Talk:Chain Reaction (sculpture)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chain Reaction (sculpture). 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/20140112031226/http://www.local8now.com/news/thismorning/headlines/Aging_anti-war_sculpture_prompts_explosive_debate_162557016.html to http://www.local8now.com/news/thismorning/headlines/Aging_anti-war_sculpture_prompts_explosive_debate_162557016.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have reverted the recent changes made to this article as the changes were major, and given the edit summary, made no sense. This is currently a stable, Good Article. Please share any concerns you might have with the content here for discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

 * This edit and this edit seems to ignore WP:LEAD as well as break the GA criteria of summarizing an article. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Background

 * This edit deletes the majority of the background section and replaces it with a short history section, ignoring all of the work Conrad performed that informed and contributed to his conception of the sculpture over many decades, instead summarizing his life’s work in several words, “known for x work”. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings Veriditas, and thank you for initiating this discussion: I deleted the first 2 paragraphs under "Background" because of irrelevance to the SCULPTURE - this is an article about the actual public artwork, and the 2 paragraphs are exclusively about Conrad's time at The Post and at the LAT, which I see is duplicated in the separate article on Paul Conrad himself, so you should be encouraged. I had hoped the 2 paragraphs contained even an intro to the sculpture, for ex., how the sculpture emerged from any of his specific cartoons, but such doesn't exist.  If you can make this connection explicit and concise (between his cartoons and the sculpture), then Bravo!  Otherwise, those 2 paragraphs don't have a role there, but properly apply to the article on Conrad himself.  I'll wait to see if you wish to make such a connection before I consider reverting.  Best, TashaB 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)TashaB  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)
 * I’m afraid I must strongly disagree with your assessment. All of this material is deeply connected and was written exclusively for this topic. I am also the primary and sole author of Paul Conrad, so I know exactly what material appears in that article.  To better understand your position, are you actually claiming that Conrad’s work as a cartoonist and deep concern with the topic of nuclear war and disarmament, is not connected to this sculpture, a sculpture based specifically on one of his cartoons and the theme of nuclear war and disarmament?  Because that makes no sense. All of the content is connected directly to the topic of the sculpture.  If you would like to break down your enormous changes edit by edit, I am happy to do so, and I already attempted to do this by using subsections on this page.  This article has been vetted by multiple editors and has gone through several different reviews, and it has been stable for many years.  I’m afraid you will have to be very specific with pointing out content and sources that are problematic for us to continue. You’ve made many claims up above that are directly contradicted by the current article.  For example, you very strangely claimed “I had hoped the 2 paragraphs contained even an intro to the sculpture, for ex., how the sculpture emerged from any of his specific cartoons, but such doesn't exist.”  The design section specifically has that information.  Again, I’m having great difficulty following your firehose of objections.  Feel free to break them down, bullet by bullet, so I can directly address them, otherwise I see nothing requiring any action. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Summary of the above: Background of the artist is directly relevant to the sculpture and is supported by the sources. As the sources make clear, the artist was known primarily as an editorial cartoonist first. Conrad’s time as a newspaper cartoonist directly influenced the work. The background on the design is currently located in a separate “design” section. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding so fully. I see that indeed, as I re-re-read the article, the data I was looking to "connect to" in the "Background" section was embedded in the later "Design" section, after "Proposal" and "Location."  I think the "Design" info fits right after "Background" and before the "Proposal".  That way, it's clear exactly what cartoon Conrad was moving forward with for the model of the sculpture, that then leads to the Proposal, right?  What do you think? Respectfully, TashaB 04:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)TashB  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs) UTC)
 * If what you are proposing is simply moving one section to another, then please give it a try and let’s see how it works. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, will do.TashaB 19:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)