Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1

Whaam!
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is my second attempt to prepare one of Roy Lichtenstein's most important works for a September 28th 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. Unfortunately, with Drowning Girl while cleaning it up I found that it had also exhibited in April 1963. Thus, we need another work for the 50th anniversary. This is Lichtenstein's most important work, making it a good choice for the effort.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is for sure a very important paining, and one of my favourites. Thank you for taking it on. Any c/e quibbles I have I can look after myself. As a very broad comment, I think your not seeing the wood for the trees, and this might be reflective of the sources your choosing. I added this  context, and this is what I'd like to see more of in your Lichtenstein articles; art historical context, and some understanding for the reader at what the man was trying to express. Without wantingt to be insufferable, this is a format for an FA for a piece of modern art that might be a helpful guide. The scolarship is out there. Im very hopeful for this article that said; keep on going Tony. Ceoil (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I forgot to respond that I feel that I have now added much of the desired content some time ago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The article needs some balance which could be provided from the Dave Gibbons interview. Discussing this work specifcally Gibbons states he believes Lichtenstein to be a "‘copycat’. In music for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune or perform somebody else’s tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick." Hiding T 16:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hiding T 20:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Gibbons also compares it badly with the original, calling it flat: "This to me looks flat and abstracted, to the point of view that to my eyes it’s confusing. Whereas the original has got a three-dimensional quality to it, it’s got a spontaneity to it, it’s got an excitement to it, and a way of involving the viewer that this one lacks." These quotes would increase the comprehensive nature of the article. Hiding T 16:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Incoporated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hiding T 20:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, Lichtenstein copied this from two or three images, per Paul Gravett and David Barsalou the attacking plane is in All American Men Of War #90, from the story ‘Wingmate of Doom’, panel 3 on page 11, drawn by Jerry Grandenetti and the small exploding plane in the distance is thought to be from the same issue of All-American Men of War, panel 3 on page 3 of the Russ Heath-illustrated story ‘Aces Wild’. Hiding T 16:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hiding T 20:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We should also reflect the fact that one of the original artists, Irv Novick, was Lichtenstein's superior officer in the army and actually got him moved from grunt work to artistic duties. Lichtenstein's lack of credit for Novick's original image is then better contextualised. Hiding T 16:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Bart Beaty, Comics versus Art, although he sources it to Steve Duin & Mike Richardson's Comics between the Panels, p.332. Talking about Novick: Hiding T 19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "He had one curious encounter at camp. He dropped by the chief of staff's quarters one night and found a young soldier sitting on a bunk, crying like a baby. 'He said he was an artist,' Novick remembered, 'and he had to do menial work, like cleaning up the officer's quarters. Hiding T 19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "'It turned out to be Roy Lichtenstein. The work he showed me was rather poor and academic.' Feeling sorry for the kid, Novick got on the horn and got him a better job. 'Later on, one of the first things he started copying was my work. He didn't come into his own, doing things that were worthwhile, until he started doing things that were less academic than that. He was just making large copies of the cartoons I had drawn and painting them.'" Beaty contextualises this by pointing out that Novick is interviewed after Lichtenstein is famous, and Beaty points to motive that may colour the anecdote, whereas I think Richardson may just record the anecdote. Hiding T 19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Beaty also looks at comics and art and why a comic is not 'art' but a painting is. "Harold Rosenberg summed up the distinction between pop and comics when he suggested that the difference between a comic strip of Mickey Mouse and a Lichtenstein painting of the same was art history, or that Lichtenstein paints with the idea of the museum in mind." That's from Harold Rosenberg, 'Art and Its Double', Artworks and Packages, p. 13-14. He also quotes Everett Raymond Kinstler: "No comics publisher would have hired Lichtenstein - he wasn't good enough." Beaty sources that to David Hajdu, The Ten Cent Plague: The Great Comic Book Scare and How It Changed America p. 163. I hope you can use all of that, it offers a different view of Lichtenstein and I think it would enhance the article. Good luck! Hiding T 19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added this to Look Mickey rather than this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I love this painting. But - sorry to be blunt - I don't love this article. I believe that a good part of the content that should be here is in place, the research has obviously been done, but the style makes it near-impossible to make out. I'm sorry, but to my eye, the piece has so many problems that I hardly know where to start. A few basic suggestions:
 * run (or preferably, do) a grammar check; stuff like "the perhaps the best known example" should be easy enough to pick up
 * rewrite in plain English. The article cites Adrian Searle; that article might give an idea of the kind of plain language that communicates effectively and can also be considered "encylopaedic" in wikipedia terms.
 * as an impromptu example, I suggest rewriting the first sentence of the lead to read something like : "Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by pop artist Roy Lichtenstein. It is an iconic piece of pop art, and one of Lichtenstein's best-known works. It follows the comic-strip themes of his earlier work, and is part of a series on war that he worked on between 1962 and 1964. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in 1963, and purchased by the Tate Gallery in 1966.[1][2]"
 * Most of that text was at the suggestion of . I have addressed this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * reduce the number of quotations; they make reading the text into a kind of endurance test
 * reduce the amount of fanciful language linking the quotations; the article says: "Adrian Searle of The Guardian credited the oversized portion of Whaam!'s narrative content that gives the work its title with accurately describing its graphic content saying ..."; but Adrian Searle (sorry to mention him again, I'm not really completely fixated) doesn't say anything like that at all, or indeed discuss the painting in any way in his article, which is just a run-down of Lichtenstein in general and the Tate retrospective in particular.
 * I am not understanding the quibble in terms of your example presented.
 * Searle: "Whaam! goes the painting, as the rocket hits, and the enemy fighter explodes in a livid, comic-book roar."
 * Article: Adrian Searle of The Guardian credited the oversized portion of Whaam!'s narrative content that gives the work its title with accurately describing its graphic content saying "[Quote above]".
 * I am interpretting his quote and presenting it. Essentially "Whaam! goes the painting" means The large letters that say Whaam accurately describes the action of the painting. The rest of the quote further endorses my interpretation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Use short sentences.
 * Start them with the subject.
 * That will get the message across.
 * Afterthought: how about dividing the reception section into positive and negative, or appreciative and critical? Also there seems to be material in the background section that really belongs in reception ("Whaam! is widely described as Lichtenstein's most famous work"). Background could also be divided into background and, say, history; or indeed "the painting", starting from "Whaam! adapts a comic-book panel ...". Breaking it up into more sections might make it easier to read.
 * Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish you all the best with the article, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how I am progressing but maybe this copyedit by User:Ewulp helped address some of your editorial concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He extended the copyedit. I hope this addressed many of your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me begin close to the beginning. The second sentence in the lead reads: "It is an iconic piece of pop art and is widely regarded as one of his finest and most notable works." I would reduce the sentence to "It is an iconic piece." The sentence before notes that it falls into the pop art tradition. That it is "iconic" is important, and all that is necessary. We don't need to tell the reader that it is "widely regarded as one of his finest and most notable works." Recent art is often reevaluated, and this painting is young in the history of art. "Finest and most notable works" is a value judgement that can be weighed against countless counterarguments about the quality or significance of the work. And the reader is not really helped by being told that it is "good". For most recent art, value judgements are extraneous, at least in the context of a Wikipedia article. Many of the iconic works of the twentieth century are provocative and off-putting. To say that an off-putting work of art is "one of his finest and most notable works" is simply to challenge the sensibilities of some readers in unproductive ways. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a bit flabbergasted at why you would move the discussion here after I told you I was going to close this PR any day. When I do close this I will invite you to the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony—when I posted here you told me to post here. I am critical of the article. Certainly there are some good points. I think Wikipedia needs more articles on individual pieces of art. But I take exception to some of the ways you've gone about explicating works of art for the public via Wikipedia. Let me try to be open-ended and concise. An article about a work of art need not nail down every sourced piece of information that can be found for a work of art; the important stuff is actually harder to find than the unimportant stuff. The article is good where it reveals interesting insights. I find it interesting that Lichtenstein chose to divide what was one panel in a comic into two panels in his painting. Unfortunately the inclusion of oodles of material of dubious importance swamps the more interesting and vital parts. Were sophisticated art world people "divided on whether Lichtenstein's comics-based work was art"? I'm sure some were. But does that belong in the lead? I think that the last paragraph in the lead does not belong there. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)