| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to prepare this for a run at WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yomangani's random comments
- It needs a good copyedit.
- The first few sentences of "Background" give the impression of unconnected "facts" rather than any sort of narrative.
- Not sure I get the point, but I have tried to fix it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why do we have the opinion of "some sources" before that of the Lichtenstein Foundation? The opinions as to the sources should be grouped together away from the fact of the creation and not divided into two paragraphs.
- I think I have responded correctly to this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "The work has visible pencil marks and is known for his use of a plastic-bristle dog brush to apply the oil painting onto the canvas" - this isn't why it is known
- rephrased.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Lichtenstein uses minor color modifications." When? Where? Always?
- Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Thus, Lichtenstein's foray into comics led to the abandonment of the topic by Warhol." - not according to the preceding sentence which implies it was Leo Castelli's decision not to show Warhol's works. The Campbell's Soup Cans article makes a much better job of explaining the influence of Lichtenstein and Castelli had on Warhol's decision.
- I have added content from Campbell's.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Another says that the painting resulted from an effort to prove to both his son and his classmates who mocked Roy's painting of hard to fathom abstracts." To prove what to his son and his classmates? Why use his first name here?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Although Lichtenstein would work from comics, after 1961 he abandoned the easily identified ones like Popeye and Mickey Mouse." This is awkwardly phrased and the relevance to the article's subject isn't explicit
- Rephrased.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Lichtenstein made several transformative changes to the original work:..." Can a change be non-transformative?
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "That autumn,..." We don't have a reference for the year unless we go back to the beginning of the article
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "which convinced Karp to represent Lichtenstein weeks later" - it convinced him weeks later or weeks later he represented Lichtenstein?
- Is it clearer now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "while Mickey's small eyes indicate the opposite" - what is the opposite? That he doesn't believe that Donald has caught something big? That's not what he is thinking.
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Lichtenstein's theme relating to vision" - somebody has already flagged this as vague and they are quite right.
- I have expanded upon this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Lichtenstein's painting was based on these elements" - explain how or this is meaningless.
- Is it better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Look Mickey has reflexive elements that call upon Caravaggio's Narcissus." - this is probably the most substantial of the analyses, yet is tucked away without explanation in a caption (I'm not saying I agree with it, but without exposing the argument in the article the reader can't be convinced)
- Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Lichtenstein reflected on this work many years later" - which of the two paintings just mentioned are you referring to?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Lose "-Eric Shanes" at the end of the quote - it is Lichtenstein that you are quoting, not Shanes.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "The revolutionary change in style to now reproduce single comic strip frames in extremely large proportions was regarded as radical" - clunky. Are there non-radical revolutionaries?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Lichtenstein made this work more significant by his slight alterations in terms of "linear clarity and colour" and by making it an aesthetic work as a result of his choice of scale." doesn't belong in the reception section and would bear some explaining
- Section renamed.---TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Lichtenstein disguised a meticulous painting as a virtual reproduction of industrial production of pop culture" - ditto. These last two statements sound like they could be quotes or paraphrases from critics.
- Section renamed.---TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Having a "Analysis and interpretation" section or something similar would probably help the structure or perhaps you could wrap some of that into the description section.
- Section renamed.---TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is a bit superficial for FA at the moment - there is little depth to the analysis or background and only some brief notes of how the work fits into his development as an artist. It may be that there is nothing else written on the work - I'm not a fan, so I can't say - but it feels like there should be. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by Chris857
- This article uses File:Artist's Studio Look Mickey.jpg, which needs a fair use rationale for Look Mickey and not just Artist's Studio—Look Mickey. Chris857 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
