Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 00:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

Drowning Girl

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have developed it fairly well for a work of art. I had initially begun expanding it thinking that the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition is coming up on September 28. However, while expanding the article, I found out that it was also exhibited in April 1963. However, with all the work I have done on the article, I hope to get it to FAC.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I probably should have gotten this advice while this was at PR, but I am looking at book refs online in the footnotes and book refs from print in the references section. How are online book refs suppose to be handled? Do you need retrieved dates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I doubt it. What do retrieval dates tell you anyway thats useful. Ceoil (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I suppose to move the online book refs down to the refs section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Because of the placement of the sentence and the way it is worded it is very unclear what is being said. Okay, let's unpack it: "Although single-panel comic representations depict a moment in time, this is an example of one in which the moment is "pregnant" with drama related to other times." single-panel comic representations is rather unwieldy. The text is referring to a comic-book panel, so I don't know why we don't just say comic-book panel, otherwise the way you've worded it it is unclear whether you have the same meaning as the source or it means Lichtenstein's representation of the comic panel. this is an example of one. Which this are we referring to, Lichtenstein's art or the original comic book panel? Same for one. this is an example of one in which the moment is "pregnant" with drama related to other times. In the original source this refers to comic book panels. My point is that all comic book panels by their very nature are "pregnant", it's a basic tenet of the art-form; the panels work as sequential art, cf Gibbons whom I linked to earlier who makes this very point. Hiding T 16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC) I'm saying the sentence makes no sense. Hiding T 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Circular argument. Not sure how we resolve it. Let's try backing up. Do you understand and acknowledge my concern that the article is currently structured too far from a hmmm, how to put it, okay, from a high art perspective if we accept a high/low art paradigm. ;) Hiding T 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any mention of the controversial nature of the image appropriation. This year there was an exhibition re-appropriating the works, with this work critiqued by Fufu Frauenwahl, . See for a reliable source on the exhibition. I think for the article to be comprehensive it needs to discuss the controversial nature of the art appropriation. Hiding T 08:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The second to last paragraph currently discusses this issue. I will look at your leads to see what further I can add.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what I added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 *  I don't know if you can access the BBC iPlayer but Dave Gibbons notes the dishonest nature of Lichtenstein in and, the latter transcribed at  which includes material from the broadcast show not available in the clip.  Deborah Hirsch also pointed out Lichtenstein's art-theft with her own Drowning Girl of 2010, . Also, where the article states "Thus, Lichtenstein reinforced the non-realist view of comic strips and advertisements, presenting them as artificial images with minimalistic graphic techniques", having looked at the source, that should really read reinforced a non-realist view of comic strips.  The source is arguing that Lichtenstein was emphasizing that these comic book panels are not, as widely assumed, realist, "but highly artificial pictures". I'd challenge that view though, and I'm not sure that argument is a widely held view of comic art. I'm worried the article is too balanced in favour of modern art view of Lichtenstein and the work as opposed to a commercial art one.
 * Also the text states "Although single-panel comic representations depict a moment in time, this is an example of one in which the moment is "pregnant" with drama related to other times." That's not what Steiner is arguing. If you follow the argument from earlier in the book, she's making the point that comics are a narrative art and that comic book panels in general have an imbued sense of narrative and time. The actual quote is "Though the single frames that Lichtenstein borrows from the comics do not represent more than one temporal instant, they do contain the drama of the 'pregnant moment'." Now I can source arguments and theories on comics that demolish the idea that a comics frame represents just one temporal instant so I think it's wrong to present it as a fact. I also think the emphasis in our article is wrong. Steiner is arguing that Lichtenstein borrowed narrative structure from the comics and that the comics form Lichtenstein is borrowing allows Lichtenstein to invoke a number of narratives.  She's arguing that Lichtenstein is, in essence, playing with the formalism of comics. The article is suggesting that, well I'm not sure what the article is suggesting with this sentence.  It doesn't lead into the next sentence very well, and it doesn't really make a point. I'm not even clear if the "this" in "this is an example" refers to the painting or the original panel. Steiner was referring to the original comic book panel, so I think the article should make that clearer and also discuss why it is relevant to the Lichtenstein.
 * I interpret the concept to mean that a comic panel is part of a sequence, but largely an instantaneous part. Thus, Lichtenstein is capturing an instant although we know it is part of a sequence with other contributing factors to the instant being what it is. Lichtenstein has chosen an instant here where we naturally are intrigued by both the past that has led to this instant and the future that will flow from this instant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is what's being argued. Lichtenstein hasn't chosen that moment; she quite clearly states that he has borrowed it, and that is a very important distinction.Hiding T 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of the surrounding content to the "pregnant" issue, I don't see your point about borrowing. Above you mentioned something about earlier in the book. Where are you referring to?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this refer to moments taken from comics?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. can't access the BBC player in the U.S. Can't access Gibbons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read the transcription I linked to? Hiding T 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that some panels are more pregnant than others. They may all be pregnant, but not equally so. This is true in any form of sequential art. For example in a movie there are "suspenseful moments" that are more pregnant than others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You also still haven't explained what the sentences are achieving in the article, as they make no sense in the context of their placement. Hiding T 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made a slight modification. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made another, because Steiner is quite clear that "the single frames that Lichtenstein borrows do not represent more than one temporal instant, they do contain the drama of the 'pregnant moment.'" Hiding T 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, your claim that you can present sources saying that a panel is not an instant could be presented if you wish, but they do not affect the interpretation of this source. The article currently is trying to summarize the found source assuming it is a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But I think that's the very nub of the issue here. I'm not sure these are reliable sources when it comes to discussing what Lichtenstein has done with the source material because none of them seem to understand the source material. I really think the article needs to better balance that gap between modern art theories of Drowning Girl and comic art theories of it, otherwise I think there's a POV issue. Hiding T 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Each of these published books is a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a high art type person. Never been trained. Don't try to pretend. I do take credit for 5 of the 52 articles listed at Category:FA-Class visual arts articles nonetheless. Whether I am high art or a FA vet, is irrelevant. An WP:RS is a well-defined thing. Look at the link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure which link you want me to look at, but WP:RS discusses context and in the context of discussing comic art these sources are not contextually reliable as they are specialised in modern art theory and not comics art theory. Hiding T 15:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you happy with the introduction of a source more authoritative on comics art and the tweaking of a line of text sourced from Grover that inaccurately described the meaning of line art? If so I can strike this concern. Hiding T 18:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with it so I tried this, which I'm still not sure is perfect but it gets closer to the nub of my concern. Hiding T 13:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Also, don't want this comment to get missed. I think we should also credit Ira Schnapp, letterer of the original comic book panel, because Lichtenstein is referencing his craft as well. I'm not sure whether we should note also that the scripter is unknown? Whoever scripted it may also have plotted the panel out? I'm also unsure of whether we should mention that the artwork itself is a cropped portion of what's known in the comics form as a splash page? Hiding T 13:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Where the article states "The image is typical of Lichtenstein's depiction of comic subjects responding to a situation in a cliched manner." I don't have the source, but does it mean comic as in funny or comic as in comic book or comic art? Would it be better to change it to comic book subject or comic art subject for greater clarity of that's what the source intends? Hiding T 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And where the article states "Lanchner wrote of Lichtenstein's translation of a "highly charged" cartoon image into coolly handled art which intensifies the contrast between the two" that's not what Lanchner says. She doesn't state that Lichtenstein translates a "highly charged" cartoon image into coolly handled art, she states "the contrast between highly charged content and coolly handling has been not only preserved but intensified." Lanchner's discussion of anything Lichtenstein adds in his "translation" occurs after the quoted sentence, so we're synthesising here. The contrast was already in the original and is not something Lichtenstein has added, merely intensified. I'm now rather worried that the article is not maintaining a fidelity to its sources, I don't have time to check every source but I am concerned that we're misrepresenting the sources.
 * Lanchner's statement is "the contrast between highly charged content and coolly handling has been not only preserved but intensified." = Contrast X is intensified, with contrast x being between "highly charged content" and "coolly handling". X is thus the contrast between the source content and some noun represented by "coolly handling" which is probably the coolly handled resulting image. What am I saying that is wrong?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are saying that Lanchner stated that Lichtenstein's translation introduced the contrast, which is not supported by the quoted text. Lanchner is quite clear that the contrast already existed and Lichtenstein intensified it. Your text openly states that Lichtenstein's translation created the contrast. I have no idea what you mean when you write "X is thus the contrast between the source content and some noun represented by "coolly handling" which is probably the coolly handled resulting image." That you do not know what the highly charged content and the coolly handling refer to worries me in the sense that I am not sure you can summarise something you do not understand. In any sense, however, the article text is not supported by the text, because Lanchner is quite clear that the contrast pre-dated Lichtenstein and your text states that the contrast was the result of Lichtenstein's translation: "Lanchner wrote of Lichtenstein's translation of a "highly charged" cartoon image into coolly handled art".  Lanchner never writes that Lichtensteain translated something that was highly charged into something that is coolly handled.  The content, namely the plot, is highly charged.  The art, the original comic book art, is coolly handled.  The contrast, as Lanchner states, already exists in the comic book.  All she credits Lichtenstein with is intensifying the contrast between the narrative and the art.  She's asserting that Lichtenstein, through his "image duplication", has basically turned up the angst in the narrative and turned up the pop art or ligne claire in the art. I hope that helps explain why we are currently contradicting the source.  Hiding T 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * With "Lanchner wrote of Lichtenstein's translation of a "highly charged" cartoon image into coolly handled art which intensifies the contrast between the two." I believe myself to be saying that the translation intensifies the (pre-existing) contrast in what I have included in the article. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that Lichtenstein has only intensified a contrast it must have existed prior to his involvement. So I see what you are saying. The "coolly handling" refers to something in the original work that contrasted with the "highly charged" content. The question is whether this is the narrative (as she is thinking it in the instant) vs the graphic or is this a temporal contrast of the emotions the contributed to the instant of the comic art vs that instant. Now that I look more closely, her being fed up by earlier actions could be the "highly charged" content and the execution of the panel's instant could be the coolly handling. She could be saying that Lichtenstein intensified this contrast by editing the narrative down to the most "highly charged" distillate of the original presentation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this change address your concern?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Herge has been cited as an influence on the work, see . Hiding T 18:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Change incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between a letterer and a scripter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A letterer writes the speech balloons. A scripter would be the writer, so a writer would write the scrip that would be given to the artist to draw.  It's impossible to know whose hand is behind the composition of the original image, as the artist may have been given a free hand or he may have been directed quite tightly to draw this specific scene. The letterer would generally have a free hand over the placement of balloons, but artists would draw to guide placement, leaving areas of the page blanker than others.  The lettering would be in the hand of the letterer.
 * Did you write what you meant to write? First you have a letterer doing the writing. Then you say a scripter would be the writer as if he would be, but isn't. Then you say a writer writes the scrip [sic] given to the artist to draw, which suggests that the artist who puts the narrative content into the panel is the artist not the letterer, scripter or writer. I am a bit lost here as to what you mean. Here are my understanding at this point. A person conceives the narrative content for the speech balloons (scripter, letterer, or writer not sure). Another person physically inserts the narrative into the panel by hand (scripter, letterer, or writer not sure).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the tipo. In my past conversations with you Tony I have always found you very pleasant. Typically someone conceives the story and passes it to an editor in scripted form, somewhat like a movie script, which is never seen by the buying public. This script is assigned to an artist who creates the art for the comic. This artist does not do any lettering, which means he does not write any text onto the art he produces such as speech ballons or narrative captions.  Instead he passes the art to a letterer who will place the balloons and captions and write in the desired dialogue indicated in the script. A typical DC Comics comic book is the work of many hands. So Lichtenstein has reproduced not only Abruzzo's work in his piece, he has also reproduced Schnapp's as well.  Have a read of Ira Schnapp, that may help? Schnapp should be credited to avoid biasing in favour of Abruzzo. My point about the scripter being unknow is this: Lichtenstein hasn't composed this image, he has re-composed it.  Abruzzo has not necessarily composed it either, though, he may have been directed to create this composition by an unknown hand, therefore I believe we should state that the scripter, the original composer of this piece, is unknown. Hiding T 13:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a WP:RS to credit this Schnapp chap?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the comic itself credits him, but also Graphic Design Basics, Amy E. Arntson Cengage Learning, 2006 ISBN 0495006939. Is that good enough? Hiding T 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am getting the following message at that source: "You either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limits for this book." However, I am not aware of having looked at this book before.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't help you with that, but the text was there when I looked. I never understand how these reviews are supposed to work, to be honest. I think I'll just edit the article. Hiding T 13:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this splash page issue?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this good enough, it's a blog from the Times Union. . Otherwise, um....Will Eisner defines a Splash Page in Comics & Sequential Art, 1985, p62. I have a copy on my shelf, I hope you can see the relevant quote in this link . Does any of that help? If I've missed something you want me to reply to above please let me know at my talk, I fiond it hard to navigate these threads when they become convoluted these days, my apologies. Hiding T 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean when you say the "the artwork itself is a cropped portion of what's known in the comics form as a splash page"? Are you saying that the panel I am presenting as the source is one panel from the splash page or that panel is a cropped version of some larger artistic effort?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't work out where to drop this in, but above you made this change to address some of my concerns. Aren't we supposed to avoid words like "others"? Also, the issue of credit and compensation only comes up in the lede, shouldn't the lede reflect the article? Also, not sure if you can access the article mentioned at this link, I can't but it may mention Drowning Girl. I also think that the addition you've made to this pair of sentences, placing the sentence in the middle, muddies the meaning of the whole and especially the last sentence.  "such artwork" could now refer to Lichtenstein's or to the original comic book art.  I think it should also add that the original artists are now more widely credited where known, although Lichtenstein himself never did so. Although the MOMA attribution is awful, they credit the original piece as being a cover. Hiding T 16:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Source: Coplans (ed.). p. 15. "Lichtenstein's lovers and heroes are full of pathos and at the same time, ironically, fully exposed in their shallowness. They reveal themselves to be programmed: Each responds to a give situation with standard modes of behavior typical of the American culture, whether it is the girl who has quarreled with her lover or is about to tearfully drown (Drowning Girl, 1963)..."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, this version has a lot of quotes from the sources in the footnotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * also, with "The waves are intended to "recall Hokusai as well as the biomorphic forms of Arp and Miro;"[48] just as the source comics were intended to." The statement that the source comics were intended to recall Hokusai, is that from a sourced interview with the creators of the original art or is that an opinion advanced by either the writer of the book or Lichtenstein? If it is opinion, we should avoid stating it as fact. Again I don;t have the source but would it be okay for you to check and amend as required? Hiding T 18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Source: Coplans (ed.). p. 26. "...the form of the waves in Drowning Girl are reconstructed to recall Hokusai as well as the biomorphic forms of Arp and Miró..."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think the material I added to the Whaam! peer review from Beaty's book could be of use here? Hiding T 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an Irv Novick derivation. I have added that content to Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, where it is more relevant because those sentiments were written in the context of Novick-derived works, especially the two that were named.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking specifically of the Hajdu quote: "No comics publisher would have hired Lichtenstein - he wasn't good enough." The general opinion of artists working in the comics medium is that Lichtenstein's art was poor; his line art had no variation or character. I can't remember if it is in Beaty, but someone makes the point that while Lichtenstein recomposes the art and may improve on the composition as a museum piece, his craft in terms of varying the thickness of the line was poor and is worse than the original sources. Hiding T 07:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless that was a comment resulting from a conversation about this piece specifically or about his series of girls, it should be in the main biography and not here, IMO. It might also go well in Look Mickey as a counterpoint to the quote about painting Mickey Mouse vs. cartoons. I think I will use it there and Artist's Studio—Look Mickey.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see that quote was in the context of his romance works. I will work it into the article.--14:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, after the incorporation noted above regarding the Hadju quote "No comics publisher would have hired Lichtenstein - he wasn't good enough." is made. The article then will be comprehensive to my eyes, taking in both modern art and comics art views, and thus also balanced between the views. The images are necessary to understand the points made in the article. It looks to be well-researched, well structured and the lede sums the article. Citation format is not my strong point so someone else may want to check that area, and while I have had issues with the prose I think they've been resolved. So to my eye it will meet the criteria once the outstanding quotation is resolved. Hiding T 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated the point. In fact, I would welcome additional comic art feedback on this particular work or his romance work on "Girls". I don't really have as much negative feedback as might appear balanced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have the issue of The Comics Journal with his obituary, sadly. I've looked through what I have and passed on everything I've found. Oh, hang on, I forgot about ImageText. They have an interview with Bill Griffith, . Griffith gets into the "appropriation", discusses how his view changed and notes that Lichtenstein's art draws attention to the tension between high art and low art, in the sense that a fine artist can "elevate" one to the other, which implies the thing that has been elevated wasn't originally high art.  That was also a thrust of Beaty's. Then there's also an essay on William Blake, by Matthew Ritchie that argues Lichtenstein was one of many who helped break down the barriers between comics art and fine art.  It is a valid point if tangential in his essay which is more about examining Blake from a comics art tradition. Hope any of that helps. Hiding T 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to add any of that, but that is all stuff that should go in his bio. My thinking is that that is mostly more of the same. I was hoping for content that may raise issues detracting from the work to balance out the page more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492
 * Question: Does "Pop art" need to be capitalized? The Pop art article itself seems to be a bit inconsistent re: capitalization. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In both of my prior pop art FAs (Campbell's Soup Cans & Look Mickey), it has been lower case throughout. I will change it at Drowning Girl.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: "—Lichtenstein, [2]" looks funny to me. Perhaps remove the comma and space, leaving just the name and ref? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a template. I had to get slick to make the requested change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Another Believer ( Talk )
 * Addressed comments moved to talk page


 * Support on prose. Enough killed bytes over a point which, in the long run, is not likely to make a difference. "Adopted" works fine, is easily understandable for all readers, and supported by the source. Good job, Tony. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The article reads too much like a fan magazine, this line attributed to Wright, Carol V The work is considered[weasel words] one of the highlights of the core collection of the Museum of Modern Art is just too much absurdity, sorry but I can't support this article...Modernist (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence why I've been stressing attribution from the earliest review. It is quite possible that reviews are overwhelmingly positive, but we can't state opinions as objective facts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While Drowning Girl might well be a highlight of the collection; I questioned the sources (Carol V Wright) qualifications. Who is this person? An art critic? An art historian?...Modernist (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I view her ( and ) as an author who is authoritative (or is it authoritarian) on topics related to New York. Is the title New York author sufficient for attribution in this case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * She has little if any expertise to evaluate the 'core' of the collection of the Museum of Modern Art. One of the greatest collections of Modern Art in the Western world. Either find a genuine expert or deal with my strong oppose...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Lichtenstein might be a highlight of the Pop art holdings in the museum; which is one subsection of the museum - however the Modern collection is abundant in European, American, South American art and is essentially an international and historical institution - and this work is most definitely not at it's core...Modernist (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How unusual is this list of MoMA highlights: "Dali’s ‘The Persistence of Memory’, Warhol’s soup cans, Lichenstein’s ‘Drowning Girl’, Pollock’s ‘Full Fathom Five’, Van Gogh’s ‘Starry Night’, and a couple of dozen Picassos"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What about this list: Van Gogh’s The Starry Night (1889), Monet’s Reflection of Clouds on the Water Lily Pond (1920), Rousseau’s The Dream (1910), Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon (1907), Dali’s Persistence of Memory (1931), Mondrion’s [sic] Broadway Boogie-Woogie (1942-1943), Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans, Matisse’s The Dance (1909), Chagall’s I and the Village (1911), Pollock’s Number 31 (1950), John’s Flag (1954-1955), Wyeth’s Christina’s World (1948), Lichtenstein’s Drowning Girl (1963), and Klimt’s Hope II (1907-1908).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I interpretting this list correctly by saying MoMA chief curator John Elderfield feels a "synoptic overview of 20th-century art" from the MoMA includes Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, van Gogh's Starry Night, Matisse's Dance (First Version) and Lichtenstein's Drowning Girl.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are blogs Tony. Find an expert (art critic, art historian) with sources; or modify Wright's assertion. It's arguably a highlight of the Moderns pop art holdings, however as I am saying it's inaccurate to assert that it is at the core of the museums collection. John Elderfield is an excellent choice...Modernist (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Use John's list!..Modernist (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Drop Wright's assertion of 'core' collection, and I'll consider dropping my oppose...Modernist (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support...Modernist (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (fair-use, PD-old-100, PD-ineligible). Sources and authors provided. Just one question and comment:
 * File:Roy_Lichtenstein_Drowning_Girl.jpg - fair-use OK as infobox image.
 * File:Drowning_Girl_source.jpg - fair-use OK to show the artistic source of the article topic. Just checking: is there more info available about this image? For example, why did Lichtenstein choose this specific panel as inspiration? What aspects of the image were especially intriguing for him? What did he like or dislike about it? Some of this may be covered in other sections, but the "history" with only one sentence seems a bit short about it.
 * The background section has general information that he said, "I was very excited about, and very interested in, the highly emotional content yet detached impersonal handling of love, hate, war, etc., in these cartoon images."
 * This is a prime example of "emotional content".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that the text says he did not choose this panel above all others. He also produced a work named Hopeless from the same exact work. It isn't as if he singled out this panel from the work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Roy_Lichtenstein_Drowning_Girl_narrative.jpg - OK. Strictly speaking the text as phrase could still be copyrighted. However short text snippets and quotations are generally accepted usage.
 * Honestly, the main reason for including the image was to have an image for WP:TFA. We could just go with the wave if necessary however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's about TFA and the current handling of "no fair use for TFAs ever" is still active, i'd advise to use the wave image anyway. Even if the cropped image may be technically OK, it could be seen as undermining this rule by some. But TFA is not my area of expertise, probably best to discuss the case there. GermanJoe (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa2.jpg - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources review
 * Ref 3: book needs ISBN. You can usually pick up missing isbns by going to the Worldcat site. This book is listed there.
 * thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 9: Why is the link in the middle of the book's title?
 * These are the parameters in the template that yielded this output: |title=Pop Artists | series = Artists in Profile--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you get weird results by following templates too literally. You have to adapt; in this case I'd forget the "series" parameter and say title= Pop Artists (Artist in Profile Series)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 12: Author details missing (they are there in the source)
 * added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 19: How does this source support the text statement cited to it?
 * Are you suggesting that I relink Hopeless (Roy Lichtenstein) here? The first part of the sentence says that this comic book issue was the source for Drowning Girl. 19 shows it was the source for Hopeless, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The words to which this citation relates are at the end of the sentence: "Drowning Girl is derived from Tony Abruzzo and Ira Schnapp's splash page from "Run for Love!" in Secret Hearts, no. 83 (November 1962), DC Comics,[16][17][18] which is the same source that inspired Hopeless."[19] I can't see how the source supports the assertion made - can you indicate how it does? Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have rephrased it to clarify that I only mean it is from the same issue (not the same page).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 23: A similar query arises here. The source says "This print/poster was published to announce Lichtenstein's exhibition at Leo Castelli Gallery, September 28 October 24, 1963," which is not quite the same as the text.
 * I was rephrasing the content to avoid copyvio. By marketing materials I mean posters and mailers. Offline ref 24 also supports this fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe I was being overzealous there! Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs 35, 36 and 37 are to the same page of the same book, and could be combined
 * Note that 35 and 36 each have quotes from this page (they have been challenged in discussions), whereas the three instances of 37 just point to the page. How would you suggest merging these and retaining the quotations?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "just point to the page", but I'm not insisting you combine them, just suggesting it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When I say "just point to the page", I mean that the 3 WP:ICs that use 37 do not refer to a specific quote like the ones for 35 and 36. I am just not sure how to merge these three citations without it being a bit confusing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 43: I am not sure that the "Encyclopedia of Art" source justifies its grandiose title. Is this a recognised "expert" site?
 * I can't say for certain that it is an WP:RS. Should I remove it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have doubts about it and can't defend it then, yes, it should go. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 44: Pub year and ISBN missing - you can find them at Worldcat
 * I got it from the publisher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 48: Text does not reflect source. Your text says: "John Elderfield, Museum of Modern Art chief curator at the time of its 2004 expansion, feels a "synoptic overview of 20th-century art" from the MoMA includes Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, van Gogh's Starry Night, Matisse's Dance and Lichtenstein's Drowning Girl." The source says: "According to MoMA chief curator John Elderfield, the show is a "synoptic overview of 20th-century art" -- a dignified way to refer to this "greatest hits" survey that every undergrad meets in art history class. Some masterpieces, notably Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, were too delicate or too valuable to make the transatlantic trip. Others, like van Gogh's Starry Night, Matisse's Dance (First Version) and Lichtenstein's Drowning Girl, are shown here for the first time outside the U.S.". That's completely different. Elderfield doesn't "feel" anything; he merely describes his show as "a synoptic overview of 20th-century art". The rest of the source is the writer's own comments.
 * Rephrased.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I bet the sources I am now pointing to are working from a press release from Elderfield.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK. My spotchecking has been very limited, but apart from what's mentioned above revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

All sources issues resolved to my satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of general comments: I haven't read the text in detail, but I noticed a few things:
 * Second paragraph of Background section: first mention of subject should be by name, not pronoun
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of the General atmosphere contains "it should be noted that" – an editorial directive that is inappropriate POV
 * O.k.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I  wonder about the title "General atmosphere"; what is this wording trying to convey? Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I could roll this into the Background section. It is just trying to say what the general reception of Lichtenstein was at the time. I have already gotten feedback that this does not belong in the reception to the work section. Didn't know what to do with it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe "context" would be a better word than "atmosphere"? Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I see a few occurrences of "the The" and "bouyancy" [sic], and this formatting problem: Bader, Graham, ed. (2009), Roy Lichtenstein: October Files, The MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262-01258-4 Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBader2009.. Graham Colm (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the "the The"s, but i don't understand the bouyancy issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this an WP:ENGVAR problem? I spell it as buoyancy. And you haven't fixed this: Bader, Graham, ed. (2009), Roy Lichtenstein: October Files, The MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262-01258-4 Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBader2009. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Buoyancy fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the Bader issue (refs 21 and 24 are relevant, I think).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Errm... Sorry Tony, it seems to be a citation template issue that will not be visible to most of our readers who  have not installed the script. Often these templates cause more problems than they are worth :-) It's close to my bedtime, I will read the article once more in the morning with a view to closing. In the meantime, please continue with your other nomination. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.