Talk:Ten Dollar Bill (Lichtenstein)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 00:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominator:

I apologize for the delay you have experienced, and I will begin this review shortly. – Quadell (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a strong contender for GA status. Though the article is short, it seems reasonably complete. The lead is quite good. I did a quick search to find the most reliable available sources for this artwork, and I was pleased to see that all of them are already used by the article. I performed a copy-edit of the entire article, making a number of changes for grammar or style, and some of my changes were on the bold side. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert and discuss. In addition, I present the following suggestions and issues.


 * Suggestion: Could I talk you into replacing the word "impacted" in the lead? (I hate that word.) Would "influenced" work?


 * Suggestion: United States ten-dollar bill is linked in the "Description" section, which is fine. Personally, I would also link in the lead and the caption.


 * Issue: The phrase "several artists, namely Pablo Picasso" sounds odd, since Picasso (prolific as he was) was not several artists.


 * Suggestion: Since Lichtenstein was a U.S. artist making art in the U.S. based on U.S. currency, I think it would be appropriate to list inches before centimeters in the work's measurements, both in the infobox and in the description section.
 * Wow, you're right. I messed around with using, and even when you specify "height_imperial=5.5" and "width_imperial=11.3", it calculates the metric units automatically and still gives them first. Ah well. – Quadell (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Issue: Direct quotes always need to be sourced in such a way that it is clear exactly which source provides the quote, especially where the person being quoted is not named in text. In the current version of the article, it is ambiguous where the following direct quotes come from: "jagged, post-cubist", "a Picasso-esque vision of what currency could look like", "humorous" , "established art forms and Americana" , "almost seeming to be forging money" , "schematic head" , "shows him as a planar, anteater-like being" , "hair-do of the young Picasso" , "figure by Francis Picabi" , "a kind of Cubist dollar bill, not a Pop one" , and "The fact it was a ten-dollar-bill at all..." . In each case, it has to be made clear which source provided the quote.
 * This really needs to be resolved, since the GA requirements include following Inline citation, which requires us "to organize the citations to make their relationship between the text and the sources clear". I'll help with what I can, but I don't have access to all the sources. – Quadell (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have struck through the ones that you or I were able to source. Only one remains: the direct quote "jagged, post-cubist" quote apparently comes either from Hendrickson (2006) or Mercurio (2010). I don't know which; neither is available to preview on Amazon or Google books. If you can't determine which source is used, you could choose to remove the direct quote and reword it in your own words. – Quadell (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Issue: I'm not sure what is meant by "as well as the dates 1956/79." If the exact numerals "1956/79", with the slash, appeared on each print, then that's fine. But I can't tell: did only a single year appeared on each, between the years 1956 and 1979? Did both years appear? Since you say "dates" and not "years", is a full date included? I'm confused.
 * Perhaps it means July 9, 1956? Anyway, you've resolved my concern. – Quadell (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Since Hendrickson (2006) is in the bibliography, the work need only be cited in short form in the footnotes, the way Mercurio (2010) is done.
 * Well, it's not an impediment to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Issue: Since this work isn't a painting, the categories need to be modified.
 * I have further refined the categories. – Quadell (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. In response to your concerns:


 * I think influenced would be more appropriate, and I substituted it in.
 * Linked ten-dollar bill in the lead.
 * Replaced "namely" with "especially". Hope this works better.
 * This really bothered me. I like using inches. I'm familiar with them. And it is an American artist and an American work of art. But art isn't set up in a way convenient to me. The infobox is set up so that the dimensions are in centimeters, with inches tacked on for convenience. There's no way I can fix this. And for the sake of consistency, I had to leave the measurements in cm in the description section too.
 * Added who said it in each occurrence I could find.
 * It appears in the exact numerals "1956/79" (see here). I have no clue why the 79 is there, I couldn't find anything about that. But I also changed "dates" to "years", to help reduce confusion.
 * I set up Hendrickson (2006) like that so this article has a similar referencing setup with other Lichtenstein articles. It can easily by changed, though.
 * Corrected categories to what I think are most appropriate.


 * Thanks for the review. I have attempted to address all of your concerns, all of which were very reasonable. I appreciate the copy-edit, as prose is not my strong suit. Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 16:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Only one issue remains. – Quadell (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Fixed now. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This article fulfills all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)