Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Scream/archive1

The Scream

This article failed it's first FAC nomination. Since then, most of the objections have been addressed. The article is well written, and contains everything you can say about the topic. There are very few articles in the FA list on fine arts, this one would help. Deepak 21:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written and interesting article. Good work with the photos too. Seems to have addressed most of the issues in the previous FAC well. Harro5 23:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Object. I'm concerned about this sentence, refering to the "inflatable" Scream:

Critics will observe that by taking the figure out of its context (the landscape), Fishbone has destroyed the unity of Munch's work, thereby neutralizing its expressive force.

Is this the author's judgement, or is this a judgement from a known critic? If so, could we attribute this opinion to a specific person? (Otherwise, I don't have a problem with this article, & very much enjoyed reading it.) -- llywrch 02:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence changed to "critics have observed" and added a reference. Deepak 22:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but the reference is not clearly linked to the comment, & (if I'm looking at the right one), it is nothing more than an unsigned web page on Earthlink with no clue to the qualifications of the writer: she/he could be a highly respected critic with well- earned tenure -- or just a dog. -- llywrch 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, there are some things that I think need to be changed. First the run on of these sentences imply that the litography plate has been stolen

Munch later also translated the picture into a lithograph (shown below), so the image could be reproduced in reviews all over the world. However, the original is currently missing from the Munch Museum, having been stolen by art thieves in August 2004.

Besides the discussion in the lead, there is no discussion of why Munch produced multiple copies of the Scream, and no mention of the predecessor Deranged Mood at Sunset 1892 and Anxiety 1894, both are set in the same scene as the scream. The lithograph should possibly be covered in more detail, why did Munch want to distribute the image? Also, there is no mention of the exhibitions where the painting was shown that were closed down or criticisms of the work at the time it was first shown.

Where you have links to reference material I think you should use one of the footnote systems like Footnote 3 or Footnote 4.

--nixie 05:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Far more can be said in all areas of the article. --Oldak Quill 12:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question Aren't all of those pictures violations of copyright? Munch died in 1944, so if we count 70 years from his death, copyright would end in 2014. And the picture of thieves taking the piccis is copyrighted to an anonymous photographer - so wouldn't copyright expire 70 years after it was taken, ie in 2074? The same goes for all the piccis on Edvard Munch, jguk 13:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The US copyright law covering visual arts for life + 70 years only applies to works made after 1978, so the scream is definately life+50 years and is therefore PD, hence the inflatable scream and other tacky merchandise. As for the image of the theft, if AP bought it off the anon bystander AP probably own the copyright and this iamge should be listed as a copyvio. --nixie 23:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object: I think this is a well-written article, but I agree with some of the objections above (such as nixie's need for slightly more coverage of Munch context). I may support if some good edits are made in that vein; in the meantime, I have gone ahead and refactored the reference material in Footnote3 fashion. --DanielNuyu 00:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]