Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TonyTheTiger (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 13 August 2013 (→Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Whaam!

Whaam! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2

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

Reiterating the opening paragraph from Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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)

• Weak weak oppose 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Prose:

• In Description: "One of Lichtenstein's series of war images, it combines "brilliant color and narrative situation"." Do we need to use a direct quote for this sort of observation, which doesn't appear to require much in the way of analysis. If so, shouldn't it be attributed in the text?
• "These dots, which were invented by Benjamin Day to "recreate gradations of shading", were considered Lichtenstein's "signature method"." Dots are not a method, but perhaps their use is?
• The image caption "Whaam!'s text balloon was likely written by Robert Kanigher." can be interpreted to imply that Kanigher actually did the lettering in Lichtenstein's work. Is there a better way to word this? Perhaps calling Kaniger "likely the original author" of the text or something along those lines?
• In Reception: "According to Douglas Coupland, the World Book Encyclopedia had pictures of Warhol's Monroes and Whaam! in the Pop art entry for illustration." Do we need to cite someone citing the illustrations in an encyclopedia entry? Can't we just reference the encyclopedia, since there's no interpretation required to judge what images illustrate the article?
• "One view is that...". Whose view?
• "It has been observed that the "simplicity and outdatedness were ripe for being mocked"." This is cited to a Paul Gravett source; are those his words? There's no direct attribution of the quote, and "It has been observed" is a weak construction in general. I've actually noted several of these, and I'm going to stop doing so at this point; in general, I'm not extremely fond of direct quotes that don't identify the speaker, doubly so if it seems that we could get the point across without directly quoting.
• In general, the Reception section seems to wander a bit, with several short paragraphs that don't flow together in a particularly recognizable manner. I'm not even sure all of this is strictly under the right heading. The bit from Bradford Collins (and a few other parts, bit that especially) feels more like analysis than reception, and it's not immediately evident why his opinion matters to begin with (he's not wikilinked, and the claim seems ... odd to me, as an outside reader).

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 both so that I can understand what the matter is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference formatting:

• You do not use a consistent format for the display of secondary authors. "Horace Clifford Westermann" in Note 2 versus "Boswell, John" in Note 41. There are multiple examples of each, so I'm not sure what standard is 'right' here.
• Sometimes you wikilink publishers, sometimes not. I can't discern any criteria that determines whether you do or not, which means it probably needs looked at.
• All of your notes citing Waldman specify "War Comics, 1962–64"; is there a reason you cite this (chapter, presumably) in the notes, but not in the reference since you don't use anything else from that source?
• You have three notes pointing to the Bader reference. Notes 25 and 29 fully cite the book, while Note 49 uses an abbreviated format due to the work being included in the references below.
• From Note 44: "(2013-05-13 (Spring 2013))". Since we have a specific publication date, is the season necessary? Basically, I'm looking for a way to avoid nesting parentheses like that.
• Note 53, should circa be abbreviated?
• Note 54: is the 3rd edition revising author relevant to the 4th edition? I don't know how the book lists the authorship, so maybe. In any case, there's a comma in Prather's parenthetical note, but not in Wheeler's. Regardless, edition should probably be abbreviated, as it is in the other edition notes. And at least some databases seem to use commas in the title instead of bullets; cover design notwithstanding, is the book officially titled with bullets?
• In Note 58, I assume the indication that Evans is the editor is merely improperly formatted, rather than the book being authored by a "Mike Ed Evans".
• Most periodical sources have their titles linked, but there are some that aren't, such as The Times in Note 66 and The Burlington Magazine in 67. Frankly, Note 66 doesn't seem to match the reference format used elsewhere at all, including date formatting. Perhaps there's some template use differences here? I didn't look at the markup.
• The Coplans reference is lacking an ISBN, which I believe to be 978-0713907612.

Other:

• Do we need an EL to both the Tate's main page for the work and for its catalog entry? The former links to the latter.

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)