Talk:Barbara Howard (artist)/Archive 1

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary notes

• General
  • Linking
    • It feels underlinked.
    • For something that does not have an article (Gauntlet Press) then try explaining what it is
  • WP:PEACOCK: This is throughout. It reads a little too fluffy at times. Examples include:
    • "She was fortunate enough to see the cave paintings"
    • "Howard was part of a circle of artists, writers and designers that included, most notably, her husband.."
  • Dead link
  • No disambigs
  • Consider altext for the blind
• Paraphrasing and quotes
  • "that most difficult, light-filled, elusive element". Who said this? Would it be better paraphrased?
  • "For the most part, these are portraits of the mammals in something like their private element. Their appearances are brief, ecstatic revelations, fortuitous glimpses, sudden soundings. They seem to break forth abruptly from their solitude and then slip away as quickly again."" see above
  • I want to assume the best of faith but the article reads like copy and pasting from sources. Since those sources are difficult to verify it is hard to tell if that is what happened. Some copy and pasting is acceptable (and not out of the norm) but the general tone leads me to think that a little bit more paraphrasing would make this article more inline with the tone seen throughout Wikipedia and reduce an questions of peacockiness and plagiarism. Please run through the article on your own and make any changes that you think others would expect from an editor here.
• Mos
  • Sandwhiching of images. I understand that this is an article about a artist but some of he images will have to be removed if text is going to be sandwiched. Please use the commons link. Let me know if you need more info on that. Remove the engravings and this will be OK.
  • No need to repeat her full name in the article.
• Sections
  • Please add a summary style paragraph in the exhibitions section. A list is not a replacement for text. I do agree that the info is so much hat a list is needed but it should have a little bit of prose above it.
  • The article is not inline with common practices for layout. "Biography" is essentially "Lead 2". Can you add a "Personal/Early life" section. Something to break up her occupation with her as a person. Also consider if subsections would improve the readability of the occupation based section (I would say no, but know others would disagree).

Overall, there is still much work needed. It is fantastic that you addressed the previous concerns. The OTRS to get the images in is also always cool and everyone needs to appreciate that. However, it reads like a promotional or memorial piece. When this is coupled with the lack of a standard layout it just does not read like a GA yet. The sourcing is there it looks like. It also looks like you have been willing to put in some work on this. I am going to keep this review open for 5 days so that the concerns can be addressed. Although I have been primarily critical in this review, I cannot express how great it is to see the images. I also do appreciate the amount of text provided. Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALL THE TEXT BELOW HAS BEEN COPIED AND PASTED FROM MY TALK PAGE IN ORDER TO KEEP THE DISCUSSION IN THE SAME LOCATION. Wardsislander (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this article and for your helpful suggestions for improvement. I also appreciate your giving me a few days to make any necessary changes before concluding your review. I'm still feeling my way around Wikipedia protocols but I will notify you as soon as I have completed my re-write. Wardsislander (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have re-worked the text to try and address the concerns expressed in your preliminary review and in order to give the article a more neutral tone in keeping with Wikipedia's style. In addition:

• I have moved all the images to the right-hand side of the page to avoid sandwiching the text (I didn't want to remove the engravings as they are an important example of the artist's work).
• I have added a bit of introductory prose above the Exhibitions list as you suggested.
• I'm not sure what you mean by "No disambigs": I know that there is another Barbara Howard and that a searcher will be given the choice of Barbara Howard the actress or Barbara Howard (artist) but am not clear what I can do about this.
• I am certainly prepared to consider Alt Text for the blind but, despite research, have no idea how to go about this!

I look forward to your opinion of the revised article and hope that it meets with your approval. If there are still elements that need fixing, then I am prepared to fix them. Thanks again for your time, for your helpful suggestions and for your encouragement! Wardsislander (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I have failed this due to lack of activity on any changes. Please feel free to contact me if you want another review after any changes are made.Cptnono (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I feel like such a jerk. I did not see any response here and did not realize that changes were ongoing. It has been over 5 days but you did make multiple edits. Some of the concerns up above still need to be addressed, though. But so far you are doing tons to improve it. I reverted my close so this is still ongoing. Cptnono (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my recent comment at the review page. It was completely inappropriate for me to close it since you were making changes. I did not realize you had responded here. Let me know as soon as you think it is ready and I will fast track the review.

In response to the above:

• I am considering whether or not the stacking of images is enough of an MoS problem to not allow the article to be promoted. (I am leaning towards it being too much of an issue)
• No disambigs is a good thing. It means the article does not point to any disambiguation pages but instead to specific articles.
• Alttext is not needed and will not prevent promotion. I think it alttext is good but it is not mandatory and I realize that some people are for it while others do not see the need. WP:ALT explains how to do it. It is done by adding "alt=[enter short description of what is being shown (not a caption) here]" in the string of text of an image.
• I am still concerned about the lack of splitting "Life and Work" into separate sections. I know this will be a major change but I feel it is needed to improve the layout. Since her work and personal life are os intertwined I understand if it is simply a paragraph summarizing her personal life. This will also improve the layout of the lead since it will be easier to have to paragraphs for the lead. It is rare to see single paragraph leads in GAs.

I noticed that you recently added [1] is used in the body. This needs to stay in external links and not in the body.

I also noticed that the refs have some formatting errors. It would b my pleasure to take care of that if you need a hand. You recently added the Globe and Mail. Please provide more details (author or pg number should be sufficient).

Again, I am so sorry for closing it prematurely. Let me know as soon as you want to nominate it again. I have reverted my close. I think that will work and keep the review open. Do you mind if I copy and paste this discussion over there so it is all in one place?Cptnono (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feel badly about not noticing my response here rather than on the review page. I'm still a bit confused about where to post messages: I went to your Talk page and got a notice saying that you didn't care whether people posted on your Talk page or their own, you would still find it. And I wasn't sure if commenting on the review page was reserved for reviewers. Please feel free to copy and paste this discussion to the review page.

• I have followed your advice and split "Life and Work" into two sections and made some adjustments to the text. (Have just noticed that you have added some more thoughts about this section). I am a bit confused, as the original reviewer said that the Lead should be a short paragraph which would give the reader an idea of what the article was about. Apart from her work Barbara Howard led a relatively uneventful life, so there's not a lot of biographical detail to add!
• I agree with you about the images. I would definitely prefer not to stack them but am not sure how else to arrange them in view of your earlier concerns about sandwiching the text. I don't want to lose any of them as they each illustrate different elements of the text (sometimes a picture *is* worth a thousand words!). However I see that someone has already moved one of the engravings back to where I originally placed it! (Update: I think I have found a solution for the images. I hope this resolves the sandwiching and stacking problems.)
• Please feel to correct any refs formatting errors. It would probably be quicker than trying to explain the process to me. I have added the author to the two Globe and Mail refs as you suggested.

Thanks again for your patience! Wardsislander (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I usually don't care but actually didn't click "watch" which is something I usually do. And yes, you can and should comment on review pages. Cptnono (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a delay on my end. I like how the article has come together. You have some decent prose in there. The media is good and enhances the reader's understanding of the subject. In regards to the lead, the other reviewer was not wrong according to WP:LEAD but there is a precedent to have a summary with more information than less in GAs. Two paragraphs for this article is perfect and I think you got it for the most part. The only remaining roadblock is the formatting of the sources and lists of works. I have been meaning to sit down and tweak them all but have been short on time. It is little things like titles being italicized but works not. Or a date being formatted off. Adding ISBNs if available. So I haven't forgotten about you. It is just that it will take some tweaking and I don;t mind doing it when I have the chance. Nice work so far by the way.Cptnono (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad there are finally signs of improvement! I have tracked down and added any available missing ISBNs but will have to rely on you for any formatting of sources and lists as I am not clear what the approved style should be. There's no rush from my end, by the way. I know you have a lot on your plate. Wardsislander (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, I see you have already done a lot of work on the correct formatting of the Bibliography and references, for which many thanks. I'm guessing that you may not have finished yet so I will hold off on some questions I have. However I have taken the liberty of correcting some typos of names and dates. Wardsislander (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG thank you. My head was spinning while trying to do all of the formatting, was on a Mac keyboard, and I do type-os all the time! I want to give it one final through. The only two things I am really thinking might be

1. Provinces are sometimes listed and sometimes not in the list. I assume this is because it was a copypaste from one of the sources I saw (completely acceptable). Not sure if it is a big deal but consider adding those in or removing the others unless it is there for disambiguation of lesser known towns. Won't hold up GA either way.
2. A "Critical reception" section but I wanted to double check to see if there was a precedent of such a section in other GAs.

Thanks again for grabbing those type-os. I also did a random conversion template (conversions are mandatory for higher rated articles) but I am happy with the way you got the images now. I also noticed that the tone was neutralized so nice work on that. Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the inclusion of provinces in the Collections section, I am inclined to drop them from the first Public Collections list as all the institutions are in Canada and the gallery names are self explanatory. The Public Collections of the Gauntlet Press, however, are scattered around Canada, the US and the UK, so in this case I am inclined to leave the provincial designations in place for consistency, since the US states are identified. What do you think?

As regards a "Critical Reception" section, the problem is that Barbara Howard was not in the fashionable mainstream (hence the article about her titled "The Invisible Woman"). She had a few vocal champions (which have been cited in the article) but was not at all well-known.

A couple of quick questions:

1. Did you remove entries from the bibliography if the book also appeared in the reference section?

2. You have combined 2 references (ref#4) to Peter Sanger's book "Through Darkling Air". I had originally split them into separate items because the references were to completely different pages in his book.

3. Was there a reason you removed Barbara Howard's posthumous solo exhibition from the Solo Exhibition list?

Thanks again for all your time and trouble! Wardsislander (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes. Was there a reason they were listed twice? I could not tell if you were making a broader reference section or if you were including books she took part in creating. If there is a valid reason to have them listed there as well feel free to throw them back in.

2. I did not realize they were two different pages. It is fine to split them if you want or just add in "pages=##, ##" in the citation).

3. If she had a posthumous solo exhibition then it should go back in. I did not understand what that listing was. Sorry about that.

4. I have noticed a "Legacy" section in many articles about artists. That would be a perfect place to discuss "critical reception" and her election to the RCA. Can you throw together a short paragraph? It does not need to be terribly long but it would ensure that we meet GA criteria 3: "Broad in its coverage".

5. We do not need things sourced in the lead if they are sourced in the body (according to our Manual of Style) so move those citations into the corresponding lines in the body.

Squaring away the 5 points above should be sufficient to promote this to GA. Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have added a Critical Reception section as you suggested. Also moved citations from the Lead to the body of the article and addressed the various points listed in your last communication. Hope all this meets with your approval. Wardsislander (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely honest, I did not originally expect to pass this. But you put in the necessary work and I am happily surprised. I especially enjoyed the images. You have successfully met the criteria of making it broad in its coverage. Making sure that the reception/legacy section was not biased was fantastic. There still might be some Manual of Style and writing issues that I missed (there is always something!) but you ended up making the benchmarks. Thank you for putting up with my delays on my end. More importantly, thank you for your contribution. Nice work. Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cptnono, for the good news and the kind words. I don't know who the person was who originally nominated this article for GA status (or why) but when the first reviewer failed it, I felt somehow personally slighted, so made what I thought was a good effort to improve it, and then renominated it. It was a humbling experience to have you (as the second reviewer) point out all the many things that were still wrong with it. However, you were sufficiently supportive to keep me from giving up entirely and your always helpful suggestions showed me that improvements were still possible. Thanks for hanging in. This GA status is as much your work as mine. Wardsislander (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]