Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Torpedo...Los!


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Torpedo...Los!

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is one of my better MILHIST contributions that has not had an A-class review. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Comments: G'day, I made a couple of minor tweaks, but unfortunately I'm out of my comfort zone with this. Art is not something I know much about (I won't be able to review for content). But anyway, I will have a go at reviewing...
 * some of the information in the infobox doesn't seem to be in the prose, for instance the dimensions and that it is "pop art";
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The original source had dialog related to repeated torpedoing of the same ship" --> "The original source had dialog related to the repeated torpedoing of the same ship";
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "He retained the source's "clumsiness" of the secondary figure..." --> ""He retained the source's "clumsiness" in how the secondary figure is presented..."?
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "This exemplifies Lichtenstein's theme relating to vision". It doesn't seem clear to me what "This" refers to;
 * Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The humorous aspect of this in 1963..." Is humorous the right word here? One imagines that artists paint pictures about events in the past all the time...
 * How about ironic?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is better. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * in the Notes, "Waldman. . pp. 96–97, 104." I'm uncertain as to the necessity of the two full stops together;
 * This seems to be something to do with the cite template. I had a play but couldn't fix it. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * date format inconsistency, for instance "March 31, 2013" v. "2012-05-09"
 * The one that is different is an automated footnote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. No worries, then. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * in the Notes "Lichtenstein Foundation" v. "Roy Lichtenstein Foundation" (Notes # 3 & 4). Are these the same organisation, or different?
 * Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * places of publication for the References?
 * I never add these. I don't currently possess the books and can not produce this now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries. You can probably get them from Worldcat.org if you wanted to, but so long as it is consistent it doesn't matter. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ISBN for the Coplans ref? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've add my support above as you have addressed most of my comments, but hopefully someone with more knowledge of art comes along to give you a more thorough review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check - both images are non-free. Why do they have two licensing tags each? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They are different and applicable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.