Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!

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.

Promoted Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because. It is an interesting article worth improving further. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

"Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, (sometimes Okay Hot-Shot or Okay, Hot-Shot) is": The tradeoff in listing every possible name is that we may lose the reader's interest before they even get past the subject of the first sentence. There are judgment calls, but I don't recall a case where someone repeated the same name with and without a comma, and I recommend against it. I don't see a problem with putting that information in the body of the article, at the first place that alternate name appears.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"wartime armed forces depictions": Would it work to substitute "battle depictions" or "combat depictions"?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The plane, the pilot, the text balloon and the graphic onomatopoeia each comes from a panel from a different comic book.": Subject/verb agreement problem. Suggestions: "Each of ... comes from ..."; "The plane, the pilot, the text balloon and the graphic onomatopoeia all come from panels from different comic books."; "Panels from four different comic books provided the plane, the pilot, the text balloon and the graphic onomatopoeia." - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Lichtenstein was a trained United States Army pilot, draftsman and artist": This is ambiguous; it might mean that he was a draftsman, or a trained draftsman, or a trained United States Army draftsman. If the former, then: "Lichtenstein was a draftsman, an artist, and a trained United States Army pilot".
- He was a trained as a draftsman and artist both during and prior to his army service. I think trained and US Army apply to all the three nouns. How should the sentence be restructured in this case?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll make an edit. If you got training as, say, a chef, and then you got additional training as a chef in the army, you wouldn't want people describing you as an "army chef", they might think you were less trained or less serious than you really are. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to my mind, this sentence doesn't fit in this paragraph; the first paragraph of the section would be my choice.
- If I just move this sentence, then we have a stub paragraph remaining.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the tweak, it's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"aeronautical themed": aeronautically themed
- Done--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"His list of aeronautical themed works is extensive. Within that genre, Lichtenstein has produced": His aeronautically themed works are extensive, including
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"several works featuring pilots situated in cockpits during air combat such as Jet Pilot (1962), Brattata (1962), Bratatat! (1963), and Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! (1963).": several others featuring ... and Bratatat! (1963).
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"most well-known": best-known (occurs twice)
- I only see this once. I even searched on the word "well".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The work also is related to Lichtenstein's theme": I'm not sure what "also" means here ... in addition to what? - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Some sources list this": Some sources list Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"World War II Navajo U.S. Air Force fighter pilot Johnny Cloud": Different people have different tolerances for stringing lots of nouns together, but this is probably too many. You could drop "Navajo" if that's not an essential piece of information. Also, the U.S. Air Force didn't properly exist until after WWII.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The narrative content, "Okay, hot-shot, okay! I'm pouring!" is said to have a dual meaning that alludes to the painting style being made famous at the time by Jackson Pollock of poured painting, while simultaneously presenting its primary meaning of pouring ammunition at the enemy.": The word "pouring" in the narrative is generally taken to allude as well to the style of poured painting being made famous at the time by Jackson Pollock.
- I don't understand what you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because my suggestion wasn't very good, I'll look at this again after I get some sleep. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, see what you think of my edit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Four one-sentence paragraphs in a row is too many. It's not just that the sentences need to be combined; the result needs to feel like coherent paragraphs, which may require filling in some details.
- Reworked.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"after Lichtenstein was famous, Irv Novick said that he had met Lichtenstein ... had responded to Lichtenstein's": ... had met him ... had responded to his - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Some of the paragraphs don't hang together as well as I'd like, but this meets A-class standards, and I appreciate how attentive you've been and how much work you've put into this. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I endorse the edits that you have made.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Andy Warhol produced his earliest paintings in the style in 1960", suggest "Andy Warhol produced his earliest paintings using this style in 1960"
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
suggest some explanation in the text of what the onomatopoeia that is involved is ie "VOOMP!"
- Not exactly sure what is the best way to address this, but keep in mind the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the article. The greater detail is suppose to be in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - summarising and using a term you have to click on the link to get any understanding of are two different things. No reason you couldn't just added "VOOMP!" after "onomatopoeia" in the lead. Any layperson reading this is going to think, "what the hell is onomatopoeia?", if you add "VOOMP!" then they look at the painting and go, "oh, that's what it is!". That is what I am getting at.
    - Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is a lot of overlinking, World War II, Jet Pilot x 3, DC Comics, Bratatat!, Irv Novick, Whaam!
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no locations in the citations.
- I am fairly certain these are optional because I have over 20 WP:FAs and don't recall including locations in any of them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be right!
Lichtenstein Foundation is cited for Jet Pilot, so no need to include in External links.
- I relabeled the link. I think you may have misunderstood it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, I misunderstood.

Support ~~Image comment:~~ G'day, I had a quick look at the images. I'm not sure about the fair use rationale for the source, source2, source3, and source4 images:

"The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use in Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! as:This is the source of the main image in Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, which is an article that entirely consists of analysis, commentary and criticism of Drowning Girl." (specifically, the mention of "Drowning Girl". Should this be "Okay Hot-Shot Okay"?) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. That was sloppy work. I will fix this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I fixed what I think was a typo "Pollack" --> "Pollock", but being uncultured I'm not really sure. Please check I got it right. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Piotrus: please expand the lead with a second paragraph summarizing the appraisal section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 5 October 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.