Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

Whaam!

Whaam! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a highly important work of art that has a September 28, 2013 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. Over the last few years Roy Lichtenstein's modestly notable works have been selling in the $42–56 million dollar range. This is his single most important/famous work. At an absolute minimum it would sell for $70 million but could sell for two or three times that. If it were to ever be sold it would surely land on the List of most expensive paintings. It is one of if not the very most valuable military art painting in the world.

Please note that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1 remains open but appears to be on the verge of promotion, that I have been granted leave to open this discussion now, and that I have requested closure of Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1. Although I don't think it is an issue, for full disclosure, I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam! is underway.‎TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well that's the thing, Tony... I have no issue with commencing this FAC before Drowning Girl is closed, since the latter is close to that point, but you should've requested withdrawal of the Whaam ACR before starting this. Anyway, wearing my MilHist coordinator's hat, I'll archive the ACR now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Bus Stop

The article places outsized importance on whatever derivative status applies to the painting. One comes away from the article with the misimpression that credit has not been properly given to the "original" artist who created the first version in comic book form. This is simply a misplacing of emphasis, or in Wikipedia terms, a problem of WP:UNDUE. The twentieth century is awash in art that is "lifted" or "appropriated" or "stolen" from more prosaic contexts. To an extent we are misleading the reader when we say for instance in the lead "some contended that he merely duplicated extant original work."[1] As the article is about the work of art, the reader should be afforded a view in keeping with the most sophisticated thinkers and commentators addressing such a point. I think we are less interested in any commentator who "contended that he merely duplicated extant original work."[2] This is tantamount to elevating in our article a largely wrongheaded view of the work of art. I am not opposed to including the views of those who roundly criticize the work. As an example, I think it is fine to include that "In 1963, Brian O'Doherty stated in The New York Times that Lichtenstein was one of the worst artists in America who briskly went about making a sow's ear out of a sow's ear."[3] I think the inclusion of this is fine because it is a self-contained, historical quote, with a source provided. But I think I take exception to similar comments when created by Wikipedia editors. This would apply to positive evaluations of the work too. We don't have to say for instance that it is a "pivotal work of the pop art movement"[4] or that it is "widely regarded as one of his finest and most notable works"[5] or that "The work is admired for the temporal, spatial and psychological unity of its two panels."[6] Those are value judgements and they may be interpretive on our part. I think we should avoid such pronouncements. I think brief quotes from others are preferable. Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conflicting commentary by other reviewers at Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!. Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) suggested fewer quotes, which is against your less interpretive and more brief quotes. Hiding (talk · contribs) has suggested alternate viewpoints from the Comic arts perspective, which is against your sophisticated thinkers suggestion. It is very difficult to get an WP:FAC nomination to meet with everyone's approval. I believe that Ewulp (talk · contribs) has attempted to address some of your concerns in terms about duplicating others' work, even more than I would have been likely to do. Note that what you view as "wrongeheaded" is really the comic arts perspective, which probably has some sort of place in this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that the issue of really blatant appropriation was rather novel, and a much bigger deal, in 1963 than it is today. The emphasis in the article may be about right. If Irv Novick's reaction to Lichtenstein's appropriations can be added, that would help the article; we now have the anecdote about their having supposedly met in 1947 but it reads almost as a digression. I found tantalizing snippets using google books, but nothing complete enough to use. And did Tate trustees Barbara Hepworth, Andrew Forge, and Herbert Read make any statements explaining their objections to the painting's purchase? This might address Bus Stop's request that we represent the opinions of sophisticated thinkers. I also think the division of critical reception into positive and negative is problematical. I would be inclined to merge them or make some other adjustment, as much of the critical commentary is descriptive and does not fit the dichotomy. For example, the context in which David McCarthy describes the work as "dispassionate, detached and oddly disembodied" is a passage that contrasts Kienholz and Lichtenstein with Westermann, and McCarthy goes on to say that "this is not to underestimate or dismiss the intentions of the two artists, both of whom opposed the war in Vietnam". This does not seem a negative judgement on the work. Ewulp (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, Ewulp—a painting doesn't do anything improper. We need not include "sophisticated thinking" but we should trim back on "unsophisticated thinking" already present. The lead shouldn't be reading "Lichtenstein was criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists whose work he copied. Despite controversy surrounding its originality and ethical propriety, such artwork has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted."[7] Bus stop (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, Hiding, had suggested including the comic arts perspective and has encouraged the addition of content expressing their feelings about the work. I will leave it to him to respond and if no response comes, then I will remove the comic arts perspective.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—the Whaam! article has a paragraph called General originality. This should be construed as "general originality" of the painting "Whaam!" because this is an article on one painting. In other articles you may wish to take up concerns of "general originality" pertaining to Roy Lichtenstein's entire output. I had said that the Brian O'Doherty quote ("…Lichtenstein was one of the worst artists in America…") was OK for inclusion in this article but I misspoke. Strictly speaking it should not be considered OK for inclusion in this article, the reason being that this article concerns itself with one particular painting. Similarly the wording that I have alluded to in the lead ("Lichtenstein was criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists whose work he copied. Despite controversy surrounding its originality and ethical propriety, such artwork has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted") does not belong in this article. When I look at the article Drowning Girl I am finding similar ideas conveyed, and also in the lead: "Contemporaneous critics were divided on whether Lichtenstein's comics-based work was art, since some contend that he merely duplicated extant original work. Ever since he began creating comic-based artwork, others have complained that Lichtenstein did not give credit or compensation to the comic book artists. However, such artwork has since become popular with collectors and is now more widely accepted." Why are these roughly similar blurbs placed on two different articles on individual paintings, and why in the lead? I think we would serve the reader's interests better if we allot information to related articles in accordance with the implied scopes of each article. Repetition can thus be avoided, allowing the reader to read shorter articles. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Does it make sense to you to inform the reader of this work that it was part of a class of works that were controversial (both by high art critics like O'Doherty and low art comic arts people) when they were created?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—this is an article about one single painting. All art emerging from a similar milieu is controversial. You are seizing upon the wrong controversy. That which piques the public's interest is not that Lichtenstein may have failed to remunerate the comic book artists. Of interest is that he had the audacity to present as fine art, in a fine art setting, using the materials of fine art, an image that resonates with a plebeian setting. Compare this to a "Campbell's Soup Can" by Andy Warhol. Is the concern that the artist stole the image from the food manufacturer? Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bus stop above states in criticism of a sourced opinion the user does not like that we are "elevating in our article a largely wrongheaded view of the work of art". I suggest the user appraises them self of the policies on neutral points of view and original research and avoids pushing their own interpretation of the artwork or of views on the artwork. We do not get to decide which views are wrongheaded. If the user wishes to provide a sourced statement to the effect that Dave Gibbons' views are wrongheaded, that will aid the article, but given that Gibbons views were sought by a major broadcaster on this very artwork I think we are in breach of our policies if we attempt to airbrush them from history. Gibbons is offering a commercial art view and has been sought out to do so. There is a conflict between modern art and commercial art that this work raises, which has been discussed in sources and which the article reflects. Attempting to pretend that debate has not happened does a disservice to our readers and is in stark contradiction to our policies. And in reply to the point regarding Warhol and Soup, do we have sourced material on that position. If not, the situations are not comparable and I'd rather not belabour straw man arguments. If there are such sourced opinions, then I suggest we add them to the relevant article or place it at FARC. I can turn up a Pulitzer Prize winner's quote on Warhol, soup, Lichtenstein and comics if we wish to debate the point elsewhere, but it isn't germane here. What's germane is balance, unbiased writing, comprehensiveness and neutrality. Hiding T 17:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No one suggested that we "airbrush" all mention of a topic from an article. We are talking about individual works of art for which we have articles. I think that it follows that sources should conform to scopes of such articles. If you are speaking of a source that addresses specifically the Whaam! article then I will concede that it probably warrants inclusion. But by the same token material tangential should not be granted automatic inclusion. I think material of a general nature should be considered for removal. In doing so we would not be engaged in airbrushing but rather organizing material across extant articles. The Roy Lichtenstein article for instance could serve as a possible repository for material not specific to any work of art for which we have an article. My understanding is that articles on individual works of art should basically be for the presentation of material particular to that artwork. Some allowance for the inclusion of material more generally related to the output of an artist can be considered for inclusion in an article on an individual artwork. But when that inclusion becomes excessive the quality of the article on the specific artwork can suffer. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is probably a significant amount of content in the article that describes the two or three year window when he was doing comics-based military art (as well as comics based romance). Given that his career spanned about 50 years, this is not general information. People who want to read about any specific work will still want to have some background related to the specific period in his career. The content that gives context for a proper understanding of the specific work is relevant to that work. For all of my prior FA's this is what was wanted. After the bot does its next update, I will have created six (three paintings and three sculptures) of the 55 works listed at Category:FA-Class visual arts articles. For each of the paintings context has been desired by the audience that influenced the development of the work. I am not likely to change from this formula unless there is a consensus to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have no idea why I have not been asked to add similar context for the sculptures.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. It might be the case that for pop art the audience needs explanation why the subject matter was chosen, but more traditional art might not need contextual explanation. All of my prior FA paintings have been pop art.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—could I ask a favor? Please don't intersperse comments with other editor's posts. I'm only asking this because I see you've done that on this page discussing the article Whaam!. I see that Curly Turkey's post is in a form (using bullet points) that might invite interspersed responses. I have some responses that I would like to make, but I can't do that immediately. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Tony missed your comment. ;) Doesn't bother me, though. I actually prefer it that way. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you requesting that for you and all other editors that I not respond following each bullet point. I have been involved in over 1000 GAC, FAC and PRs, and find responding directly to each bullet point to have been a fairly successful way to manage responses to concerns. How would you have me respond? Do you want a section for questions with a separate section for responses?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Our article presently reads:

"In an interview for a BBC4 documentary in 2013, Alastair Sooke asked the artist Dave Gibbons if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: 'I would say 'copycat'. In music for instance, you can't just whistle somebody else's tune or perform somebody else's tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That's to say, this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'."

The problem is that the above is a selective reading of the source that is used. Yes, we do find in the source that "this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick", but we also find in the same source: "…the proper credits should really read: ‘Roy Lichtenstein after Robert Kanigher, Irv Novick, Jerry Grandenetti, Russ Heath and Gaspar Saladino.'" The source explains that Lichtenstein "did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition". The source goes into the various possible derivations of aspects of the image Lichtenstein finally settled upon. The word "remixed" is used in that source. In another source I find the word "reworked" used. Certainly Lichtenstein used comic books as sources. But the same reference also has this to say about comic books in the early 1960's: "Their simplicity and outdatedness were ripe for being mocked and in many ways deserved it."[8] If Lichtenstein sought imagery that was ripe for mocking, he had little choice but to use the comic book imagery that existed. But he also altered that imagery. Therefore I see little reason for emphasis in this article on supposed impropriety. There is a paragraph devoted to this in the lead. It was not just comic books that contained the sought-after qualities. He also "took his inspiration from the cheaply printed, commercial imagery of newspaper ads and mail-order catalogues…"[9] Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, but as everyone at WP:WPVA, knows, I am not really much of an art scholar. In this case, I find myself having to work to flesh out your statements because of my own lower level understanding of art. If I am interpreting your "Therefore" correctly, it is based whether Lichtenstein intended to mock his sources. I.E., we should ignore discussions of impropriety of source use and credits if he intended to mock them. Am I interpreting you correctly that if you intend to mock a subject stealing its themes and subject is not a consideration?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—you refer to "subject[s]" and "themes". (You pose the question: "Am I interpreting you correctly that if you intend to mock a subject stealing its themes and subject is not a consideration?") I would just point out—I do not have a source to support this—that subjects and themes are commonly recycled in not just the visual arts but in all the arts. In my lengthy post below we see the source expanding considerably on the notion of copying an image. If we are going to rely on a source, and this is the same source that has been in the article all along, shouldn't we properly represent that source? The source expounds on the complexity of drawing on a passage here and a passage there, from comic books that Lichtenstein probably felt represented good source material. Lichtenstein recombined disparate elements to create a new image. This is not simply copying. Apparently many individuals were involved in the making of the comic books which Lichtenstein used as his inspiration. My reading of the source is that it supports the complexity of the act of "appropriation" in this case. We should avoid presenting that act of appropriation in overly simplistic terms. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Our article presently reads:

"In an interview for a BBC4 documentary in 2013, Alastair Sooke asked the artist Dave Gibbons if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: 'I would say 'copycat'. In music for instance, you can't just whistle somebody else's tune or perform somebody else's tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That's to say, this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'.[14]"

The source that our article provides in support of the above wording is paulgravett.com. The above wording in our article conveys that Lichtenstein could be characterized as a "copycat" and that the painting that is the subject of this article could be characterized as "WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick". This seems to be a result of a faulty reading of the source. While it is correct that the source says the above, the source also contains language that detracts from and counters the above. Perhaps we should include counterbalancing quotes from the source. Perhaps, and I think this would be preferable, we reduce the implications of impropriety already found in our article. The lead of our article is I think out of line in presently reading: "Lichtenstein was criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists whose work he copied. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted." The lead of the article should be for broadly supported themes of the article. There is very little support in sources for the above.

We have a section in our article titled General originality. It is sourced. But the problem is that our article is not reflecting what our source says in its entirety. The source asserts that the painting is not simply "WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick". This is for several reasons. What Lichtenstein seems to have done is search though many panels in comics for ingredients for his pictures. The presumed process that Lichtenstein followed can be hard to follow. The source provides a wealth of comic book panels for reference. It may help to look at the article, and at the images in particular. The article says:

"To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition and for one sound effect and narrative caption. He then sketched out a remixed version, replacing Novick’s side-view of the attacking plane on the left with a sharper, clearer plane at an angle, taken from the following issue, All American Men Of War #90, from the story ‘Wingmate of Doom’, panel 3 on page 11, drawn by Jerry Grandenetti."

One panel, the Irv Novick panel, may have served as the "underpinning composition" and it may have served as the source for "one sound effect" and the "narrative caption". Note that Lichtenstein "sketched out a remixed version." This is not simply "copying". Note the extent of manipulation of imagery and recombining of elements from separate panels:

"He also switched the relatively small exploding plane in the distance on the right with another, by flipping through the same issue of All-American Men of War and picking out a different plane. David Barsalou, compiler of the invaluable resource Deconstructing Lichtenstein, thinks it could be taken from panel 3 on page 3 of the Russ Heath-illustrated story ‘Aces Wild’. It could well have looked to Lichtenstein (mistakenly) as if its right wing is shearing off diagonally. This looks to me looks more probable than Barsalou’s other suggested source for the enemy plane, literally sitting over the page, panel 6 on page 12 of Novick’s ‘The Star Jockey’, as its nose cone shape is different and it lacks that breaking wing, the sort of creative idea and drawing that Lichtenstein would not have added to Novick’s design."

"So if we also want to acknowledge the writing (the image would not have been drawn without the initial script probably by editor Robert Kanigher) and the lettering, the proper credits should really read: ‘Roy Lichtenstein after Robert Kanigher, Irv Novick, Jerry Grandenetti, Russ Heath and Gaspar Saladino.’ If we could ever determine who coloured that original panel, that name could be added on the end! ‘WHAAM!’ may be about the most famous, most reproduced single panel from a comic book, but it has been totally removed from its context as merely one of 67 panels across a 13-page story."

Our source is telling us that the work of many people is drawn upon by Lichtenstein. We should not be singling out for retelling in our article the one negative quote from Dave Gibbons characterizing Lichtenstein as a "copycat". We should also not be including the quote from Dave Gibbons that the painting is "'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'." The source counters this with a long list people's names that were possibly drawn upon by Lichtenstein in compositing his image. The source is conveying the notion that Lichtenstein recombined visual passages from many panels. I think the source makes a point of saying this. If we are to represent the source we should represent it in its totality. Bus stop (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for placing a response proximal to the concern, but it seems to me most sensible to do so, since in the one or two thousand other reviews I have been involved in it has made sense. Currently, the WP:LEAD summarizes the main body. If we don't like the content in the LEAD, we need to re-evaluate the main body. I asked above and you did not say where you wanted me to respond.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—I can't tell you where to post. What I am trying to suggest is that you post before or after my posts, rather than in the middle of them. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Much of this content was developed under the discussion advisement of Hiding (talk · contribs), who at the time felt it was needed for balance from the commercial arts perspective. He was the first active commercial arts respondent to one of my dozens and dozens of Lichtenstein works articles. I'll leave it to him to reply to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

Just a few things I've noticed. I haven't read the article closely. I think it could use a good copyediting.

• "It is one of his two notable large war-themed paintings." Don't tantalize the reader. What was the other one?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Lichtenstein was a trained United States Army pilot," does the US Army have untrained pilots? Drop "trained".
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The image is derived from comics." Comics is a narrative medium. The image was derived from a specific image that appeared in an instance of that medium.
  • Fixed, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "war comic" --> "war comic book", and link it to War comics
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• I think "oversized" should precede "onomatopoetic"
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• A Google search shows ""onomatopoeic" is about three times as common as "onomatopoetic". Not a big deal, both are legitimate, but you may want to keep that in mind. Also, you use "onomatopoeic" twice later on in the "Description" section.
  • Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Contemporary critics were divided on whether Lichtenstein's comics-based work was art; some contended that he merely duplicated extant original work." I agree this is somewhat UNDUE. I think it needs to be talked about briefly in the article to provide context, but shouldn't be in the lead.
  • O.K., but given the current balance of the main body and the need to summarize all aspects (each section) of the article we need to consider what the final content will be before we put this issue to rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Lichtenstein's comic blow-ups" Was there humour in his blow-ups? Something like "blow-ups of comics" would be better.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Subject matter sourced from comic books was regarded as "the lowest commercial and intellectual kind"" Attribution for the quote? Also, is there some reason it needs to be quoted at all? It's pretty easily paraphrased.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• The discussion about the merits of Lichtenstein's work certainly needs to be there to provide context, but I think it could be condensed to a sentence or two. Seriously, the quotes about his work in general belong in the Lichtenstein article and not in the ones for the individual works.
  • Have you skipped from the second paragraph of the main body to the end of the article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeth. Ain't I a thtinker? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• My understanding is that the public had a low opinion of comic books long before the Senate hearings. The hearings were a culmination of anti-comic book sentiments dating back at least to the 1940s. In Canada, for instance, the depiction of crimes in comics was prohibited by law as early as 1949. Check out the "Backlash" section of the Crime comics article.
  • At some point, it becomes a consideration of how far back you want to trace the root of the controversy. I am probably stretching the relevant issue already.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No, my concern is that the way it's worded implies that comic books' status stems from the Senate hearings, rather than the Senate hearings stemming from comic books' status. It's not factually correct. There's no need to trace the whole history of comic books' lowbrow status. It just needs a rewording. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Whaam! adapts a comic-book panel from a 1962 issue of DC Comics' All-American Men of War. The story was "Star Jockey", from All-American Men of War #89 (January–February 1962), drawn by Irv Novick." This could easily be condensed to a single sentence.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "February 10 through March 3, 1962 ... Castelli Gallery from September 28—October 24, 1963" Inconsistent.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• link Ben-Day dots. Also, "mechanical printer's (benday)"? Mechanical printer's what?
  • Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "rockets blazed through the sky ..."." The period is unnecessary.
  • Oops.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "It is widely described as Lichtenstein's most famous work.[34][35] Other sources cite it, along with Drowning Girl, as one of his two most famous works." Surely these sentences could be merged.
  • done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• I wish a reliable source would shit all over Lichtenstein's ugly lettering.
  • Not sure how I can help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • You can't. Society is to blame. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)