Talk:Wadsworth Jarrell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs Review of Grammer

Two examples:

As the social and economic world of Chicago declined, gang violence threatened the family's neighborhood, and their second child, Jennifer, was born the family decided to move to the New York area.

Struggling to fit in at Howard, unable to make tenure, and safety concerns due to increasing crime in Washington, the family decided to movePedantrician (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! If you can be of assistance, I encourage it. I'm rather busy with my other obligations right now with WMF so I haven't had time to re-review my writing. Any assistance is always encouraged and appreciated! SarahStierch (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I always question anyone who expresses concern about "grammer" considering that "grammar" is the correct spelling. OCNative (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please expand lead

Before this article gets reviewed for GA, the lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs due to the length of the article itself. Be sure that the lead adequately summarizes key points in the body of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wadsworth Jarrell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: five found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead fails to accurately summarise the article, please see WP:LEAD

   The lead has been rewritten by Sarah and copyedited by myself. There is, however, one problematic sentence remaining: "The figures within his paintings are abstract and inspired by the masks and sculpture of Nigeria, two mediums that have influenced his bright and bold—at times tribal—sculptures." There are just too many ideas jumbled up in this sentence. I'm not sure how to rewrite it, however, so I'll leave it up to Sarah. Maybe it could be split into two sentences. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you for the copyediting Kaldari. I've broken the sentence down, I hope it's a bit better. I tend to get a bit descriptive in my writing, as if we didn't notice that by now :) (Blame the curatorial training...) SarahStierch (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   Looks good to me. If you want to go ahead and prepare the article for an FA nomination as well, you'll want to add a stronger assertion of notability to the lead sentence. I would consider that extra credit for GA, but it's Jezhotwells's GA review so I'll let them decide :) Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   Good point, please consider this if you wish to go to FAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

   All three of the Jarrell boys would work at the furniture store, where a young Jarrell would learn to cane chairs. His father's artistic ability and mother's skill as a quilt-maker would contribute to the entire family's love for art. "would" is inconsistent with the rest of this paragraph, which is mostly simple past tense.

   It was there where Jarrell was encouraged by his teacher,... "there where"?

   He attended a private Baptist school starting in the seventh grade only to transfer to Athens High in the tenth grade "only"?

   Closer more so to his mother than his father, their relationship became closer as his father and one of his brothers left to work at a shipyard during World War II? Very poor prose. Try reading it out aloud/ I will only continue reviewing the prose after it has been given a thorough copy-edit.

   ''Georgia blacks were not allowed to visit museums until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Thereafter the Chicago museums made quite an impact on Jarrell. This implies that "Georgia blacks" were not allowed to visit "Chicago museums". Is this what you mean?

   I don't think I wrote that, but, I have attempted to change the language. It really sounded poor! SarahStierch (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   Fine Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The History makers website requires registration, so the citations should say so. What makes this a reliable source?

   I am unfamiliar with the tag to show that the source is only for registered users. It is published transcribed oral history, and while that is a primary document, I selectively use the oral histories and verify them with secondary source. Even if I burnt myself out with copyediting this article, I'd never risk my scholarly reputation in my career by utilizing untrustworthy non-reliable sources. (I know that's dramatic, but, it's something I take quite seriously!) SarahStierch (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

   THe tag in a citation template is "|format=Subscription required£ or "registration required". It is not a Ga requirement, but is good practice, to alert readers. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   @Jezhotwells: There is no requirement for references that require registration to say so—they are treated just like other references. As WP:V states: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." To answer your question about why HistoryMakers is a reliable source, it seems that they are an established 501(c)(3) non-profit archive and have contributed to educational PBS television programming and collaborated with Carnegie Mellon University among other activities. Kaldari (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

   Accepted. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   @Sarah: If the citations refer to audio or video content, you can use the "at" parameter in the template to specify a time marker, for example "at=00:13:48". If you're just taking information from a transcript, however, this isn't necessary. Kaldari (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

   Likewise with ref #21

   Assume good faith for offline source.

   The whole article relies on three sources. Can you not find anymore?

   The best sources related to Jarrell are published scholarly publications - the Pomegranate book (they published the majority of the books researchers for articles about African American artists), the Black Studies Center and that oral history interview. The majority of content is limited or self-serving as its published by AFRICOBRA. I wrote this article in conjunction with research for the inaugural exhibition of a museum I work for. SarahStierch (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Appears to satisfy these criteria

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Jae Jarrell Revolutionary Dress.JPG actually has a Creative Commons license )Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0), so should have that license's tag not a non-free use rationale.

   File:Senoufo mask-romanceor.jpg should be used in the section where it is discussed, i.e. African influences. I also note that Commons suggests using File:Senoufo mask-romanceor.png instead. Done

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for the above issues to be addressed, most importantly a thorough copy-edit to render it into reasonably well written plain English. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

   OK, just the lead to be addressed, also one problematic sentence above. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

   All appears to be in order, an interesting article and an important contribution to the content on Afro-American culture. Congratulations! Passing as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging

I don't think there is a need to merge any content into this article from the Wadsworth Jarrell and the AFRI-COBRA movement article. Perhaps I'm bias, as I'm the original creator of the Wadsworth Jarrell article, and I have devoted quite a bit of my professional research to Jarrell's work and life. If folks aren't opposed to it, I think we can safely just delete the other article and keep this article as is. I'm really happy with the brief coverage of Revolutionary and the even briefer explanation of Liberation Soldiers. Wikipedia is meant to serve as the beginning point for research, and I like to think this article does just that (as it is the only "secondary" source I have found thus far that is extensive and available for free online). I'm not sure what we need to do to remove the merge tag, except...remove it, but, I don't want to step on any toes unless people feel we really do need to merge the material from the other article into this (I also want to maintain it's good article status, of course!). Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The quality of this article or your research is not in question. However the out come of the deletion discussion of the Wadsworth Jarrell and the AFRI-COBRA movement was that it should be merged into this article. It is now over 2 months since the end of the discussion. Somebody should have done the merge, Anybody could do the merge and yet Nobody has done the merge. Until now that is. I have moved the whole article and put it into its own section. That way, the original article makes the same sense as it did before and the new section also makes sense. I trust Everybody's toes are intact. Op47 (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. The writing covered much of what is already in the article, while these works are great, the language was not very neutral in regards to art history writing Wikipedia style, and portions were actually written by folks related to individuals in the movement. If these works are so pertinent we should perhaps create entire articles devoted to the individual pieces, but, both are already covered and aren't considered exact masterpieces by Jarrell. I think we're good with the article and if we do feel these articles need further discussion and expansion we can reconsider. I also fear that the addition of the content the way it was could move the article to losing it's good article status. Thanks for merging it. SarahStierch (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Revolutionary is by far Jarrell's most famous painting. I would support creating a stand-alone article for it or adding more material about it here. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)