Talk:Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 14:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be taking this one. I've already read the article recently, so I'll be glad to do this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

You clearly know what a GA entails and that is a good thing, however I did find one minor issue. This contentious line, "Some sources relate a story that, while serving as Lichtenstein's superior officer in the army, Novick got him reassigned from menial tasks to roles that leveraged his skills as an artist." is unsourced. The source you provide on the next line says nothing about specifically having him reassigned or leveraging his skills as an artist. It in fact references an issue in High and Low, Modern Art and Popular Culture pages 194-208, but is more than likely an unacceptable "source's source" for that comment. Without being able to verify it in one hop, I think I have to put this on hold as the claim made is not explicitly rendered in the source provided. Other than that, everything seems fine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we require that a reader be presented all offline sources?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I added some detail, regardless.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sort of waiting for the rest of the review. Is this going to be the only concern that you ask me to address or is a further review forthcoming?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It is my only concern. I have gone through the article twice now, once a quick assessment prior to taking it and then my deeper look for errors. I've checked every source that I can find and it does seem to be a good overview of the material. While I would like to see more on the exhibitions of the material I cannot find sources for where it has been displayed, in what collections or meaningful insight into the work's production. I did find this which shows some regret over the decision about his early work... but as for being required for a GA, I don't think I can hold you a specific standard when a quick look shows that such information is not explicitly required or demanded in a GA level work. Perhaps for FA, but I am no expert in art, I found the article to be informative and satisfy my curiosity about its creation, provides examples of the source material and details the differences made so that even an uneducated or unfamiliar reader has gained insight into the work itself. While the major "notability" claim doesn't jump out at you, this work has indeed garnered critical attention and is an important painting from an important artist.

I do not know if you are insinuating that I am missing something here, but the critical commentary is better than the museum tour-guide level. The only issue I could possibly get you on is the "broad" aspect. With the coverage of a single work the scope is limited. With proper context and origin without going into any grandiose or fabricated meaning as to the depiction itself, providing context and stating the depiction concisely. Even the Museum of Contemporary Art doesn't allude to deep meanings.[1] Would it be nice to know where it was displayed, yes, but I doubt I can fault you for not citing it, and it does not seem that the "value" of this.

And just so we are clear, I did read the NFCC issue at Visual Arts, having these images on hand to show what was done and how the image came together is definitely essential to understanding of the work itself. It not just some mere re-compilation either. I think any assertion of the questions, "Was this Lichtenstein’s humorous answer to the critics who attacked his work? Was this his tongue in cheek reaction to others insisting that if he were making real art, he would be pouring the paint on the canvas to make nonobjective designs?" would be a bit OR. If you can find a critical response to those questions, by all means add it, but I cannot find such a source. Just having read the article satisfies my curiousity. And fyi, the external link does not go to the foundation website. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

O.K. For housekeeping, I don't want this to be promoted before it goes up at DYK on Tuesday or Wednesday. I will get to this after that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I assume you are familiar with FA criteria... something which I have no experience with, but if you are dying for an easy pass at that, you could find a RS which answers the foundation's questions and a short history its exhibitions. I know not where you can find such material, but I think that would be part of the standards at FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I will be taking any more Lichtensteins through FAC, if the current one (Whaam!) passes. If you are a fan, you should check out this nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are you ready for this to be passed or not yet? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, please.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• GA passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)