Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Torpedo...Los!
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is one of my better MILHIST contributions that has not had an A-class review. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments:G'day, I made a couple of minor tweaks, but unfortunately I'm out of my comfort zone with this. Art is not something I know much about (I won't be able to review for content). But anyway, I will have a go at reviewing...- some of the information in the infobox doesn't seem to be in the prose, for instance the dimensions and that it is "pop art";
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The original source had dialog related to repeated torpedoing of the same ship" --> "The original source had dialog related to the repeated torpedoing of the same ship";
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "He retained the source's "clumsiness" of the secondary figure..." --> ""He retained the source's "clumsiness" in how the secondary figure is presented..."?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "This exemplifies Lichtenstein's theme relating to vision". It doesn't seem clear to me what "This" refers to;
- Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The humorous aspect of this in 1963..." Is humorous the right word here? One imagines that artists paint pictures about events in the past all the time...
- How about ironic?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that is better. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about ironic?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Notes, "Waldman. . pp. 96–97, 104." I'm uncertain as to the necessity of the two full stops together;
- This seems to be something to do with the cite template. I had a play but couldn't fix it. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- date format inconsistency, for instance "March 31, 2013" v. "2012-05-09"
- The one that is different is an automated footnote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see that now. No worries, then. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The one that is different is an automated footnote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Notes "Lichtenstein Foundation" v. "Roy Lichtenstein Foundation" (Notes # 3 & 4). Are these the same organisation, or different?
- Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- places of publication for the References?
- I never add these. I don't currently possess the books and can not produce this now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, no worries. You can probably get them from Worldcat.org if you wanted to, but so long as it is consistent it doesn't matter. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I never add these. I don't currently possess the books and can not produce this now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ISBN for the Coplans ref? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've add my support above as you have addressed most of my comments, but hopefully someone with more knowledge of art comes along to give you a more thorough review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- some of the information in the infobox doesn't seem to be in the prose, for instance the dimensions and that it is "pop art";
Image check - both images are non-free. Why do they have two licensing tags each? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They are different and applicable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.