Sorry, my bad. In response to the query you left on my talk page, some specific (but by no means the only) examples which I found problematic are:
"However, a significantly smaller group of people know the name and person behind the images. The fame and fortune of artists are notoriously mercurial; Grossman's personal profile is demonstrably due a raise."
"Ceaselessly toiling in the field of illustration since the 1960s, Grossman has amassed an impressive, enormous body of work..."
"At a separate website, which may be accessed through his main site, T-shirts bearing Grossman's designs are available."
The first and third of those should probably be removed altogether - it isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to raise Grossman's profile, nor to sell his t-shirts. The second could be made more neutral by changing it to:
"Having worked in the field of illustration since the 1960s, Grossman has amassed an sizeable body of work..."
Also, several sections of the article ("Painter", "Sculptor", "These days") don't cite any sources, so things like:
"surveying four decades of Grossman creations, one finds that "the awkward, early work" and the "tired, later work" simply don't exist."
have a tendancy to read like your own personal opinions. The article as a whole seems to paint a rosy picture of Grossman, but I don't see much in the way of critical assessment of his work. I would say in general that you need to be wary of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Personally, I always find it useful to look at several featured articles to get an idea of the kind of standards I should be aiming for.

That's just my opinion, of course. ) It might be an idea for you to list the article at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback to get a few comments from other users.