Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Drowning Girl/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Drowning Girl edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the subject has WP:FA potential, but it needs some attention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I can get this through FAC, I may shoot for the 50th anniversary of its exhibition on September 28 for WP:TFAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have edited this, I realize that the 50th anniversary for the debut of this piece passed in April.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NRP

It's a rather good article, but I think you might be able to expand on it, if you want. Can you separate the description and themes, while expanding on both? Why did he choose that image? How did he find it? What is the legacy and influence of this work? What was the overall importance of this work to pop art? Like Warhol, Lichtenstein is often strongly identified with pop art; how did this work affect his reputation, identification, and influence? Finally, the quotation seems a bit difficult to understand. "why should it be I was it and then pushed it a little further [...]" What does this mean? You've got several sentence fragments jammed together. Finally, I might suggest a few anecdotes, from interviews. It's good to see a concise article consisting of critical analysis, but a little fluff couldn't hurt. Wikipedia sure does love its anecdotes, especially in Featured articles. I think most Featured articles go way overboard in this area, but you might consider adding anecdotes about how long it took to make, whether anything notable happened during the process, etc. I'm sure some people will find that sort of information fascinating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletpoints would have been helpful. I may reorganize your comments just so that I can address them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could reorganize your comments so that they are not all merged together.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My take on reformatting:
  • Can you separate the description and themes, while expanding on both?
  • Why did he choose that image?
  • How did he find it?
  • What is the legacy and influence of this work?
    • I get the feel that this work is more important for its artistic link in the other direction through its inspiration. However, it remains one of his early "Girl Tragedies"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Postmodern works and works that have influenced postmodernism (such as pop art) are often difficult to discuss, as they comment on themselves and their inspirations as much as anything else. In fact, they can be downright difficult to describe outside of their influences. However, I think this article does a good job of comparing, contrasting, and analyzing. For Featured, you might consider expanding a bit on each of those things, as I've tried to point out, in my comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the overall importance of this work to pop art?
  • Like Warhol, Lichtenstein is often strongly identified with pop art; how did this work affect his reputation, identification, and influence?
    • Like I have said, I am finding this to be strongly linked to its influences (both the source images and the thematic wave images) and it was a gateway to his tragic girls. I don't see content stating it influenced anything other than his own transition to melodramatic romance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, the quotation seems a bit difficult to understand. "why should it be I was it and then pushed it a little further [...]" What does this mean?
  • You've got several sentence fragments jammed together.
    • I'm not the best writer. If any particular instances are a problem. Otherwise, I will hope that this will lure the WP:WPVA copyeditors when the time comes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I might suggest a few anecdotes, from interviews.
  • It's good to see a concise article consisting of critical analysis, but a little fluff couldn't hurt.
  • ...you might consider adding anecdotes about how long it took to make, whether anything notable happened during the process, etc.
Now reorganized for a proper attack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Was going to get around to that but got distracted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the current version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something like Campbell's Soup Cans might give some inspiration, for example:
  • Explicit statements about the message and themes. Why did he paint soup cans? He liked soup. Asking why he did it is half the experience of seeing the painting. That sort of discussion could be replicated here.
  • Background information about pop art and how Warhol chose to avoid comic books, as Lichtenstein was already working with that theme.
  • Somewhat lengthy description of the premiere.
It might be difficult to find all this information, in the required detail. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. The discussion that you currently have seems appropriate and does not put undue emphasis on the history of his comic work. There may be room for further discussion as far as it relates to this work specifically, but I don't see any obvious openings. I think most of these questions ("why a comic?", "why this comic?", etc) have been answered well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think I should discuss his decision to start doing tragic females? That might be relevant. Note that I did include speculation that Picasso may have motivated this. That sources are speculating in this manner suggests that not much more may be known on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that I already have the following content on decision to do romance and war comics: "I was very excited about, and very interested in, the highly emotional content".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information presented helps in understanding the background. You might be able to expand the article further by comparing and contrasting it to his other tragic females, but I don't know if you want to get that in-depth. Also, such a discussion could easily get off-topic.
  • You might consider strengthening your statements so that they don't sound like Wikipedia itself is speculating on the matter. For example, "Critic A believes that he may have intended this, while Critic B suggests that this may have been the intent." That way, the speculation is explicitly moved onto the critics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Drowning_Girl/archive1&oldid=560472669"