Talk:Art pop/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Retrohead (talk · contribs) 09:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait, I'm beginning the review in the next couple of days.--Retrohead (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and characteristics

There's a practice to avoid using references in the lead per MOS:LEAD because the lead shouldn't contain exclusive information not present in the article's body. Same for the infobox.
The prose in the lead reads fine, and for the refs, you might delink number 39 (Arizona Central).
Is "manipulation of signs" the right term here? Is it written literally or as a metaphor for excessive use of signs?

It is literal.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pop art should be in small letters at the end of the first paragraph.

History

Can you describe Simon Frith as "music critic/scholar Simon Frith" in the prose from the 'Backround'?
The term Pop art movement shouldn't be with capital "P" unless it is in the beginning of a sentence.
Holden traces art pop's origins to the mid 1960s
In a move that was indicated by the Beatles. Is there a more proper word like originated or something else?
This section is written really well and was an interesting read, nothing else to correct here.

Images and audio

All images are properly licensed.
Audio files are according to WP:SAMPLE, which means adjusted audio quality and length.

Done I did not bother removing refs from lead or infobox because the main purpose of those cites is to discourage SYNTH and OR, lest the infobox be constantly inundated with unsourced genres. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I see you have refs in other good articles you've written so far, so it's not something big. It was a pleasure to read the article plus I've learned to appreciate more artists such as Bowie and Lou Reed. It's a pass.--Retrohead (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]