Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Whaam!

Whaam!

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 27, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 11:31, 18 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Whaam!, Roy Lichtenstein's most famous painting

Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. One of the best-known works of pop art, it is among Lichtenstein's most important paintings. Whaam! was first exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the Tate Gallery, London, in 1966. It has been on permanent display at Tate Modern since 2006. The left-hand panel of Whaam! shows a fighter plane shooting a missile. The right-hand panel depicts the missile hitting its target, a second plane, which explodes into flames. Lichtenstein based the image on elements taken from several comic-book panels. He transformed his primary prototype, a panel from a 1962 war comic book, by dividing the composition into two panels and altering the relationship of the graphical and narrative elements. Whaam! is regarded for the temporal, spatial and psychological integration of its two panels, which Lichtenstein conceived as a contrasting pair. The painting's title is displayed in the large onomatopoeia in the right panel. Lichtenstein studied as an artist before and after serving in the United States Army during World War II. He practiced anti-aircraft drills during basic training; the program was later canceled as he was training to be a pilot. He depicted aerial combat in several works. (Full article...)

4 points for his 50th Anniversary of its 1st exhibition, 1 point last work of art was 5 months and 30 days prior (Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, March 29).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I do not doubt the enthusiasm of the nominator, but his actions regarding this nomination at canvassing supporters of another nomination for this date leaves me to oppose this. Sorry Tony, but postings like this one when followed by this one, and a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth (I could continue posting links, but I counted 16 notifications, all pointing out that he had a nomination with more points) plus notifications to one, two, three and four separate WikiProjects. All of this after the wall of text posted just a few days ago at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2#Whammy on the Whaam! 50th anniversary drive that strikes me as an attempt to intimidate or game the system. Sorry, although it punishes others who helped, Tony's actions here can't go rewarded. Imzadi 1979 → 08:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not violate any of the forms of Wikipedia:CANVASS#Inappropriate_notification with that notice. I was informing people interested in a topic of a drastic change in circumstances. It is you who is gaming the system.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Imzadi1979. This kind of thing really isn't on. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for 28 September where I would like to see H. C. McNeile, support this one for one of the other days of the exhibition which ran trough 24 October. 28 September was not the birthday of this piece of art. - I think we need to say in the blurb that the image pictures only part of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for 28 September, but support for any other relevent date. I too was informed by Tony of this nomination, and agree that his words could have been better given. However, I thank him for this as I do not keep TFAR on my watchlist so would therefore not of known of its nomination. -- Cassianto ^Talk 10:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would someone teach these McNeile people that a notification that there are now two choices is not CANVASSing unless it includes a directive on which way to vote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, whilst I commend you on improving the tone of your posts, I must say that your notifications were still not quite neutral: your posts clearly indicated your position (especially once clicked through to here) and make it seem as if the points are the only thing that matters. I understand how some would consider that canvassing (especially since a lot of us watchlist this page) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on this article, but prefer McNeile - 125th birthday is a more significant milestone, and I also have concerns about the nominator's multiple posts. The article should not suffer for this (hence no oppose vote) but I think McNeile would be better suited (and is, at the time, the clear community consensus). If, for some reason, the power that be who enjoys benchpressing light weights decides that McNeile is not to be run on the 28th, I have no opposition against this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I received a neutrally worded notification from Tony. I participated in the two FACs that were needed to get this article to FA, a process that was very contentious and drawn out. I have opposed Tony as "director" of the WP:FOUR award but this is a different question here. I think a 50th anniversary is more prominent than 125th. I don't think McNeile will be poorly served by waiting until some other particular date such as the 100th anniversary of his death which will be 14 August 2037. Whatever Tony's faults, I don't think the Whaam! article should take the punishment for them. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is a poor article in many ways but I've been unable to have much input due to WP:OWNERSHIP issues at the two FACs. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with sentiment regarding Tony's approach to this. Even after the criticism he has received, he made a comment in this request that began with "Would someone teach these McNeile people..." Yeah, it's a definite no from me. -- tariqabjotu 19:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various comments / conversations of decreasing relevance to the purpose of this page. And I'm not saying that all the comments outside this box are relevant... Bencherlite ^Talk 13:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I reminded Tony of his comment which seems to have been ignored. I don't want to turn this into a bitch fest, but I felt it proper to respond to the "Would someone teach these McNeile people..." comment (seeing as I am one apparently). -- Cassianto ^Talk 21:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator feels there to be "factions" of editors. He is referring to comics people and visual arts people.

"The prior discussion was contentious because WP:COMICS discussants (Curly Turkey and Hiding) wanted more detailed explanation of topics that WP:WPVA discussants (Bus stop and Modernist) felt were out of scope for this article. More specifically, COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments."

"Very good to have a strong opinion about the content from a non-WP:WPVA and non-WP:COMICS person."

"Please don't disrupt the delicate balance of the article. Unless you can get both one COMICS guy and one WPVA guy to agree with your change or two of the neutral guys, just leave things alone."

This is a method of analysis that may have relevance, but is it productive? The sole determinant of what gets into an article should be what is good for the article. That has to be the bottom line. We are using Talk pages (or FAC pages) to improve the article. "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." (WP:TPG) Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto and Bus stop, Is McNeile people derogatory? defamotory? insulting? Is WP:COMICS discussant derogatory? defamotory? insulting? I'll hold my tongue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but rude yes. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger—the distinction between comics people and visual arts people is largely irrelevant. It is not productive. We should put blinders on and look at the merits of that which is being proposed for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the two FACs there were several neutral parties who were unaware that the contentious attitudes during the discussions were largely driven by the fact that WP:COMICS and WP:WPVA have two very different views on Roy Lichtenstein. Trying to keep things moving, it was best to let them know what was going.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger—you mention the "two very different views on Roy Lichtenstein". Is this very different from the "two very different views" on anything else on Wikipedia with which editors must contend? We have policy language basically telling us to provide representation for both views. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After nearly 700k of contentiously stirring the manure over the course of two FACs for Whaam!, Bus Stop is now not only displaying the same exasperating, exhausting filibuster tactics to sabotage the discussion here, but has upped the ante by accusing the multiple editors who came to a consensus on the article of WP:OWNERSHIP. I'm very tempted to drag Bus Stop to ANI—can anybody give me a reason not to? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query After having slept on my thoughts, I am now curious about whether it is rational that a person who has expressed an interest in helping select the best content for the main page to be upset at receiving a notification that a significantly higher point article than one that they have supported is available for consideration. Wouldn't the normal editor say, hey I may or may not change my mind, but thanks for letting me know about the significant change in circumstances?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]