Talk:Mermaid (Lichtenstein)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll review this. (I had no idea this particular public art existed.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * lede
 * suggest: "a 1979 outdoor sculpture by Roy Lichtenstein, composed of etc.
 * It seems like you have already made this change, which I approve.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "it represents his first commission for public art" - not sure about this wording - suggestion "his first public art commission"? (maybe what is there is ok.)
 * This one too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Detail
 * First pararagraph way too long and complex. Quotes are hard to detect.
 * I have rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A little clumpsy, as it starts with The Mermaid, then switches to a long rather complex quote, which is preceded with the widged in info "Like almost all 20 of his sculptures produced up to 1980, this ..."
 * Suggest the info be laid out more simply.
 * e.g. He had create 20 sculpures by 1980. Like is past sculpures there were several stages of development (for this one). These can be seen a the website and maybe add a general description to prepare the reader for the info in the long quote [then quote here, as the quote suddenly interjects extreme detail in a paragraph that is mostly general - and I'm not sure what it's actually saying - maybe I have to go to the webside..]
 * Then a new paragraph: "The original $100,000 etc.
 * New paragraph "Although Lichtenstein produced ... etc.
 * In other words, try to clump topics together, and not flip back and forth between Lichtenstein and his history, the description of this particular work, etc. in one big paragraph
 * Or maybe, state with the commission, then go into the details. In any case, break up the info into related bits. And although the quote is meant to explain itself, it doesn't to me.
 * This seems natural to me. In fact after seeing "First pararagraph way too long and complex." that is what I did. Then I saw all your direction on how to reorganize it. I hope it looks O.K. now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I'm being confusing. Feel free to ask me questions.

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(more)


 * Should something be stated as fact (his first piece of public work) in the lede, that is debated in the article body?
 * added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is regarded as the second public art piece in the city of Miami Beach." - why the passive voice?
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Between the article and the notes, there are extensive quotes, and not much material or analysis in the words of a wikipedia editor, that shows the writer understands the topic in addition to the quotes. Perhaps consultation with a wiki editor familiar with art would permit less extensive quoting.MathewTownsend (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In this article none of the quote are long. I.e., here are the quotes:
 * "...began as a line drawing, in elevation; proceeded to full-scale blacktape layout; and then to a magna-painted, handcrafted wooden maquette, which established the mold for the casting...in bronze by lost-wax process."
 * "absurdity of creating sculptures from such painterly forms."
 * "painterly sculpture"
 * "dazzlingly silly and provocative"
 * "cleaning, corrosion removal and stabilization of its ferrous metal elements, compounding of the painted surfaces, concrete repair, and partial repainting"
 * Which of these is lost upon the reader without "consultation with a wiki editor familiar with art"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this review. I will look closer at your comments later this evening.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio?

 * reply
 * I asked for advice on the issue on Moonriddengirl's talkpage: I agree with the feedback comments there, aside from possible copyvio issues.
 * What are you pointing me too. The discussion I see says that there is no consensus on establishing a policy. Is there a policy somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The quotes are too long. What is the need to use the exact wording? There's no reason that the information can't be conveyed in ordinary prose versus quoting the opinions of others.
 * Some of the quotes have no purpose. An example given was Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein); the quote appears to have no purpose as it seems to refer to a general history and not necessarily the specific work in question, it is not clear whose words are being quoted etc.
 * If the words are not Lichtenstein's what is important about the exact wording? Why can't you paraphrase?
 * Too much of the article content is conveyed through quotes, lessening the percentage that is written by wikipedia.


 * You seem to have reduced the amount of quotation in the article considerably, which is good. There are still questions about the quotes that are used: e.g. why does that exact wording have to be used? What is the importance of the quote?
 * And I'm still uncomfortable regarding the extensive quotes in the references. Especially since in the many, many articles written on Lichtenstein, there seem to be extensive quotes from the same few people, so that wikipedia is appropriating large chunks of comments of those four commentators on Lichtenstein. A summary of their views would be better and would show that you understand the material enough to paraphrase.
 * Is there a policy against quotes in the footnotes? I have checked out about 20 Lichtenstein and Pop Art books. I intended to pursue GA with several and FA with a few. Had it not been for the backlog elimination drive, just the GAs could have taken months, by which time I would not have the books to review to respond to concerns.  I still think two or three have a shot at FA and depending on what content I may be able to add from the publication regarding the current Art Institute of Chicago show and a few other sources, maybe as many as 5 or 6. I have the quotes in the footnotes so that I will be able to respond to concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But if this is allowable on wikipedia, even if questionable, I will pass the article.

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * addendum
 * This quote: "his reputation lies completely within the fine arts. He has shown no interest in reaching a wider audience, even on appropriate occasions. For instance, his Mermaid (1979), an outdoor sculpture installed in Miami Beach as part of the Art in Public Places program, is not notable for addressing a wider audience than usual. The Mermaid with a hank of blonde hair, bouncing on three waves under the stylized metal rays of the sun, is geographically apt, but it has more to do with Lichtenstein's paintings of the preceding two years than with the community. This is not said as a complaint, but as a corrective to the idea that an artist who quotes the mass media can only have mass audiences in mind."
 * why can't this be put in your own words? Lawrence Alloway's creative expression is being appropriated.
 * It is not in the text? What are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Proposal Let's take this page to Copyright problems. What do you think of that idea?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply We could do that. However I don't think it will address all the issues here. One is that you uses several different, large quotes of an author's work in several different articles. e.g. Alloway, Lawrence so that altogether you've quotes quite a bit of his. You say you've checked several books out of the library and intend to use them in  articles on Lichtenstein's work. You are writing quite a few articles on his work, so by the time you're done, if you quote at length as you've been doing, you will have quote quite extensively from these books, which will total, seems to me quite possibly a copyright problem.
 * Basically, I only know that I have two remaining books to go through, but I have 20 books checked out right now from the library. You can check them out for 3 weeks and renew them 3 times. Thus, I can at most keep them at most 12 weeks. I intend to pursue WP:FAC with some of the ones I can get to over 6KB of readable prose. I am thinking Look Mickey, Drowning Girl and Brushstrokes series are about the right length already. When the Art Institute puts out its book in July, I am hoping I might find a bit more content. There is one other book that I have yet to incorporate. I found it looking for the Loran image at Portrait of Madame Cézanne. It has some content for some Lichtenstein articles.  With the backlog elimination drive, I am too hectic trying to get to 25 reviews and respond to my own noms to go through an FAC.  After it ends, I will probably start nominating some Lichtenstein works. Yes I have quoted in many of the aritcles and in some books I may have copied a few pages of content in total.  The copyright guys will not have trouble with the issue and we will get a broad set of responses by experts on the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read Moonriddengirl's comments. Quotes in footnotes are subject to the same copyright laws as that in the text of the article.
 * I see her comments that she is concerned but does not have time to resolve this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because the quotes are in footnotes doesn't mean wikipedia is exempt from copyright laws. For example, Moonriddengirl gave this as an example of copyright issues she had to clean up. Note that the copyright problems are in the footnotes, which resemble what you are doing in your Lichtenstein articles.
 * That example is different, because the content is available online. My problem, is I need to store the source quotes somewhere for a few months until I can go to FAC. Lichtenstein will either be my first or second FACs after the GAN elimination drive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another issue is the point of the quote. As someone said elsewhere, "Quotes should only be used with a purpose. For example, providing someone else's subjective opinion (e.g. Mermaid is regarded as "dazzlingly silly and provocative".[4]). I have cited Criteria 4 (Neutral) if they are weighing too heavily on one perspective and 3b if the quote is leading to excessive details. You can also use Criteria 1a (clear and concise prose) if it is really excessive or bad."


 * Moonriddengirl suggested tagging your Lichtenstein articles with non-free and was going to do it with Look Mickey but didn't have time. Perhaps I need to ask you what is the point of each quote is and if they add excessive detail. A quote such as "dazzlingly silly and provocative" seems warranted. But much of the quoting is not of that nature and could easily be put in your own words. And mostly do, in my opinion, add excessive detail. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me about each quote here or each quote at Look Mickey?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This article. This is the one I'm reviewing. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the quotes in the text or the quotes in the text and footnotes?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both. I take it you haven't read Moonriddengirl's page nor looked at the example she gave as having bad copyvio problem. Her example was an article much like yours, with vast quotes in the footnotes. Why do you think footnotes don't count? You're still appropriating the copyrighted work of others without a Fair use rationale. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as how most of the conversation has taken place here, I will reply here as well. Is there some sort of guideline that is against using quotes in footnotes? I think it gives the reader a good insight if they would like to know the full quote of the text being used in the article. I don't quite understand how this could be a copyright violation. They are all properly sourced. But if it's agreed upon to not use them, they should definitely be removed.  Statυs (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is copyvio, where ever it occurs. Are you aware of wikipedia copyright policies? It doesn't matter whether it's in the footnotes or the body of the article, its still copyvio when the quotes are excessive, too detailed, unwarranted, etc. Please look at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations MathewTownsend (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite understand how exactly it would be copyvio, but then I went over this again. I agree that the quotes in the footnotes are too extensive and should be removed.  Statυs (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I think the other articles need to be delisted or cleaned up:

Big Painting No. 6
 * Artist's Studio—Look Mickey
 * Look Mickey
 * Golf Ball
 * Torpedo...Los!
 * Whaam!
 * Girl in Mirror
 * I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!
 * Girl with Ball
 * Drowning Girl
 * I have followed Moonriddengirl's directions on Portrait of Madame Cézanne. Unless it's cleaned up, I'll run a GAR on it. The problem is more massive, as the editor of these articles is using the same sources for a great many articles, so altogether, the copyrighted work of few authors is being quoted even more extensively if you look across articles. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony, I strongly advise you remove the quotations in the footnotes from the above articles.  Statυs (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see how the GAR goes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Sorry! GA articles must be careful not to overuse non-free material. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * This quote could easily be written by the editor:"...began as a line drawing, in elevation; proceeded to full-scale blacktape layout; and then to a magna-painted, handcrafted wooden maquette, which established the mold for the casting...in bronze by lost-wax process." Quotes are for stand out langugage that makes a point because rewording it would lose the gist. That is not the case here. For example, if the quote were: "a hank of blonde hair, bouncing on three waves under the stylized metal rays of the sun" - that would be wording that can't be conveyed by paraphrasing.
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * The quotes from copyrighted works in the footnotes are overly long. When copyrighted text must be quoted, see  non-free content guidelines. Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * The overly long quotes in the footnotes are a distraction. They are too detailed, and many seem unrelated to the article text in the depth of the specifics they go into.
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fail.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fail.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fail.