Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Look Mickey/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Look Mickey edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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)[reply]

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.
  • 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.
  • "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
  • "Lichtenstein uses minor color modifications." When? Where? Always?
  • "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.
  • "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?
  • "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
  • "Lichtenstein made several transformative changes to the original work:..." Can a change be non-transformative?
  • "That autumn,..." We don't have a reference for the year unless we go back to the beginning of the article
  • "which convinced Karp to represent Lichtenstein weeks later" - it convinced him weeks later or weeks later he represented Lichtenstein?
  • "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.
  • "Lichtenstein's theme relating to vision" - somebody has already flagged this as vague and they are quite right.
  • "Lichtenstein's painting was based on these elements" - explain how or this is meaningless.
  • "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)
  • "Lichtenstein reflected on this work many years later" - which of the two paintings just mentioned are you referring to?
  • Lose "-Eric Shanes" at the end of the quote - it is Lichtenstein that you are quoting, not Shanes.
  • "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?
  • "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
  • "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.
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
Comments by Chris857
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Look_Mickey/archive1&oldid=521406083"