two sentences make it seem like Diane is still the costliest hurricane in American history and 1955 AHS still the most expensive.
Overall

This is an excellent article that I enjoyed reading. My only quibble on the overall is the often use of passive voice. Perhaps a few of those sentences can be reworded.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I cut down on the use of passive voice. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

The first sentence reads awkward. I suggest: "Hurricane Diane was a costly 1955 Atlantic Hurricane that struck the eastern coast of the United States. One of three hurricanes to hit North Carolina, during the season, it formed..."--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize that at one time, it was the costliest hurricane, which is a pretty notable stat on the hurricane, one worthy of starting off the article. Just saying "a costly" doesn't emphasize that enough, IMO. Is there a way to fix the awkwardness without removing that piece of information from the first sentence? IMO, the first sentence should be the most important fact, and I think this qualifies. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "costliest at its time" bit can be moved before the last sentence in the last paragraph of the lead.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

Misplaced comma at the end of the first sentence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops :( --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations and background

Second paragraph - the "rivers" after "Farmington" is not necessary since the listed names have already been identified as rivers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Impact

Something is missing from the sentence: "The floods severely infrastructure and affected several summer camps."

Should 'severely' be 'severed'?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should've been "damaged", but I like the ring of "severed infrastructure"! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-Atlantic

Overuse of the word 'occurred' throughout, but especially in the first paragraph. Other words can be used here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph three, last sentence - 'overall' is used twice. Only the first is needed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut a few. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph four, second sentence - emdash needed rather than hyphen.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something is missing from the sentence: "In that city, about 200 people to evacuate their houses along the water."--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added missing word. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I have at the moment. I may make additional comments later.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I replied to the above. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Delegate comment -- First sentence, "Hurricane Diane was the costliest Atlantic hurricane at the time." -- can you explain exactly what "at the time" means (the 1955 season, up until 1955, or what?) because it doesn't read well to me and if I know just what you mean I daresay we could come up with something better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, Hurricane Katrina is currently the costliest hurricane, before that was Hurricane Andrew. For a period from 1955 to 1965, Diane was the costliest hurricane, until it was surpassed by Hurricane Betsy. It's a very small group of storms that have ever been the costliest at one point, and that Diane held it for 13 years is pretty impressive (its successor, the billion dollar Betsy, only held it for 4 years). I can cite that Diane held the record until Betsy, per here. Would that make matters clearer? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, assuming the above is cited somewhere in the article, I think you could simply alter the first sentence to "Hurricane Diane was the costliest Atlantic hurricane of its time". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no prob. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 9 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [39].[reply]

Ambohimanga

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambohimanga is the only cultural World Heritage Site in Madagascar and the best preserved example of a pre-colonial royal city on the island (and possibly one of the best preserved pre-colonial anythings in Sub-Saharan Africa, for that matter). Sister city to an earlier FA article, the Rova of Antananarivo (destroyed in a fire in 1995), the importance of this place both historically and culturally can't be overstated. The topic is widely covered on WP in 25 languages. It's passed GA and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Fire away, folks. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided. Just some minor cleanup and nitpicks:

  • Ooh, I'm not sure how to rename the file. If consistency is key, I'd want to rename it to something like "Madagascar Rova of Ambohimanga - Nanjakana Compound established by Andrianjafy". Can you walk me through the process? In the meantime, I've changed the image summary to be clearer: "Nanjakana compound, established by King Andrianjafy in the late 18th century at the Rova of Ambohimanga in Madagascar" Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ambohimanga.jpg - could you add a bit detail to an English summary description for other re-users, the Italian original doesn't have details? Also Commons categories are missing.
  • Some of the images in the second half of the article have only the name of the building or location as caption. Probably a matter of taste, but consider adding some brief details to each short caption (for example the main function of the depicted building or a notable, captivating fact for context to the article).

A great collection of "own work" images, really helpful for the reader - nice work. GermanJoe (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I lucked out that the government had just recently finished repainting it, so the place is looking at its best in these photos, apart from the cyclone damage. Thank you for taking the time to review it! Much appreciated. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Ranges should consistently use endashes

3 or 4 of the sources do not have ISBN nums. not sure if it's a big deal, but they are good to have in any case. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer this one. The Ellis and Sibree sources lack ISBNs because they were published in 1838, 1867, and 1870, respectively, vastly predating ISBN assignment. They probably have OCLC numbers, which could be included, but I wouldn't consider that a strict requirement. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support- all my concerns are answered. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all points Done. Another fine article, but I have some concerns, mostly about structure, focus and prose. A few examples (I am not sure I will be able to thoroughly check the whole article):

  • first lead para, start of second para => A lot of emphasis on the site's importance. 3 complete sentences and 1 in the second para. Of course the site is very important, but detailing all aspects of this fact in the first lead para feels WP:UNDUE. Trim slightly? Or summarize cultural, national, spiritual and political importance in a more succinct general statement? Also, the last 2 sentences of the second lead para again focus on the site's importance from yet another angle.
  • I'm not quite seeing it that way... I'm stating facts that explain why the site is considered important by the Malagasy and by UNESCO, because it isn't simply an old city - it's noteworthy for a number of reasons, including its history, its architectural distinctiveness, its sacred character and role in pilgrimage, etc. Since all of this is discussed at length in the body, it seems right to summarize it here. But I'm open to suggestions - maybe I'm not quite grasping what you're perceiving here. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He and later rulers in his line continued to regularly inhabit, remodel and conduct royal rituals at Ambohimanga ..." => grammar, "inhabit" and "remodel" sound odd with "at Ambohimanga" (maybe the whole sentence needs to be broken up).
  • Changed to "He and later rulers in his line continued to conduct royal rituals at the site and regularly inhabited and remodeled Ambohimanga until French colonization of the kingdom..."
  • Etymology - just checking, are any additional details about the meaning of "Tsimadilo" available?
  • From the Malagasy I know, it would mean "no tamarind trees" - but there could be other, older meanings, and I haven't found a source that provides an objective translation, unfortunately.
  • "In return he launched a military campaign to capture a significant town under his rival's control, but without success." => Out of scope. How does that event influence the hill site? The article already mentioned, that a lot of fighting was going on. Specific battles would better fit in a history-related article (about the dynasty or Madagascar's history).
  • Fair enough - removed.
  • Layout "Ambohimanga is located in the central highlands of Madagascar, approximately 24 kilometres (15 mi) [east] of the capital city of Antananarivo." => East or northeast? Lead has northeast.
  • Changed to northeast
  • Structure of layout section => The article starts with the specific layout of the hill area, then jumps back and forth from general information for all rovas to specific features of this rova. The whole layout section should be rephrased as facts about this hill in particular, not as general description about all rovas (the first sentence "The rova structure at Ambohimanga follows a traditional design established by the earliest Merina highland settlers by the 15th century." is sufficient to establish that connection) . Also, the information about establishing such sites by nobles looks odd as "layout", maybe move to "history" or a general article about rovas.
  • I agree, your remarks are making me think I can't wait any longer to create a page on Rovas. It was only a matter of time... I will make tweaks and try to create the new page over the next several days.
  • Okay - I've created a page about rovas and removed the sentences I found that talked about how the Ambohimanga features reflect the standards of rovas throughout the highlands. This should be easier to read now.
  • more "Layout" => the Vazimba information is a mix of historical, layout and cultural influence aspects. It's not ideal, but i would move the last 2 sentences to history, where the Vazimba are introduced (Most of the first sentence can be removed as redundant with the history section). The information seems too short to stand on its own elsewhere.
  • I've pruned that piece and moved relevant info to the history section.

Some general suggestions:

  • Prose: i tweaked a few redundant and repetitive phrases, but another look from a native English speaker for flow and grammar would help. Especially complex information is sometimes split across several sub-clauses, and could possibly be phrased clearer and more straightforward.
  • Heh, this is what grad school, academic publishing and multilingualism (native English, though!) has apparently done to my writing style. I'm trying to cram too much into each sentence. Let me go through and see if I can break it up and simplify things over the next few days.
  • Reviewed and made a few changes, which I think have helped a bit with understanding this unfamiliar material.
  • Structure: See section "Layout". If possible, historical, layout, cultural and modern information should not be mixed (sometimes it's unavoidable of course). Splitting the first general layout overview (6 paragraphs) in 2 sections may also help (for example in "Area overview and background information about layout" and "specific details about the site itself", shorter headers needed).
  • I made some changes along these lines, too. For example I moved some content about the features of rovas to the symbolism section to use it more as an illustration of the symbolism rather than a description of typical rova components. I broke up the layout part to include subsections on the villages and natural features, and I think it works much better now.
  • Scope: Judging only from "History" and "Layout" there is a lot of detailed background information in the article. Please double-check if that kind of information is always needed and directly relevant for the reader's understanding of the hill site. Maybe some minor, secondary details can be trimmed or moved to better suited articles.
I do want this to be comprehensive for the site of Ambohimanga, and I want readers to be able to have a basic understanding without needing to click through to too many other articles. Maybe now that I've trimmed the layout section to remove anything not directly related to this site specifically, the article will be clearer. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If related articles exist (like history of Madagascar or about rovas in general), they could be added as "See also" at the start of appropriate sections like "history" and "layout" to help readers navigate to related content. GermanJoe (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I've linked most relevant articles in the body, which I think means they shouldn't also be added in a "see also" section. But as I continue to develop other relevant articles, I can create a section for See also if it becomes appropriate.
  • All points Done (consider them struck ...), thank you. I would have trimmed the "importance" a bit and maybe a few background details more, but that's a matter of taste, i guess. Not withholding my overall supp. for this nice article. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - after another read. Comprehensive and well-written. Concerns, mostly about organization, have been adressed. 1 minor point:

  • Conservation => the second para first half and the fourth para second half seem to be covered by a single source (ref #1 and #37). Not every single sentence needs a reference, but consider adding (repeating) the citation once or twice - especially after factual statements like dates and statistics. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No link to the Commons category, which contains some better images that should be used, especially at the top of the article. Then the doubling-up of images might be justified. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 5 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [40].[reply]

Tintin in the Congo

Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) and Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

We are nominating this for featured article status because it has achieved GA status and we believe that it now also meets FA criteria. After the recent promotion of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets to FA status, we feel that it is time that its successor volume, Tintin in the Congo, did too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is certainly a good candidate for FA status. I do, however, have some severe reservations about one phrase, which I admit has been used word-for-word elsewhere. "According to Tintinologist Harry Thompson, such political ideas were common in Belgium at the time, where "patriotism, Catholicism, strict morality, discipline, and naivety were so inextricably bound together in everyone's lives that right-wing politics were an almost inevitable by-product."" I do not doubt that Mr. Thompson does say this, but it's also undeniably untrue - or at least not quite as authoritative as it is made to seem. Granted that the Catholic Party (and later, but to a lesser extent, Rex) was dominant through almost all this period, it neglects the equally large number of people who voted Liberal, Socialist or Communist. Some acknowledgement that Mr. Thompson's comment refers to a certain class, locality etc. in Belgium in which Hergé mixed at the time would remedy this I'm sure.Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very interesting point Brigade Piron; it is true that Thompson was no historian. Maybe we could think about rephrasing this. Perhaps something like "Conservative ideas revolving around ""patriotism, Catholicism, strict morality, discipline, and naivety" pervaded Herge's milieu" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, I think that would cover it nicely, though I think the politics of the newspaper itself could be helpfully emphasized in the same sentence? Otherwise I think the article would be a good adition to the FA and, to me at least, seems extremely well done.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made the alteration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - fair-use OK some issues (fair-use). A topic like that can have more than 1 fair-use image, but the current usage needs some work:

2 GA-reviews for an article with 5 fair-use images did not even comment on this aspect. But that's a problem outside of FAC and certainly not the nominators' fault. GermanJoe (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking very strong. A few comments:

  • "Muganga pleads mercy" - I've never heard the phrase "plead mercy"- is it definitely standard English? If so, I'm happy for it to stay.
  • Is Coeurs Vaillants notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!
  • I assume it was originally published in French? I ask because you don't mention translation with the syndication.
  • Again, is Henry de Doncker notable?
  • "English publishers stubbornly refused to publish" I think calling it "stubborn" is a little judgemental.
  • "its controversial content" - What content specifically?
  • "while Tintin was portrayed throughout as a Scout, reflecting Hergé's "moral debt" to Wallez" I don't really understand what is meant here.
  • The Simon Kuper quote seems a little tacked-on; I think it would fit a little better in the first paragraph in the section
  • "In November 2011, UK bookseller Waterstones" Funny little point, but at that stage, the shop was still called Waterstone's (with an apostrophe)

The prose is generally excellent, but I am a little concerned about some of the images. (I now see that GermanJoe has raised basically the same concerns above- I endorse Joe's comments. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Generally a great-looking article, and I'm sure I'll be happy to support once these issues are dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the article had no image reviews, now it has two :). No worries, and i agree with deleting the old fair-use versions (i guess, it can be done by adding "subst:furd", even if it's not a reduction). GermanJoe (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments J Milburn! I have linked to Coeurs Vaillants and specified that the story was first serialised in French. I think it worth including the name of Henry De Donkcer, but not worth linking it, as (as far as I am aware), he did nothing else to achieve notability in his life. I agree that "stubbornly" shouldn't be in there (I don't think that it was my addition in the first place), so I've removed it. I've replaced "controversial" with "alleged racist". I've tried to clarify the "reflecting Hergé's "moral debt" to Wallez" sentence. I've moved the Simon Kuper quote as you have suggested, and altered the spelling to "Waterstone's". Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, on the condition that the source check comes back OK. I'm satisfied with the resolution of the issues I raised, confident that the small fixes recommended below can be looked into. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed the two images that the two reviewers above deem to not be Fair Use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - tagged the 2 images and one old version of a valid fair-use for deletion. They are usually only deleted after a week (at 19 August), if you still need them for other purposes and want to change the tag and FUR. GermanJoe (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated status on my review (all OK), could you clarify the minor mismatch 1931 <-> 1932 in the caption and summary of the "Opening" image? GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its 1931; "1932" was probably a silly error on my behalf. Thanks for your review GermanJoe; much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Cliftonian

Resolved comments from Cliftonian
This looks pretty promising. Well done so far! Here are some pointers I hope will help on the way to FA status.
Infobox
Lead
Synopsis
History—background
  • When did Hergé start work at Le Petit Vingtième?
  • "of fictional Belgian reporter Tintin" again, I think "of the fictional Belgian reporter Tintin" is better. I would even favour a reword to "revolving around the exploits of a fictional Belgian reporter named Tintin"
  • "Wallez insisted he write a story set in the Belgian Congo" Did he insist he write the Congolese story instead of the American one, or simply that a Congolese story be produced? If the former, I would reword to "Wallez insisted that he instead write ..."
  • "the Belgian Congo (modern-day Democratic Republic of the Congo), then a part of the Belgian Empire" Kind of clunky; maybe reword to "the Belgian Congo, then a Belgian colony and today the Democratic Republic of the Congo"
  • "Belgian colonial regime" — "regime" is, to me, a loaded word that implies illegitimacy, oppressiveness and general negativity. I think "He believed that Belgian colonialism needed promotion" or "He believed that the Belgian colonial government needed promotion" would do just as well
  • "when memories 'were still fairly fresh' of the publicised 1928 visit to the colony by the Belgian King Albert and Queen Elisabeth" I presume this visit was considered a positive thing? A few words of explanation would help here
  • "He already had some experience in illustrating Congolese scenes; three years previously, Hergé had provided two illustrations for the newspaper that appeared in an article celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Henry Morton Stanley's discovery of the Congo" I would recommend rewording to something like "He already had some experience in depicting Congolese scenes; three years previously, when Le Petit Vingtième [or was it Le XXe Siècle itself?] published an article commemorating 50 years since Henry Morton Stanley's discovery of the Congo, Hergé had provided two illustrations". Or something like that
  • "Hergé depicted a native Congolese individual bowing before a European colonialist" — "individual" is not necessary ("a native Congolese" would do just as well) and why not just "before a white man" or "before a European"?
  • "almost solely on a single source" I think "almost entirely" would be better
  • "he used limited source material to learn about the country and its people" I think the tail end of this ("to learn about the country and its people") could be clipped without affecting the meaning
  • "from the 'Jungle Jim-type serials'" where is this quoted from? what were "Jungle Jim-type serials"? half a sentence of background here and an attribution for the quote would help
    • This is a quote from Lofficier and Lofficier 2002, which is used as a source straight after. If I'm perfectly honest, I don't fully understand what they are, hence why I chose to simply quote the source here, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seeing the Blacks as big children" Why does "Blacks" have a capital "B"? I guess it is in the source like that but I still find it quite jarring
History—Original publication
History—Second version
  • "visually fitted in" maybe "fitted in visually"
  • "the new Tintin stories that he was creating" maybe "his newer Tintin stories"
  • "Tintin in the Congo was one of these books" maybe clarify, "Tintin in the Congo was one of the books that was redrawn"
  • "Hergé cut the page length down from 110 plates to the standard 62 pages, as suggested to him by the publisher Casterman. He also made several changes to the actual story, cutting many of the references to Belgium and colonial rule" maybe merge these two sentences ("Hergé cut the page length down from 110 plates to the standard 62 pages, as suggested to him by the publisher Casterman, and also made several changes to the actual story, cutting many of the references to Belgium and colonial rule")
  • "a more plausible"—is this in the source?
  • "watching a crowd surrounding Tintin as he boards a train and commenting that it "Seems to be a young reporter going to Africa..."" slightly clunky. maybe "watching a crowd surrounding Tintin as he boards a train. "Seems to be a young reporter going to Africa..." one of them comments"
  • "In the same frame, Hergé also inserted illustrated depictions of both himself and his friend Edgar P. Jacobs (who was the colourist who worked with him on the book), as members of the crowd seeing Tintin off." maybe "In the same frame, Hergé inserted illustrated depictions of himself and his friend Edgar P. Jacobs (the book's colourist) into the crowd seeing Tintin off".
History—Later alterations and releases
  • "When The Adventures of Tintin's Scandinavian publishers first released Tintin in the Congo in 1975" Maybe "When Tintin in the Congo was first released by the series' Scandinavian publishers in 1975"
  • "to page 56, where Tintin drills a hole into a live rhinoceros, fills it with dynamite, and blows it up" I don't think they objected to the whole page, did they? Just the scene where this scene occurs. Perhaps clarify to "to a scene on page 56, wherein Tintin drills a hole into a live rhinoceros, fills it with dynamite, and blows it up"
  • "more suitable for their young readership" why not just "more suitable for children"?
  • "the scenes of animal abuse and big game hunting" Describing Tintin's activities in the book as cruelty to animals in Wikipedia's voice could be a NPOV problem. Perhaps just "the scenes of big game hunting" or "come to regret the scenes of big game hunting in the work, which he saw as animal abuse"
  • "stated his belief that, by publishing the original 1931 black and white edition, it would cause less controversy than its later 1946 counterpart would" Maybe "stated his belief that publishing the original 1931 black and white edition would cause less controversy than releasing the 1946 colour version". Or something
  • "the last of The Adventures of Tintin was published in English" I get what you are trying to say but this is not quite clear. Perhaps reword to "an English edition of Tintin in the Congo was finally published in the United Kingdom; despite being the second book in the series, it was the last to be released in English". If the source supports this, of course
  • Does this mean it wasn't translated into English until the 1980s?
  • "appeared in English in 2005" In the UK or the US (or elsewhere?) I guess the UK, right?
Critical analysis
  • does "Scout" need a capital S? If you're referring to Boy Scouts (or similar), why not wikilink?
  • ""nothing spectacular" with some "incredibly cumbersome" monologues, but he thought that the illustrations were "a bit more polished" than in Tintin in the Land of the Soviets" slightly reword—"nothing spectacular, with some "incredibly cumbersome" monologues, but that he thought the illustrations "a bit more polished" than those in Land of the Soviets"
  • "but parodied past European militaries" perhaps "but a parody of past European militaries"
  • "In contrast" perhaps "By contrast"
  • "having no plot or characterisation" clarify that this is his opinion only; "having, he said, no plot or characterisation"
  • "being "poorly drawn" and "largely plot-free"" I would change to "being, in his opinion, "poorly drawn" and "largely plot-free""
  • Farr believed that the 1946 colour version was a poorer product than the black and white original, having lost its "vibrancy" and "atmosphere" with the new depiction of the Congolese landscape being unconvincing, appearing more like a European zoo than the "parched, dusty expanses of reality." I would split this up. "Farr saw the 1946 colour version as poorer than the black and white original; he said it had lost its "vibrancy" and "atmosphere", and that the new depiction of the Congolese landscape was unconvincing and more like a European zoo than the "parched, dusty expanses of reality"."
  • "Commenting on Tintin's exposure of Muganga as a fraud, McCarthy compared the scene to that in which the character of Prospero exposes the magician in William Shakespeare's The Tempest" Why not simplify to "McCarthy compared the scene where Tintin exposes Muganga as a fraud to that in in which the character of Prospero exposes the magician in William Shakespeare's The Tempest"
Criticism—racism
  • "it was only following the collapse of European colonial rule in Africa from the 1950s to the 1970s that typical western attitudes towards Africans became more positive" Perhaps "it was only following the Wind of Change and decolonisation, which occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, that Western attitudes towards indigenous Africans shifted"
  • "Instead, Assouline claimed that Hergé" reword to "Assouline claimed that Hergé instead"
  • "Thompson claimed that the book remained hugely popular in both the Belgian Congo and, after it achieved independence in 1960, in its successor nation-state, Zaire" maybe reword to "According to Thompson, the book remained hugely popular in the Congo even after its independence in 1960". Zaire wasn't the name for another few years, so the old wording is a bit misleading
  • "In July 2007, human rights lawyer David Enright" I would make clear that he's British. "In July 2007, the British human rights lawyer David Enright"
  • "with his black wife and two sons" Mentioning the colour of his wife could be seen as racist. Why not just "with his family" or "with his wife and two sons"?
    • I personally was uneasy with including their racial identity, but the source did so, and I though that it might be of some relevance. However, I'd personally rather remove it, and seeing as you agree, I'll take that as confirmation! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it contained "hideous racial prejudice" by depicting Congolese who "look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles."" why not "it contained "hideous racial prejudice" and depicted Congolese who "look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles".
  • "attempts at banning the book" → "attempts to ban the book"
  • 4000% should be 4,000%
  • "only permitting access by appointment" perhaps "permitting access only by appointment"
  • "the book's publishers Casterman and the Moulinsart company which control Hergé's estate" should be a comma before "which". also, do both the companies control Hergé's estate, or only Moulinsart (I presume the latter?) If so, it should be "controls"
  • "historical authors like Charles Dickens or Jules Verne" I would reword to "historical authors, such as Charles Dickens and Jules Verne"
  • "In February 2012, the court ruled that the book would not be banned. It was "clear that neither the story, nor the fact that it has been put on sale, has a goal to ... create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or humiliating environment" and therefore did not break Belgian law" Maybe reword to "The court ruled in February 2012 that the book would not be banned, deciding that it was "clear that neither the story, nor the fact that it has been put on sale, has a goal to ... create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or humiliating environment", and that it therefore did not break Belgian law"
  • "South African comic writer Anton Kannemeyer has parodied the perceived racist nature of the book in order to highlight the continuing racist undertones of South African society. In his Pappa in Afrika (2010), a satire of Tintin in the Congo, he portrays Tintin as a white Afrikaner with racist views of the indigenous people." A few issues here
Criticism—hunting
  • "Tintin in the Congo shows Tintin taking part in "the wholesale and gratuitous slaughter" of animals by shooting several antelope, killing an ape to wear its skin, ramming a rifle vertically into a crocodile's open mouth, injuring an elephant for ivory, stoning a buffalo, and (in earlier editions) slaying a rhinoceros with dynamite" Who describes it as "the wholesale and gratuitous slaughter" of animals? Better to describe all of these things first, then say "X describes all this as "the wholesale and gratuitous slaughter" of animals"". Also make clear that he doesn't just kill the rhinoceros with dynamite, he actually drills a hole in it, drops the dynamite in and blows it up from the inside. Even for somebody like me this seems a tad excessive!
References
  • Looks okay to me
Categories

I hope this helps on the way. Let me know if there's anything I can do to lend a hand, and well done again for your work so far on this excellent article! —Cliftonian (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cliftonian! Looks like I've got quite a lot to look through here! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say a big thank you to you, Cliftonian, as I think that your comments have made a major positive contribution to this article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's really no problem Midnight, I'm glad you found them helpful and very much like the way the article is shaping up now. I'm happy to back this now for FA, and have supported above. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk

I'll add some comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the summary, why is there a single direct quote form the dialogue? Seems a bit arbitrary: "and a local woman bows down to him, saying, "White man very great! Has good spirits ... White mister is big juju man!"
  • What is the meaning of this: "tarantara, tarantaraboom"
  • "Henry Morton Stanley's discovery of the Congo" ... River?
  • "Hergé biographer Pierre Assouline believed that Hergé's drawing became more assured throughout the story without losing any of its spontaneity." In which version?
  • " Philippe Goddin thought the work to be "more exciting than ever" Ever? In relation to what?
  • the infobox only lists Egmont as the publisher, what about Casterman?
  • "which contain similar stereotypes of non-Caucasian ethnicities." Link to "Caucasian race", or simply write white instead? The term is not widely used outside the US, it seems.
  • I'm not sure. I tried to find something and couldn't. I think it would be enough just to do as you said originally and say it was one of the few not made for TV. Incidentally, I found this feature interesting. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heheh, nice. Around here, they sell tiny Tintin figures for huge sums of money. "Hand painted" for sure, but I bet these are a lot cheaper, and a lot more work gone into making them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there FunkMonk, and thank you for commenting. In regard to the singular quote from the book in the synopsis, I included it so as to give an example of the sort of patronising attitude towards the Congolese that is exhibited throughout the comic. I can understand the argument that it is arbitrary, but I do feel that it has value for the reader. 2) As for "tarantara, tarantaboom", I think it refers to the Abbé making a big scene out of his views on the issue of colonialism in the Congo, but I am not entirely sure. 3) I'm just going by what the source said here, and it stipulates "Congo"; which I assume refers to his discovery of the area that we now call "the Congo" (and not the area of the historical Kingdom of Kongo, which is of course in modern Angola). 4) the first version, presumably. I will make that clearer in the text. 5) In relation to the earlier Adventures of Tintin (i.e. Tintin in the Land of the Soviets). Again, I shall try and make that clearer. 6) Very good point, I shall make the correction there. 7) Very well, "white" it is. 8) The problem is in finding a reference that actually states that; if we have one, then of course I shall use it, but unfortunately I am unaware of one. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look nice. If "tarantara, tarantaraboom" means nothing to any of us, perhaps it won't mean anything to the average English speaking reader? In that case, seems it could be cut without losing anything. But perhaps someone else can chime in? FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed it was supposed to be an onomatopoeic fanfare of trumpets, with a bass drum at the end. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice article, hope there will be more like it. The issues I raised that could be fixed have been fixed. The remaining are mainly due to the sources themselves being unclear, which is not Midnightblueowl's problem. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [41].[reply]

SMS Posen

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final German dreadnought to appear at FAC, this is the end of an era of sorts. Granted, a few more articles will have to come here to bump the topic up to 50%, a project over 6 years in the making. I wrote this article in 2010, when it passed GA and A-class reviews; it has since waited in the queue for FAC. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • Congratulations; feels like the end of an era :) I see I did a lot of editing on this a long time ago, so I'm probably commenting on some of my own work here from back when I was a naive lad, I haven't checked.
  • "night-fighting against British light forces. In the confused night actions ... later in the night": It might be a little better to lose one "night". Maybe "In the confusion" or "In the darkness".
    • "In the confusion" seems best to me.
  • In the third paragraph, "Posen" is the subject of 4 out of 6 sentences.
    • Alternated a few of them.
  • "standard load": I'm not sure what that means pre-1920. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a minor comment:

  • "In 1919, following the scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow, she was ceded to the British as a replacement for the ships that had been sunk." (in the lead) and "On 11 November 1918, the Armistice took effect; according to its terms, eleven battleships and five battlecruisers were to be interned in Scapa Flow for the duration of negotiations for the peace treaty.[37] Posen was not among the ships interned, and she was instead decommissioned on 16 December. The ships in Scapa Flow were eventually scuttled on 21 June 1919, and as a result, Posen and the other battleships not interned were seized as replacements for the ships that had been lost." (in the main text) - this didn't make sense to me until I clicked on the link and found that the Germans had scuttled their own ships - the "eventually" probably threw me off a bit. It would be good to perhaps clarify this in the main text, e.g. "The ships in Scapa flow were scuttled by the German commander to prevent them being divided among the allies," or some phrasing like that? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Generally, this has the same issues I raised with Nassau
    • Namesake citation
      • Added.
    • armor section cite / no deck armor?
      • Added.
    • main/secondary battery links
      • Done.
    • fix rationale for triple reciprocating vs. turbines
      • Added.
  • Complement uncited; also, define 2nd command flagship somewhere.
      • Done.
  • The note and boats in the infobox are uncited.
      • Cut both - neither are particularly important details for the infobox
  • Add the royalty present at the launching and christening. Kirk (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm dependent on MisterBee for that information, since HRS is difficult to get here in the US. I pinged him, but he doesn't appear to be all that active at the moment. Thanks as always, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought it was easier to get that than - isn't there another book we found with that info?
        • Nope - I can't find a copy outside of Germany (well, this one has a copy in the Netherlands). Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't aware no libraries in the US have those books, too bad they are out of print or I'd put in a request that we would acquire them. The Great Naval Game: Britain and Germany in the Age of Empire By Jan Rüger was the other book which is in english and has some of the details, but none for Posen. Kirk (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - You're welcome! In closing, as I mentioned with Nassau the class article needs some attention & hopefully MisterBee can help with those gossipy details. Kirk (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the class articles all need some work - they were among the first articles I wrote in this project, and as such were all sort of experimental. And of course they were written before Staff's books were published, so they're missing those at very least. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments based on HRS volume 6, MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Delegate comment -- Dab link:lnn? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was re-targeted this morning. Thanks for catching that, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 31 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [42].[reply]

Throffer

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support this article and I'll support yours. Oppose this, and I'll get you blocked. That's a throffer: it's a mix of a threat and an offer. This is my first philosophy-related FAC: The term was invented by a philosopher, and while there has been plenty of back-and-forthing in philosophy journals, it has also seen some more practical usage. In this article, I address both the conceptual issues of interest to philosophers, and the practical issues which interest academics from other disciplines. I hope you enjoy the read and I look forward to your thoughts. (Also, I would like to thank The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) for his review at GAC!) J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Stfg

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate that my writing is a long way from perfect, and that I'm sometimes a little wordy. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I couldn't do a more thorough review and help with copy editing. Unfortunately, personal circumstances will prevent me doing so for several weeks yet. I do recomend getting an independent copy edit, though. It would definitely help. --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The norm" is referred to 10 times, but not defined. If it means the situation that would exist if the intervention was not made, then say so. If it doesn't, you see my misunderstanding, so a definition is needed :)
    • I'll look into this. That's not what's meant, but I'll check the source again before clarifying. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad I waited, as I misread your question. I've clarified this now- hopefully it's clearer. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it the quote "the description of the normal and preducable course of events, that is, the course of events which would confront the recipient of the intervention were the intervention not to occur"? I think that's saying what I said. Could something less jargon-like be included in the lede? --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, done. I'm going to have a very close look tomorrow to make sure I'm capturing the subtle differences between Steiner and Stevens- it's pretty clear to me, but I don't know how well I articulate it in the article... J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is poor, and I recommend getting a good copy edit. Just in the first paragraph there are:
    • Right at the start: "In political philosophy, a throffer is a proposal (also called an intervention) that mixes an offer and a threat. A person presents a throffer when they make an offer that is wedded to a threat which will be actualised if the offer is not accepted." This is very verbose. Better: "In political philosophy, a throffer is a proposal (also called an intervention) that mixes an offer and a threat that will be actualised if the offer is not accepted."
    • Next sentence: "The term was first used by political philosopher Hillel Steiner, in the 1970s ..." Why the comma?
    • Next sentence: why "however"? There are several further dubious instances of "however" throughout the article.
    • Next sentence: why "Though"? The fact that "the threatening aspect of a throffer does not need to be obvious, and may not be articulated at all" is unrelated to the fact that the given example is overt.
      • I do not follow. How would you phrase it? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something like: An overt example of a throffer is "Kill this man and receive £100—fail to kill him and I'll kill you." The threat element of a throffer is often less obvious than this and is sometimes not articulated at all. --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indopug has rephrased this a little. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • This rephrase doesn't solve the problem I was alluding to. If I say, "Though there are apples in the supermarket today, I bought fish fingers", my "though" is making a false contrast. The fact that there are apples makes it no more or less likely that one might buy fish fingers. Similarly, the fact that sometimes the threat is non-obvious or not expressed has no bearing on the fact that in your example it's overt. It makes sense to say that some are overt and some are not, but not to say that some are overt though some are not. Apologies for failing to make my comment clear. --Stfg (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I really don't see the contrast as false- the fact that some are not overt contrasts with the fact that the example is overt. "Though my house is rented, not all properties on the street are." Or would you object to that sentence as well? If what you're saying is right, I honestly don't think I've ever been taught how to use the word "though" correctly. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origin and usage: "and he has been cited in place of Steiner". By whom? Why?
    • I've rephrased slightly. Though Taylor himself cites Steiner, I'm assuming that some academics didn't think reading the work of a philosopher they hadn't heard of was worth their while, preferring to use a prominent political scientist. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next sentence: why is controversy scarequoted?
  • Steiner's account: "This means that it is not the case that an offer necessarily exerts less influence ..." Less verbose: "Thus an offer does not necessarily exert less influence ..."
  • Rhodes's account: In the numbered list, inconsistency as to whether the period goes inside or outside the closing quote (and one closing quote missing altogether). (The article generally needs checking for compliance with MOS:LQ.)
    • I've tweaked the way I quote Rhodes- there wasn't actually an inconsistency, as I didn't quote the whole of one of Rhodes's definitions. Hopefully it'll be clearer now. I'm pretty sure the article is MOS:LQ-compliant, though it wasn't at one time. Is there a particular quote you're worried about? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • MOS:LQ is a hornets' nest, but it does say "When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside." I don't see how represents a situation which is preferred to the norm, for example, can be said to "communicate a complete sentence". Whether there's a full stop after "inside" in the source seems to me to be irrelevant. In the article, the sentence containing that text begins with "For an offer", so that whole sentence, not the quoted fragment, is what needs to be terminated with a full stop. I can't see how it can be consistent to put the full stop inside in that case, but outside in (for example) By contrast, if the proposal was a final proposal, it would take the form of "if and only if you fetch the paper for me, you'll get candy". --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was under the impression the period always goes within when the source has a period there, and always goes outside when the source does not. I've now adjusted it so that the period only goes within when "the fragment communicates a complete sentence". That actually makes a lot more sense than how I had previously interpreted the policy, and is closer to how I write outside of Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • New point: talking about the threat being "actuated" feels like jargon. Carried out? Executed? --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the lead—it's clear that all those people in the lead are philosophers of some sort, so no need to describe them as such each time. On second thought, do you even need so many people, I count 13, in the lead? It bulks up the lead and adds little to the lay readers' understanding. Just have the main people and the key ideas.—indopug (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the lead a little as you suggested. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support Comments from Jim Fascinating and readable

  • Purely as a style thing, I don't like the links to publishers and publications in the cited texts. They are unnecessary since isbn/doi/jstor do the same job, pointless when there is only a redlink, and seem vaguely spammy. I'll support if you change and oppose if you don't (: Really, I won't lose sleep if you don't do anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand why you dislike this. I've lost the publisher links and redlinks, as I agree they're not so useful. I've kept the others, but can trim further if you feel it's needed. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Business section, should there be an indication that the rewards and penalties are disproportionately greater than would be expected from a purely piecework system, since the level of production in such a system affects income anyway?
    • Rather than just "we give you 2 coins for every item you produce", it becomes "beat the expectation, you get many coins; fail to meet the expectation, you get few coins". I could expand, but I worry I would be drifting into OR territory- Clancey makes the point as an interesting aside, rather than the subject of heavy analysis- he's a management scientist, not a philosopher.
  • Is the reduction in sentence in return for a guilty plea a throffer? the certainty of conviction set against a lighter penalty — I'm not suggesting you include this, just a thought.
    • Interesting question. I suspect not; if it takes the form of "plead guilty for a lower sentence, or don't plead guilty and face a fair trial", given as you would be facing a fair trial anyway, that's probably an offer. If it took the form of "rather than present you with a fair trial which may result in 5 years in prison, you can plead guilty for a 3 year sentence or we can lock you up for 8 years" then that is pretty clearly a throffer. (I think that's why sex offenders are such an interesting example- once presented with the throffer, they may lose any chance of a "normal" sentence, and get either a shorter or a longer sentence.) Of course, this kind of analysis is going to depend on whose conception of throffers we buy. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, changed to support above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.... compared to the normal course of events which would have come about were no intervention made. - I think it is a "that" not a "which" here....
Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
whether performing and not performing the requested action was more or less preferable than it would have been were no intervention made. - "whether performing or' not performing the requested action was more or less preferable than it would have been were no intervention made."?
Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He concludes that the two are differentiated based on how the consequences of --> " He concludes that the distinction is based on how the consequences of"
Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
when compared with "the norm". -de-quote - also clarify "normal behaviour", is it?
I've left it as it is for now- I clarify what I mean by "the norm" immediately following, and I thought the quotes showed that's what I was doing. Perhaps I could shift the second part of the paragraph (from "Steiner observes" to "to occur") to immediately following "the form of an offer", as this would mean I had defined "the norm" before I first mention it? (See a similar concern above.) J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, my head is swimming with all the conditional clauses - which is I suppose to be expected given the subject matter. I have no idea about the completeness as am unfamiliar with the topic area and will read it through a couple of times more to get my head around it......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, I really appreciate it. I certainly understand that this is a difficult and weird topic; that's exactly what attracted me to it in the first place! I'm afraid I'm moving house (involving flights and ferries...) tomorrow, and I'm attending a several-day conference in a week or so, so I'm going to potentially have very limited access to Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. Any further thoughts you have would be appreciated, and they will be seen to as soon as I am available, but that may be a while. Thanks again! J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, real life has a habit of intruding on these things - more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philosopher John Kleinig sees a throffer as an example of an occasion when an offer alone may be considered coercive. - would the subjects be better switched? The emphasis is funny - is it "Philosopher John Kleinig sees an occasion when an offer alone may be considered coercive as an example of a throffer."?
No, it's definitely right as it's written now. There's a lot of literature out there about whether there is any such thing as a coercive offer (it sounds counter-intuitive, but consider the case of the lecherous millionaire). Kleinig, who's very prominent despite his lack of Wikipedia article, says that the case of throffers proves that there are; a throffer is an example of an offer which is coercive. (I think he's wrong; as far as I'm concerned, a throffer isn't an offer, and so it can't be an example of a coercive offer. But there you go.) J Milburn (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would give some descriptors before the first mentions of some of these people such as Robert Stevens, Michael R. Rhodes and Kristján Kristjánsson, to clarify who they are in context to what they are saying (eg American philosopher - professor etc.)
Stevens and Rhodes are pretty obscure, but Kristjánsson's fairly prominent and definitely notable. Gave a rough introduction to each one. (I didn't mention nationalities- I know that Stevens studied in Australia and Rhodes studied in the US, but then Steiner studied in the UK but is Canadian.) J Milburn (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr.

Lead
  • What is "received wisdom"?
    • It's a term to refer to those things generally assumed to be the case, especially when there's been prior thought on the matter. The OED defines "received" in the following way: "Generally adopted, accepted, or approved as true, authoritative, or standard. Freq. in received opinion, received wisdom." Do you think it's too colloquial? J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did think it was, but it's OK I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several writers have also considered throffers presented to people convicted of crimes, and, in particular, sex offenders, who can face more lenient sentences if they accept medical treatment. ", I'd reword it as "Several writers have also observed that throffers presented to people convicted of crimes, particularly sex offenders, can result in more lenient sentences if they accept medical treatment."
Origin
Throffers and coercion
  • " Joel Feinberg consider the offer coercive" - considers?
  • "For a throffer to be coercive, they claim, the threat must meet three further conditions; firstly, the person making the throffer "must be intentionally bringing the threat to bear on X in order that X do something, Z1", secondly, the person making the throffer must know that "X would not otherwise do or wish to be constrained to do" Z1, and, thirdly, the threat part of the throffer must render "X's option of doing Z1 more eligible in X's eyes than it would otherwise be". " -could use a citation.
If you could.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Practical examples
  • "Such compulsion serves to reintegrate people into the labour market, and serves as a kind of "new paternalism". " -citation needed I think, seems a little OR without.
Could you just add one citation for that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they have multiple implications in regard to coercive mechanisms from implicit curtailments of freedom to ascription of vulnerability. The former would include threats to personal autonomy, instilling fear in regard to a potential loss of freedom, an increase of dependency with mistrust of one's own capabilities to manage the business of living and, hence, an increase of feelings and attitudes of helplessness. The ascription of vulnerability overrides the principle of equality between the partners, constitutes and invasion of privacy and impacts on the positive rights of individuals." -is this a quote?
  • Business section is rather short. Given that it's a broad topic is there not anything else in sources which documents other examples or examples of it in the business world? What about things like advertising or promotion? Can you elaborate a bit if possible?
    • I'd love to, and I have no doubt that there is potentially a lot of interesting analysis to be done here, but I'm afraid the citations just don't exist. Only a few thinkers outside of political philosophy have really started using the term- I've no doubt that in ten years, I could expand this article significantly, but, right now, I don't think that's possible. In my search, I did come across another article by David Wilson (I missed it originally as it was in the popular press, rather than in an academic publication) which I have added to the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, you can only go on what exists of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highly impressed with this piece, clearly meets FA criteria in my opinion, and represents the sort of authoritative professional writing piece we generally lack on wikipedia on such topics. Very interesting to me, not to mention that it illustrates that the Godfather is even more influential than people had thought!! I await your response. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thoughts and kind words. I have just moved house, and so I lack regular Internet access; I'll hopefully be in a position to reply to these comments at the weekend. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- I think this nom has been open long enough, and if there are still some minor points to be resolved we should be able to AGF that they'll be actioned. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 7 September 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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [43].[reply]

George S. Patton

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 19:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!(talk) 19:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by PumpkinSky My initial impression is quite good.
Images...File:Patton Monument West Point in new location 2009 upright.JPG, is on Commons as CC, but as it is of a statue in the USA, where there is no FOP, I think it should be on en wiki as Fair Use. File:Pattonphoto.jpg needs a source. Other images look ok to me.
More later. PumpkinSky talk 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the photo fails fair use criterion #8, which calls for "Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This article: Patton Monument (West Point) tells us that the statue was initially erected in 1950. Very likely it was erected without a copyright notice, which would make it {{PD-US-no notice}}. Or if it was erected with a copyright notice that was never renewed, it would be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. So there's a chance that the statue is PD, but we don't have enough information at present to determine that for sure. That article has two pics of the statue and one of Luxembourg statue. I'm not sure of Luxembourg law. PumpkinSky talk 02:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sculptor was Fraser, his work has come up before on Commons, see this CFD there. Let me poke around some more so we can get all his work properly marked. PumpkinSky talk 02:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This statue does in fact seem to be free of copyright, see CFD on Commons, as Work for hire for the US Gov it'd be PD, it was unveiled in 1950, per the New York Times, 13 May 1951, Most Famous Unknown Sculptor by Aline B. Louchheim, there is no copyright registration record refering to any work of James Earle Fraser in the 1950 volume of the catalogue of copyright entries, Works of Art etc. (available at archive.org here, and no renewal of copyright found (see CFD). I'll fix tags later. Still need a source for the other image. PumpkinSky talk 11:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pinged the original image uploader, hoping he will help. —Ed!(talk) 02:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's been editing and hasn't done squat. You can find it with an image search. PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, someone has come back to me with a source and I've added it in. —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "after the end of the war": after the war
  • "but performed exceptionally in appearance": I don't know what that means.
  • "In his plebe year at West Point": The word has entered the English language (and was never Latin to begin with), so no italics. It's a judgment call whether it's too informal.
  • "Fearing this assignment a dead-end career": I'm not sure what you're saying.
  • "a weapon which would": a weapon that would
  • "Patton remained in Mexico until the end of the year, however, the expedition became hampered by politics. President Woodrow Wilson forbade the expedition from conducting aggressive patrols deeper into Mexico, and so the expedition remained encamped for much of that time.": Patton remained in Mexico until the end of the year. President Woodrow Wilson forbade the expedition from conducting aggressive patrols deeper into Mexico, so they remained encamped for much of that time.
  • This is looking pretty good. I'm sorry, I won't have time for a complete prose review, but I did get down to George_S._Patton#World War I. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made all of the above fixes. Thanks for your review. —Ed!(talk) 01:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Controversial public figures are notoriously difficult to elevate to FA, but this article is well written, intriguing and a thoroughly researched summary of a fascinating character. The article is a fine achievement on what many WWII followers would see as one of the most important articles of all. Good work by all those involved! Ctatkinson (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Not as much commentary as I would have expected by now, and a subject like this really needs a fair few eyes to do it full justice. Bit odd considering the MilHist ACR was reasonably well patronised. Just scanning the Legacy section, I spotted a few places where the prose could be tightened, so if Dan doesn't feel able to continue his walk-through then I'd like to see another copyeditor pick up where he left off. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patton was the military governor of Bavaria after the war before being relieved of this post, then he commanded the Fifteenth United States Army for a time. - last segment of this sentence reads weirdly and needs rephrasing.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better though now the sentences are a little short - will fine tune this.
He also joined the football team but was repeatedly removed after injuring his arm - how was he repeatedly removed? was it one injury or several..?
He injured his arm multiple times and was removed from the team because of it each time. I couldn't figure out a way to write it without seeming redundant. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The injury almost forced Patton out of active service - reword to avoid using "injury" like in the previous sentence. Really it was the wound plus infection, so maybe "episode"?
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two high-profile incidents of Patton slapping subordinates during the Sicily campaign attracted national controversy following the end of the campaign. - I'd change this "slapping" to "striking" - (1) to reduce repetition of the word, and (2) the word "striking" captures the controversy of laying hands on another person in an aggressive manner.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patton railed against cowardice and issued orders to his commanders to discipline any soldier complaining of battle fatigue - I'd change last bolded bit to "making similar complaints" - to vary up the prose a little.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The general public remained mixed on the matter hmm - change to "The general public remained undecided on the matter" or "Views of the general public remained mixed on the matter" or something similar
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Later that month, Patton, Bradley and Eisenhower toured the Merkers salt mine as well as the Ohrdruf concentration camp, an incident which caused Patton great disgust. - confusing - was it the tour that caused disgust or the camp?
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The writing gets better as one goes down the page - I like the legacy section. I think the prose is engaging overall and has the right amount of colour to make an interestingread. Nice article. Can't see any content gaps but am not hugely familiar with the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments. Enjoyed reading it!

  • "Patton was the military governor of Bavaria after the war; he was relieved of this post." - this left me wanting to know a little bit more to make sense of the second half of the sentence. How about "Patton was the military governor of Bavaria after the war; he was relieved of this post because of his public statements on denazification." or something like that?
  • "But his philosophy of leading from the front and his ability to inspire his troops with vulgarity-ridden speeches, such as a famous address to the Third Army, led to new leadership philosophies in the U.S. officer corps." - repetition of philosophy - perhaps second one could be "new leadership approaches"?
  • "uniform and appearance inspections" - I wasn't quite sure if these were different things, or happened together (i.e. did he have uniform inspections, and appearance inspections, or does one have a "uniform and appearance inspection"?)
  • "He personally led a troop of tanks through thick fog " - I wasn't sure you needed "personally" here (a troop of tanks not being particularly large, I couldn't see how else you could lead it!) It is also used earlier in the para I think.
  • "He carried a flashy ivory-handled, Smith & Wesson Model 27 .357 Magnum." - repetition of "flashy" from the previous sentence (where I think it worked better than here)
  • "conspicuous desire... conspicuous actions" - ditto
  • Formatting of citation/reference 155 looks really different to the rest. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 25 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. ^ Gravett, Paul (2013-03-17). "The Principality of Lichtenstein: From 'WHAAM!' to 'WHAAT?'". PaulGravett.com. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference www.bbc.com 20130717-pop-artist-or-copy-cat was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Borrelli, Christopher (2012-05-11). "Connecting the dots on Roy Lichtenstein retrospective at Art Institute: Is appropriation the sincerest form of flattery?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
  4. ^ Steven, Rachael (2013-05-13). "Image Duplicator: pop art's comic debt". Creative Review. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
  5. ^ Childs, Brian (2011-02-02). "Deconstructing Lichtenstein: Source Comics Revealed and Credited". Comics Alliance. Retrieved 2013-06-23.
  6. ^ Priego, Ernesto (2011-04-04). "Whaam! Becoming a Flaming Star". The Comics Grid, Journal of Comics Scholarship. Retrieved 2013-07-28.
  7. ^ "Pop Art". Museum of Modern Art. Retrieved 2013-08-09.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2013&oldid=572155868"