|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Look Mickey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Look Mickey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 21, 2013.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 10, 2015.|
concern about copyvio in footnotes
I'm concerned that so much of the article is quotes, especially the exceptionally long footnote quotes. I think such quoting is unnecessary, as the editor should be able to write most information in his own words, leaving the "quotes" for standout phrases. Most of the authors quoted here are also quotes in many of the articles in a series on Lichtenstein's work, meaning substantial chunks of their work on Lichtenstein has been quoted. Why buy their books?
I've brought this up on other articles in the series. e.g. Yellow and Green Brushstrokes, Girl with Ball, Whaam!, Bedroom at Arles, Girl in Mirror, Golf Ball, Little Big Painting, Drowning Girl, Bedroom at Arles, As I Opened Fire, Artist's Studio—Look Mickey
Unlike some of the other articles, the authors with long quotes are more various. In the others, usually Diane Waldman is substantially quoted. Here there is only one from her:
[long quotes redacted. If they are a copyvio in the article, they are a copyvio here. Besides, what on earth could be the point of copying them here in the first place? They need to be removed from the article as well--that would be a good start. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)]
"Look Mickey is considered self-referential in the sense that the artist is painting something through which the viewer may see elements of the artist." - Tony, this is prob my last remaining point on the page, does the source go into much more detail on this, it seems a bit vagure to me. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Who owned the painting?
Interesting article, but there is a point which I think needs clarification. The article says that the painting was exhibited in a show in February 1962, where all works had pre-sold, implying that Look Mickey was pre-sold as well; it later says that it was bequeathed to the National Gallery of Art after Lichtenstein's death, which creates the impression that the painter kept it. (There is also the painting's inclusion in Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, although I don't take that as meaning that the work was literally hanging in his studio.) Which is it? Waltham, The Duke of 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Look Mickey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507132503/http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.