Talk:Chain Reaction (sculpture)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Viriditas in topic Recent changes
 | Chain Reaction (sculpture) has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 10, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Chain Reaction, an anti-nuclear war sculpture, was anonymously funded by Joan Kroc? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
|
Archives: 1 |
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chain Reaction (sculpture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112031226/http://www.local8now.com/news/thismorning/headlines/Aging_anti-war_sculpture_prompts_explosive_debate_162557016.html to http://www.local8now.com/news/thismorning/headlines/Aging_anti-war_sculpture_prompts_explosive_debate_162557016.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Recent changes edit
I have reverted the recent changes made to this article as the changes were major, and given the edit summary, made no sense. This is currently a stable, Good Article. Please share any concerns you might have with the content here for discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Lead edit
- This edit and this edit seems to ignore WP:LEAD as well as break the GA criteria of summarizing an article. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Background edit
- This edit deletes the majority of the background section and replaces it with a short history section, ignoring all of the work Conrad performed that informed and contributed to his conception of the sculpture over many decades, instead summarizing his life’s work in several words, “known for x work”. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Greetings Veriditas, and thank you for initiating this discussion: I deleted the first 2 paragraphs under "Background" because of irrelevance to the SCULPTURE - this is an article about the actual public artwork, and the 2 paragraphs are exclusively about Conrad's time at The Post and at the LAT, which I see is duplicated in the separate article on Paul Conrad himself, so you should be encouraged. I had hoped the 2 paragraphs contained even an intro to the sculpture, for ex., how the sculpture emerged from any of his specific cartoons, but such doesn't exist. If you can make this connection explicit and concise (between his cartoons and the sculpture), then Bravo! Otherwise, those 2 paragraphs don't have a role there, but properly apply to the article on Conrad himself. I'll wait to see if you wish to make such a connection before I consider reverting. Best, TashaB 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)TashaB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)
- I’m afraid I must strongly disagree with your assessment. All of this material is deeply connected and was written exclusively for this topic. I am also the primary and sole author of Paul Conrad, so I know exactly what material appears in that article. To better understand your position, are you actually claiming that Conrad’s work as a cartoonist and deep concern with the topic of nuclear war and disarmament, is not connected to this sculpture, a sculpture based specifically on one of his cartoons and the theme of nuclear war and disarmament? Because that makes no sense. All of the content is connected directly to the topic of the sculpture. If you would like to break down your enormous changes edit by edit, I am happy to do so, and I already attempted to do this by using subsections on this page. This article has been vetted by multiple editors and has gone through several different reviews, and it has been stable for many years. I’m afraid you will have to be very specific with pointing out content and sources that are problematic for us to continue. You’ve made many claims up above that are directly contradicted by the current article. For example, you very strangely claimed “I had hoped the 2 paragraphs contained even an intro to the sculpture, for ex., how the sculpture emerged from any of his specific cartoons, but such doesn't exist.” The design section specifically has that information. Again, I’m having great difficulty following your firehose of objections. Feel free to break them down, bullet by bullet, so I can directly address them, otherwise I see nothing requiring any action. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Summary of the above: Background of the artist is directly relevant to the sculpture and is supported by the sources. As the sources make clear, the artist was known primarily as an editorial cartoonist first. Conrad’s time as a newspaper cartoonist directly influenced the work. The background on the design is currently located in a separate “design” section. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding so fully. I see that indeed, as I re-re-read the article, the data I was looking to "connect to" in the "Background" section was embedded in the later "Design" section, after "Proposal" and "Location." I think the "Design" info fits right after "Background" and before the "Proposal". That way, it's clear exactly what cartoon Conrad was moving forward with for the model of the sculpture, that then leads to the Proposal, right? What do you think? Respectfully, TashaB 04:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)TashB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs) UTC)
- Summary of the above: Background of the artist is directly relevant to the sculpture and is supported by the sources. As the sources make clear, the artist was known primarily as an editorial cartoonist first. Conrad’s time as a newspaper cartoonist directly influenced the work. The background on the design is currently located in a separate “design” section. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I’m afraid I must strongly disagree with your assessment. All of this material is deeply connected and was written exclusively for this topic. I am also the primary and sole author of Paul Conrad, so I know exactly what material appears in that article. To better understand your position, are you actually claiming that Conrad’s work as a cartoonist and deep concern with the topic of nuclear war and disarmament, is not connected to this sculpture, a sculpture based specifically on one of his cartoons and the theme of nuclear war and disarmament? Because that makes no sense. All of the content is connected directly to the topic of the sculpture. If you would like to break down your enormous changes edit by edit, I am happy to do so, and I already attempted to do this by using subsections on this page. This article has been vetted by multiple editors and has gone through several different reviews, and it has been stable for many years. I’m afraid you will have to be very specific with pointing out content and sources that are problematic for us to continue. You’ve made many claims up above that are directly contradicted by the current article. For example, you very strangely claimed “I had hoped the 2 paragraphs contained even an intro to the sculpture, for ex., how the sculpture emerged from any of his specific cartoons, but such doesn't exist.” The design section specifically has that information. Again, I’m having great difficulty following your firehose of objections. Feel free to break them down, bullet by bullet, so I can directly address them, otherwise I see nothing requiring any action. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Greetings Veriditas, and thank you for initiating this discussion: I deleted the first 2 paragraphs under "Background" because of irrelevance to the SCULPTURE - this is an article about the actual public artwork, and the 2 paragraphs are exclusively about Conrad's time at The Post and at the LAT, which I see is duplicated in the separate article on Paul Conrad himself, so you should be encouraged. I had hoped the 2 paragraphs contained even an intro to the sculpture, for ex., how the sculpture emerged from any of his specific cartoons, but such doesn't exist. If you can make this connection explicit and concise (between his cartoons and the sculpture), then Bravo! Otherwise, those 2 paragraphs don't have a role there, but properly apply to the article on Conrad himself. I'll wait to see if you wish to make such a connection before I consider reverting. Best, TashaB 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)TashaB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)