Talk:Mary Brewster Hazelton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 02:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Prose

• Feel free to revert any of my copyedits, or to disagree with any of my feedback:
  • Looks good to me!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Hazelton was the first woman to win a non-gender specific award: anywhere, or just in the US?
  • The source wasn't explicit about that... but since only US awards were mentioned, it seems save to assume the U.S, so I made that change.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• which has 50 of her paintings: the last of which?
  • Doesn't seem to be needed, so I removed it from the intro.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• The house is called "Clapp House" and "Hazelton House".: currently, or should that be a "has been"?
  • "Has been" works better.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• She an antique: something's missing here.
  • Yep, now "She was an/a"--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• antique and life-drawing class: antique drawing?
  • Hmmmm, the class was an antique and life-drawing, but it's definitely awkward and all that's really needed is drawing class. Does that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• She had her studio there from 1906 to 1940: was it always the same studio?
  • I don't know. How does "From 1906 to 1940, she had a studio at Fenway" sound?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No, that's not needed—if it was known that it was the same studio, I would've combined this with the previous sentence. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Hazelton was a member of the church.: I might mention this at the beginning of the paragraph, rather than tacking it on to the end.
  • Good point, that's better.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks so much for taking this on! Great points, I'll get to work on them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've inserted responses above. Thanks, Curly Turkey!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been pondering the wording "non-gender specific ward"—really, "gender specific", as a compound modifier, should be hyphenated, but that makes things awkward with the "non-", as logically it should be "non-gender-specific award". "award that was not gender specific" is a bit of a mouthful, though ... I'd like to think on this a bit (although it's too fine a hair to split to affect the reivew at all). Other than this, I think the prose is fine.

I know, I struggle with this, too. I wonder if breaking the sentence into two points would work: 1) There were three prizes awarded specifically to women in the late 19th century, 2) but Hazelton was the first woman to win an ?established, ?mainstream award open to both genders. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Could work—give me an example of how you'd word it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Example: "Until the late 1890s, there were three prizes given to American women artists in recognition of their work, the Mary Smith Prize at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, the Dodge Prize at the National Academy of Design, and the Shaw Prize at the Society of American Artists.(Swinth) In 1896, Hazelton won the National Academy of Design's Hallgarten Prize. She was the first woman to earn an award open to both genders.(Swinth)(Jovin)"--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Much wordier than I was looking for, but I suppose it's interesting background information. In the lead maybe it could be reworded to "award open to both men and women" or "award not gender-restricted"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I like "award open to both men and women".--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As for comprehensiveness—I notice there's no analysis of her style. How are her works normally categorized? What aspects of her work are normally noted? Did she belong to any particular "-ism"?

I'll be coming back to do source and file reviews. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

She's likely identified as an Impressionist, which is hinted at by the inclusion of her name in the American Impressionists article (but the point wasn't about Impressionism, per se). I'll look around for movement and personal style info. Good points!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added some content about her style / Impressionism. I wasn't able to find anything about the Japanese or oriental influence that seems apparent in her work, though.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just checking, Curly Turkey, is there anything else you'd like me to work on? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't come back yet. I'll have to take a look at your changes, and I've still got to do a source & image check. Ping me again if I neglect to come back in the next couple days. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do, Curly Turkey. It just started to fall off my radar - no rush.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• In his autobiograhical report to Harvard's Class of 1860, Dr. Isaac Hills Hazelton wrote about 50% of his update about his daughter Mary for the 1900 edition.: This seems to imply she had some mental illness...?
  • Lol! This didn't make any sense to me until I saw where the note was placed. I just went ahead and removed it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• James owns Hazelton's painting Lady in a Kimono : I might throw in the year the paiting was made
  • I absolutely would if I had it. It's not at Smithsonian or other reliable sources. There's a pinterest and tumbler pages that say 1897, but I cannot cite it. Am I missing something, though, about how to get the date of paintings?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No, if the painting itself isn't dated, it often comes down to sleuthwork. Do you know if artnet is consdered reliable? Here it says 1897. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Artnet is kind of iffy. It is considered by some to be linkspam. See noticeboard post. I did some noticeboard searches awhile back on artnet, and its seems that there are some that think it's ok, and some places where there's concern, so I avoid using it. I think for a Good article, we should avoid it, but it you think it warrants another look, I could run it by the noticeboard and/or Visual arts WikiProject.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• You might want to read the caveat in the documentation for Template:Inflation—it's not a goodidea to use it unless you're sure you know what you're doing.
  • I'm sorry to be a dunce, but I don't know what you mean. I thought I used the parameters as I saw them in the documentation. Are you referring to the fact that inflation can be a negative number one or more years? Something else? We can absolutely remove it, but my preference would be to "know what I'm doing", if it's possible.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The Consumer Price Index is used to calculate the change of price in staple goods—and nothing else. Slaries, government outlays, real estate, other goods, etc etc, change at totally different rates than CPI. American incomes, in terms of buying power, have tripled in the last 100 years compared to the rate that prices of staples have risen. This is why there is this disclaimer in the documentation for the Inflation template: "This template is incapable of inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich." Unless you are very sure about how and why you are giving these adjustments, they should be avoided. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, I'll remove it. (side comment: It sounds, though, if anything to undervalue the estimate. I think it's so helpful for information from the 19th century or 20th century where the values can seem small, but at the time were significant amounts of money. It helps put it in context. It seems like a note, though, for non-good-articles that it's just an estimate and "is incapable of inflating capital expenses..." should be sufficient.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• In his article Early Women Artists at the Guild of Boston Artists, Bob Jackman noted: you should probably date the article here, or otherwise indicate why this should come here inthe chronology
  • I added the year + moved the "style" / analysis info into it's own section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Do you have a book of her works? It would be nice if we could get scans of the works mentioned in the text—I don't see Two Sisters at the Piano, Margaret, or Victory's Record in Google images. It seems almost teasing to mention them but not show them. You might want to upload some of these, even if they're not the highest-quality scans. Not that I'm suggesting you need to add one, but I'm a big fan of galleries for artist articles—you can be fairly sure that someone who looks up an article on an artist is hoping to see their work, and galleries allow you to avoid clutter.
  • Oh, man, if you only knew how many ways and how much time I've spent trying to find Victory's Record. I already have most of the images from the link you provided uploaded into commons. I've seen many of my articles thinned of images, so I was trying to not overdo the images. I'd be very happy to put some of these in a gallery. I've spent some time looking for Margaret and Two Sisters at the Piano, and will try again.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The article wouldn't fail without them, but it certainly would greatly benefit with them. If anyone has had you remove images from a visual arts article for reasons other than formatting or licensing, they should be spanked. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Funny! I agree! I added a gallery and found Two Sisters at a Piano and added it, too, within the body of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'll be back to check image licenses and sources. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Eww—Fort Devens landscape is low enough quality that I'd keep it out of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Image check

• File:Mary Brewster Hazelton, est 1900-1910.png—this is a potential problem. Copyright begins with publication, not when the image was taken, so even if it were taken in 1900, if it wasn't published until (say) 1980 (assuming the photographer was still alive) it could still be under copyright. Can you find more information on this photo?
  • No, as I said on commons, it's an estimate. Which I based upon her age, style of hat, style and color of clothes. It could be up to about 1920, but I don't think after that. Whatever you think needs to be done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I removed the image.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• The other images seem to be properly tagged & licensed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oh! Two Sisters at a Piano has magically appeared. That one looks fine, too.
• To avoid crowding, you could do a couple of things:
  • place a {{clear}} right before the gallery section
  • move more of the images into the galleries
  • have multiple galleries (say, thematic ones—one for portraits, another for landscapes ...) For example, you could put a gallery in the "Style" section, and put the works that are discussed in the body there, and then throw eveything else into the "Gallery" section at the end. If there were another one or two of the items in the "Collections" section, I might recommend a gallery there as well.
    • Yes, I saw the clear, thanks! I don't think we'll gain much by adding more images, of the items in collections, two of the images are already on the page. I don't think I was able to find one the others, but I'll poke around.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Cannot find Adams, Stoughton was painted in 1924 - but I put the link to the image under External links, I found this image of Helen Hazelton, but it's not the best. The painting is in the collection of the Wellesley Historical Society.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Just noticed File:Mary Brewster Hazelton, Summer Sunlight, 1912.jpg was added. That one's fine, too. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cool! Yes, I tried to upload a less blurry image of the Fort Devon landscape, but it wasn't any better, so I switched it for this one.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Curly Turkey I removed the image of Mary from the article, I understand the very valid concern and wouldn't want the article to be held back because of it. Regarding the positioning / display of the images, they look good to me now... and I really like having the Woman in White and the painting of Azan in the article, good point! Do you think we're good on images now?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The images are fine. I just have to do a source check. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Source check

• I don't see any issues with close paraphrasing or plagiarism.
• Ref#1 says the Hallgarten Prize was for a paiting called In the Studio. Are you sure whether it should be "a" or "the"?
  • I know, I got caught on that when I saw it, too. I checked at that time to see if it might have been a typo in the cited source or the obituary, and the obituary appears to be wrong. It's In a Studio (google search). Do you think a note is needed to stipulate that the obituary says it's In the Studio, but it's In a Studio?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the wording "develop fine artistic skills" really reflects what Ref#8 is saying—it says that Boston was one place where women could take formal education in painting, and that certain of these woemn "demonstrate remarkable individual artistic skill". I'm not sure of the intended meaning of "individual" here, whether it means they demonstrate individualism, or if it means, individually, they demonstrate artistic skill.
  • Ah, that's a very good point. The article talks about the female “Tarbellites” - which I took to mean mimickers of Edmund Tarbell - rather than having their own unique (individual) styles and abilities. So, yes, it needs to be reworded a bit. How is this change?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Just to be a prick (this won't affect whether this article passes), have you ever considered using shortened footnotes? I find {{rp}}s such an eyesore, and reader-unfriendly. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's helpful to get that feedback. I am not a fan of short citations. It's definitely something to consider - I have also made separate citations for the pages, as another option. That would be an easier change at this point to implement for this article. I certainly don't want to make the article reader-unfriendly.--CaroleHenson (talk)
    •  Done, no more {{rp}}s.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmmm ... that makes for an awful lot of redundancy, and can be difficult to maintain—if you have to make a change, you have to remember to make it to all the duplicates. I probably shouldn't have brought it up. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm satisfied this article has met the criteria of a Good Article. Passed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, Curly Turkey there was one source that had many more iterations than I expected, but I do think it looks better. Thanks so much for your help making a better and "Good article"!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)