Talk:Romaine Brooks

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

^{Date: 23:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Romaine Brooks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Romaine Brooks has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 9, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
January 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 13, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Women artists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brooks's relationships

The article contained a long list of people Brooks supposedly had relationships with, which seems more like a list of people she met at one point or another. I've removed the following:

Oscar Wilde's lover Lord Alfred Douglas
wealthy socialite Luisa Casati, writers Djuna Barnes, Radclyffe Hall, and Nancy Cunard, and Venice Baroness Mimì Franchetti.

If any of these are documented in reliable sources then by all means add them back, but I have Meryle Secrest's biography of Brooks, Souhami's joint biography of Brooks and Natalie Barney, and the other major biographies of Natalie Barney -- plus biographies of Hall, Cunard, and Barnes -- and I can't find support for any of them. —Cel ithemis 13:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Romaine Brooks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found an issue that needs to be addressed.

The article currently has nine non-free images. This needs to be cut down to three or four at most. I would suggest the main image, the piano image, and one or two others that are discussed in detail in the text. An external link is already provided which shows all of her images, so readers can visit the link if they want to see some of these images.

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should maintain its GA status. Actually there are only 4 non-free images. The rest qualify under {[pd-1923-abroad]} as they were publically exhibited before 1923. I think the four can remain...Modernist (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps: Kept

Thanks for clarifying on the images. Any of the free images, if free in the originating country, should be moved to Commons so others can benefit from their use. I believe there is sufficient rationale for the non-free images for GA, but there may be some issues if this article were to head to FAC at some point. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, thank you...Modernist (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romaine Brooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020001831/http://www.glbtq.com/arts/brooks_r.html to http://www.glbtq.com/arts/brooks_r.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romaine Brooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161001190041/http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=%2Fsmithsonian-institution%2Fits-time-acknowledge-romaine-brooks-early-20th-century-artist-180959725%2F to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=%2Fsmithsonian-institution%2Fits-time-acknowledge-romaine-brooks-early-20th-century-artist-180959725%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation

She's described as a lesbian in the article, though listed under bisexual categories as well. Can we clear this up?Mcc1789 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concened that this article doesn't meet the good article criteria anymore due to uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs and a citation needed tag from 2021. Is anyone willing to address this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Romaine Brooks

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and a "citation needed" tag from November 2021. There's also a "Gallery" section at the end of the article which, per WP:NOTGALLERY I recommend that these images be redistributed throughout the article and this section removed. Z1720 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agreed on the citations. However, I think the article already has perhaps too great a density of images in the body: given that it's an article about an artist, the gallery is a good thing and should, if anything, be expanded. Despite the name of WP:NOTGALLERY, the supporting text actually says Wikipedia articles are not merely (emphasis mine) collections of ... photographs or media files with no accompanying text. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia articles shouldn't include galleries, and indeed we have artist FAs that use them very well: see e.g. Vincent Van Gogh, El Greco or Robert Peake the Elder. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]