Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Look Mickey/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 GrahamColm 21:16, 24 December 2012 [1].

Look Mickey

edit

Look Mickey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because following successful WP:GAC and WP:PR discussions as well as some further literature research, I feel this may be ready. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Otherwise, sources look good and citation formats are correct. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm probably just a dirty philistine, but I really don't see the appeal of Lichenstein.

Overall, interesting. The writing's a little off in places and minor reorganisation may be required, but this feels around the FA benchmark. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just a couple more thoughts-

I'd feel more comfortable if someone familiar with visual arts were to take a look at the article- have you tried notifying the wikiproject? I've always found them to be very good. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are solid. The three non-free images are clearly justified and the rationales seem complete. The other image is clearly free. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I really like this article; it's very readable, on an interesting subject. I think it is just about there, but the prose needs a little bit of a tidy; repetition and redundancy are the main, albeit minor, problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some descriptor of who/what Alice Goldfarb Marquis would help alot with context -is she an art critic?
ditto Jonathan Fineberg and Ivan Karp.
Lichtenstein made several transformations to the original work: - hmmm, maybe "Lichtenstein made several major changes to the original work:"? "transformations" just sounds really odd to my ears used in this way.....
that'll do fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, Ben-Day dots facilitate the economical production of a variety of colors of the spectrum as dots of a few different colors can be placed proximally to render the appearance of a third color economically. - actually I am not even sure what this sentence is trying to say...and a few words are repeated.
much better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: With the responses to my comments, and to those of Casliber above, I think this now meets the criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pleased to see this here, working through but leaning support from first read. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support. The paragraph on Graham Bader's interpretation (in the middle of the analysis section) is basically the same sentence repeated 3 times, and then again at the beginning of the subsequent quotation. Please make this less redundant and more concise. Kaldari (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one of the redundant sentences and reworded the other. It's still a bit repetitive, but not as bad as it was. I also removed the throw-away comment that the work is "the very engine of its narrative", as this adds nothing to the analysis. Hope you'll agree it's an improvement. Otherwise, the rest of the article seems pretty solid. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where Kaldari is coming from, though I agree with your reversion. I've tried to draw out the the idea somewhat, but am not really happy with this one yet. There are a few instances where the alayisis become vague, which is hardly surprising given that we are talking about pop art, or 1960s art in general. My impression is that you've done really well in avoiding art speak in intrepating the sources, but there are a few tweaks left still. If I list them out here, and there are really only a few, can we go through them one by one. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After I looked more closely, I think his edit is mostly good. However, this is the engine of the narrative. Look Mickey means Look at what I am looking at. Meanwhile, Mickey is looking at the whole spectacle of him not seeing what he should be feeling. I think the other part of the edit is good. But this content describes the meat of the presentation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was misreading the "engine" bit. The problem is that when it says "Graham Bader, describing it", I thought 'it' referred to the painting itself, not the juxtaposition (in which case, it would be a pointless statement). My bad. It is confusing though that the two its in the sentence refer to different things. Kaldari (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the engine bit so that the grammar isn't confusing. Hope that helps. Sorry for my misunderstanding of it earlier. Kaldari (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I don't know if you saw above where I said, a lot of source issues are clear if you look at this 02:13, 2 August 2012 version that had quotes from the original sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, thanks Tony. Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Look_Mickey/archive1&oldid=864112324"