Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!


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

Not promoted owing to nomination at FAC. Ian Rose (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Whaam!

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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this is the most valuable 2-D piece of military themed art in the world (my guess is that it is worth US$70-100 million, since this is Roy Lichtenstein's most famous work and several of his less famous works have sold for $42-56 million in recent years). I am aware that the article has very minimal traditional WP:MILHIST content. However, the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition is September 28. I am shooting for WP:TFA. Thus, I think I need to have this ready for WP:FAC by late July or early August. In order to get it ready, I am hoping to get some feedback. I am hoping to find interest here.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure Tony, I'll be reviewing this soon-ish. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think it is possible that there is any solid "military" content like what types of planes these were, what type of projectile they would have been firing, which war such a battle might have taken place in and such?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, things seem more stylised in the main image but in the original comic book pic it looks like an F-86 Sabre firing at a Mig-15, which would place it in the Korean War. I don't know for certain however if the Sabres were armed with air-to-air rockets in that conflict. In any case, all this is OR unless there are reliable refs out there that connect the artwork with actual aircraft/armament/conflict. At least this might give you something to search on... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is lots of talk online about the planes, but I have yet to find a WP:RS.
 * According to on the talk page, an F-51 Mustang is shooting an F-86 Sabre in Lichtenstein.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the Husky Galore: The source's narrator/shooter is in an F-86 Sabre and Lichtenstein presents a stylized Mustang.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to a blog respondent at Tate.org: The source's narrator/shooter is in an F-86 Sabre and Lichtenstein presents a P-51 Mustang. Meanwhile the source target is a MiG-15, but Lichtenstein depicts something resembling a F-86.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to a John Penfold, who by the way claims that the exact same comic is the source for Blam, Jet Pilot and Brattata: The source has a F-86 Sabre firing at a Mig-15. "The attacking aeroplane in Roy's work is based on a propeller-driven Mustang, taken from another story in the same comic. It jars with me because Roy deleted the propeller, but the tail is too thin to have a jet exhaust. The resulting plane has no visible means of propulsion."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No WP:RS on any of this detail yet.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with those above who suggest that in the painting it's a propellerless Mustang shooting a Sabre -- which of course makes no sense but, hey, this is art, right?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue is whether we can source that belief with an WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)
 * Check for misplaced commas.
 * Are there any in particular that are bothering you?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Today, I added three and removed two.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Although derived from comics, Lichtenstein made numerous alterations to the work, such as creating two panels from one original, which are the subject of significant critical commentary.": I don't follow.
 * I have revised this sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is respected for the temporal, spatial and psychological unity and congruence of the narrative and graphic elements, although the two distinct panels are considered somewhat unharmonious.": I don't follow.
 * This is me trying to sound like an art scholar. I am not sure if the confusion is the three different thoughts at once or that each individually is still confusing. Recalling that the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the text, I suggest looking at the paragraph starting with "Whaam! stands out from Lichtenstein's other...," which has accessible sourcing. I don't think I am too far off from the proper topic, but once you figure out what I am trying to summarize maybe you can help me to clarify it better.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "However, such artwork has since become popular with collectors and is now more widely accepted.": What does "However" contrast with? It doesn't seem to refer to the previous sentence.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "he merely duplicated extant original work": At first I thought "original" meant "his original", but the comic strip wasn't his work.
 * It means "he merely duplicated comics"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "enlarging the William H. Maudlin's ... cartoons": delete "the"
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Although he served, Lichtenstein never saw combat in WWII.": This partially duplicates the first sentence of the paragraph. Delete this sentence, and add "in noncombat roles" to the first sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "began to adapt the imagery and motifs of comic strips": adapt them to what? adopt?
 * I have expanded this thought for clarity and completeness.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lichtenstein in 1958 made drawings": Lichtenstein made drawings in 1958
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "He departed ... to cartoon work": "departed" doesn't take the preposition "to". ", turning to" is one option. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Turned it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on article Talk page: just so it is known, there is an active discussion on the article Whaam! going on here. Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


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