Talk:Blanche Lazzell/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 16:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. I've read it a couple of times and have only a few comments. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

Some overly detailed info? e.g. "At the Seminary she joined a student group called "The Ruggles" where she adopted the persona "Gentle Susan Ruggles". She befriended a fellow student, Arthur Lee Post, while there and the two became close. They corresponded with each other for eleven years." - does this add to understanding Lazzell?

I was hoping for some feedback on the level of detail. I agree that the student group can go. Lazzell never married, though I hoped to provide some detail on her personal relationships. Post was a high school crush that she never really let go of. They had pet names for each other and their correspondence was constant for many years. They had a bit of a falling out at the end. I got the impression from Doll's writing and the letters themselves that the relationship was formative for her, though there was little to say about it really.

Would it be possible to put an example of Ukiyo-e, altho not by Lazzell, since this style of woodcut seems very important to understanding her work?

The ukiyo-e was more important to the beginnings of the white-line woodcut in general than to Lazzell's work specifically. Sort of an indirect influence. I'd prefer to add more of her art to article. I have some copies of some images and will check to see if any are no longer under copyright. I'm hesitant to add more images under a fair-use rationale, but maybe that's an option too.

I made a few edits that you're free to change.[1]

The edits look great. Thank you for those.

Otherwise, a very nice article on an artist that deserves more attention. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Agree that you can't add any more Fair use images. The "white-line woodcut" is mentioned several times so perhaps it seemed overly important to me. Given that, I had to go to several other articles to understand what it was, thus my suggestion - but you are the expert!
Regarding detail, I think you should be careful not to draw conclusions from bits of information that aren't stated in sources. e.g. "Post was a high school crush that she never really let go of" - is that your conclusion or is this stated in a source? Is this an unstated suggestion that she was gay?
Somewhat frustrating to the reader (me), is that there is a lot of listing, naming of names, of schools of art, but little explanation of what these mean, unless the reader clicks on the various genres and names. e.g. I happen to know a lot about Hans Hoffman because of my particular education, but I bet most general readers now have never heard of him. Likewise, it is interesting to know of all the places she lived, her travels etc., but little is said about the influence or effect these had. Much depends on the general reader to draw conclusions.
I would like to read more about her work. Maybe some descriptions of specific works to give a feel of her use of color etc. Knowing the names of the various schools of art that influenced her helps some. But the article is more about names and places, her biography and not so much about her specific work. e.g. her inclination toward landscape art - but nothing more is said nor examples given.
These would be my criticisms regarding detail that doesn't inform, or that hints only. Do you think these comments of mine are helpful? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are very helpful and much appreciated. I'm still looking for free images (either of Lazzell's work, a white-line woodcut or a woodblock). I took a stab at describing the white-line technique though. I won't be including any of my takes regarding Lazzell's personal life; I was just explaining why I thought her relationship with Post might be relevant enough to be included in her biography. Arthur Post was a guy and I never read anything that would suggest she was gay. I've added some descriptors to help alleviate the listing and naming of names, though I'm not sure whether to pare down the listing or to add more descriptors and prose. I plan on addressing the affects and influences next as well as the descriptions of her works and style. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 01:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I just happened to run across this article Sharptooth houndshark. Notice how the editor explains a little, e.g. "This species is aplacental viviparous, meaning that the unborn young are sustained mainly by yolk." This is what I mean by a little explaining. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Justified Fair use

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Fulfils the GA criteria. I encourage you to continue to improve the article, incorporating my suggestions if possible.

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Mathew. I'm waiting for an interlibrary loan for a book that will allow me to cite specific examples of her works and influences. Your suggestions have been very helpful. Cheers, Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 17:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]