Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Mitchell Bannister/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2021 [1].

Edward Mitchell Bannister

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Edward Mitchell Bannister, an African-American abolitionist and painter. He first received national recognition for his art in 1876 at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, and he was a founder member of the Rhode Island School of Design and Providence Art Club. I have particularly attempted to expand our coverage of Bannister's earlier abolitionist years in Boston and the specifics of his artistic style and subjects.

In support of this nomination, I have solicited other editors' help with GOCE copyediting, a successful GAN, and a recent peer review. This is my first FAC nomination. (@Ceoil: since they offered to look at this earlier.) —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged. Wasn't expecting this, seemed to have missed the PR, but you have some formatting issues with closing brackets (ie [[]]) in refs 10, 11, 13 and 30 in i this revision. Also ref 39 is returning a syntax error. All easily sorted, and far from deal breakers. Will read though again shortly, with a full review in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, sorry, didn't mean to surprise you, I assumed you'd seen the previous pings/listing. And the ref changes you mentioned above are done —Wingedserif (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Gripes to follow. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome them! —Wingedserif (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Edward Mitchell Bannister.jpg and File:'Hay Gatherers' by Edward Mitchell Bannister, c. 1893.jpg When was the first publication?
For the first, the carte de viste, Wiki Commons says the photo was taken circa 1870; the Kenkebala exhibition catalog colophon says only "after 1870". For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get... The copy itself might have been taken from Holland's 1992 dissertation. Hay Gatherers was painted c. 1893 and the photo is likely also from Holland's dissertation. Holland's exhibition history appendix lists Hay Gatherers as part of the "Fleisig Collection" in 1893; I'm not sure if that indicates a sale into a private collection (the work is still privately owned today) or a proper first exhibition. (I'm also still waiting for Bannister's catalog raissone to be finished...) —Wingedserif (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you say For a date of first publication, between 1870 and 1901 is probably the most accurate we can get, what information is this based on? Is there any documented publication prior to 1926? For the second one, public display does not count as publication under US law. (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the portrait, "between 1870 and 1901" is based on source captions that list 1870 as the earliest possible date for the photo and the fact that Bannister died in early 1901. Sorry, I did not realize that the publication in this case means the date of the creation of the photography/copy, not first exhibition. I haven't been able to find earlier copies than Holland's 1992 thesis. By my understanding, the photo of Hay Gatherers should be in the public domain, as we are now 100+ years past the death of Bannister and the photo fits the criteria of "faithful photographic reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art".
Publication is not equivalent to creation either. To count as publication, copies of the work generally have to be distributed to the public, see the legal definition[2] PD-art only applies if you can show the underlying work is PD. {{PD-US-unpublished}} is a possibility, but you would have to show it wasn't published. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the Hay Gatherers painting is in the public domain, as we are well past life of the author plus seventy years after the author’s death, making the photograph of it eligible for PD-art. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's not how it works! It needs to be PD-US which is more complicated than public domain in most countries. See the Hirtle chart for details. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "It needs to be PD-US", what "it" are you referring to? By that chart, the painting, produced c. 1893 and necessarily before the death of Bannister, meets the criteria for both PD-old-70 and PD-US-expired. Both of those apply whether or not the painting was ever "published" or not. Therefore, the painting is in the US public domain. The photograph of it is public domain as well, per PD-art. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Approaching the three week mark and very little interest. Unless more reviews are attracted over the next few days, preferably with some indication that a consensus to promote may be forming, I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the time, Boston was an abolitionist stronghold, but it was also sharply divided by race; in 1860, Boston was one of the most segregated cities in the US - you could merge the two latter clauses into one really here, maybe " At the time, Boston was an abolitionist stronghold, but it was also sharply divided by race—ranked as one of the most segregated cities in the US in 1860" (one less "Boston" anyway)
    • I trimmed this, by cutting the "sharply divided" bit, since that's also implied by "most segregated". —WS
  • Carteaux was admitted to her Home for Aged Colored Women in 1902 and died in 1903 in a mental institution. She and Bannister are buried together. - needs a citation(s)
    • Put in a citation from the Rhode Island History Journal source, which focuses on Carteaux. —WS
  • The first two sentences of the Artistic style are repetitive. A possible solution is to switch sentences and trim, to something like, "Bannister advertised himself as a portraitist as a young painter, but eventually became popular for his landscapes. He also painted biblical, mythological, and genre scenes." or somesuch (as the references allow)
    • Combined as you suggested. —WS
  • Can any of the Further reading items be used as sources? If they have more material to add then leaving them out makes me think the article is not comprehensive, and if they don't then why do we list them....
    • Two of those were recent news articles that I had dropped in. I added two sentences from then, and deleted a couple of sources that only treat Bannister briefly. The Bearden book looks to have been written in collaboration with Holland and had more detail, which I've written into the article. The remaining two "Further reading" items are books that I haven't been able to locate. —WS

Overall a good read and within striking distance of FA-hood I think...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively support this on prose and comprehensiveness grounds, but I tend to skim prose sometimes so other editors might pick up issues I have missed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Curiocurio

[edit]
Tonalism and lede
[edit]

I did a read through of the article and thought it was well done. However, the infobox says his style was Tonalism, and maybe I missed it but I didn't see Tonalism mentioned in the article. Also, the lede seems a little skimpy for a FA candidate. Perhaps it could be expanded a bit. Curiocurio (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced "Tonalism" with "American Barbizon school" in the article; good spot, I hadn't realized that sources actually don't mention the former. I had kept it from the version of the article I expanded, because Tonalism does seem apt for describing his later work, but until sources say that, it'd be WP:OR. I've also expanded the lead to mention his largest accomplishment (the 1876 first prize) and to mention Christiana, their house, and Bannister's legacy, which are discussed more later in the article and did seem to be missing from the lead. lmk what you think! —Wingedserif (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is much better. However, the first sentence still does say "was an American Tonalist oil painter", and Tonalism isn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps you could say "was an oil painter of the American Barbizon school", and later, "Bannister's style of landscape painting". Stylistically, Tonalism is more succinct than American Barbizon school but as you say it's necessary to follow the sources. Curiocurio (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, sorry, my eyes just skimmed over it in the lead. Removed and replaced "tonalist", as you recommended. —Wingedserif (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]
  • Lead
  • "Life-long" – Merriam Webster and the OED both give this as a single, unhyphenated word.
  • Done! —WS
  • "his more well-known" – "better-known" would be the usual form
  • Gonna push back on this one; "well-known" has a MW dictionary entry and reads as more common to me. —WS
"well-known" certainly, but "more well" is strange English: the word is "better". Tim riley talk 13:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, done! —WS
  • Early life
  • There is a "likely" in three paragraphs in succession. A bit of a variety would enliven the prose.
  • One "likely" changed, another removed. —WS
  • Boston activist, artist, and student
  • "Once Bannister was established as an artist, abolitionist William Wells Brown praised Bannister" – no need to repeat Bannister – a pronoun instead of the second one would help the flow of the prose
  • This was to avoid pronoun ambiguity, so I dropped the "his" too. Done! —WS.
  • "He sang a tenor in the Crispus Attucks Choir" – should this be "sang as a tenor"?
  • Oop, yes! —WS.
  • "the Crispus Attucks Choir … The Histrionic Club" – looks odd to capitalise the second the but not the first.
  • Done, lc'ed 2nd "the". —WS.
  • "one of several reclamations of Gould Shaw" – "reclamations" baffles me. I can't work out the meaning of this sentence.
  • Meant this to explain why the "Our Martyr" label was so important, but agree that it was awkward. It's "one of several memorials" now. —WS.
  • "They marched under a banner reading "Equal rights for all men"" – this naturally leads the reader to wonder whether they wanted equal rights for women, too. Do we know Bannister's line on that point? Might be good to add it, if known.
  • This I don't know—the quote came from an archival newspaper and wasn't mentioned in the other sources that I read. Confusingly, "men" might have been used in its old gender-neutral sense there. —WS.
  • Providence
  • "but a planned trip to Europe fell through due to funding problems" – or in plain English, for lack of money.
  • Done! —WS
  • "Stetson often mentioned Bannister in his personal diaries and once praised Bannister" – another place where "him" would be preferable, I think, to a second "Bannister".
  • Done! —WS
  • Artistic style
  • "his tastes in literature were typical of an educated Victorian painter, including Spenser, Virgil, Ruskin, and Tennyson, from whose works much of his iconography can be traced" – two points here. First, it could do with a citation, and secondly it isn't clear if his iconography can be traced to all four of them or just to Tennyson.
Afterthought: unless there is a particular reason for listing the four writers in that order it might be an idea to list them in either chronological (V, S, T, R) or alphabetical order. A minor point, but you may like to consider. Tim riley talk 12:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all my searching, all I could find was a reference to Bannister looking like Tennyson, so I think this sentence has to be struck. I did keep a mention of his love of poetry and classics, which a couple of sources say without citing specific authors. —WS
  • "His later palette exhibited brighter, but more muted colors" – perhaps I'm being dim but I can't see how a colour can be brighter and more muted at the same time.
  • Changed to "lighter, more muted" —WS
  • "This was a large part of the double blind" – does the source really say double-blind rather than double-bind? If you look both terms up in Merriam-Webster you will see that the latter is plainly what is meant.
  • Good catch; that was a typing error on my part. —WS
  • Legacy
  • "After his death, Bannister was largely forgotten by art history" – another repeated "Bannister" that might be better as a pronoun.
  • Done! —WS
  • "Art historian Anne Louise Avery is currently compiling the first catalogue raisonné and a major biography of Bannister's work – WP:DATED looms here. You need something like "In [date] it was announced that art historian Anne Louise Avery was compiling..." or "As of 2021 art historian Anne Louise Avery is compiling..."
  • Dated to 2018, using the web source. —WS

That's all from me. This is an excellent and interesting article – a pleasure to read and review. Tim riley talk 10:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to support the promotion of this article. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. I have much enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews

[edit]
Review by Nikkimaria
[edit]

- spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • The "Edwin" name is missing a source
Cited to William Wells Brown source; its bio for Bannister is titled "Edwin". —WS
  • "Seril Dodge House at left, where the Providence Art Club was first permanently located" - source?
I made a mistake: there are two Seril Dodge Houses right next to each other. The Art Club first headquartered at the Seril Dodge House that is visible at the right side of the image. They only used the left-handside, older Dodge House from 1916 on. I'm replacing this picture, caption, and alt text. —WS
  • Be consistent in when locations are included
Added to all book citations. —WS
Still inconsistencies here - see for example FN23. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, every {cite book} should have a location now. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how web sources are formatted, and do not italicize publishers
Updated refs so publishers/works are consistently listed under the right cite arg —WS
Still inconsistencies here. FN5 for example links to cbc.ca, which is a work, but the display is simply "CBC". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done —WS
  • FN2 should cite the original source - this is just a republication
Citation updated to Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History
Will be responding in single section below, so both source reviewers can respond in the same place. —WS
  • FN8 is missing date. Ditto FN26, check for others
Added —WS
Still issues here, eg FN31. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done (note that this was a new source I had added to address other review concerns) —WS
  • The Libertator refs should include original source details
I've added volume and issue numbers for the two articles; what other information did you mean? —WS
Page(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added —WS
  • FN12 is missing publisher
Added! —WS
  • Boston Post should be italicized
Italed. —WS
  • Page ranges should use dashes throughout, and be consistent in whether they are abbreviated
Checked every |pages= and |p= field to add en dashes and make sure the ranges weren't abbreviated. —WS
  • FN18: is this citing FN3? If so, why not include both authors?
Both are included in new note. —WS
  • Fn33 is dead
Updated URL. —WS
  • Fn37: can you explain the formatting choices here?
See fix below in other source review. —WS
  • Be consistent in whether "The" is included in newspaper names
All The's added —WS
  • Fn39 is missing accessdate
Done! —WS
I have not been able to find a digitized version or get to a library that has a copy. —WS
Is interlibrary loan a possibility? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been traveling, so I haven't been able to. I think I could gain access sometime in August; from the title's worldcat entry, the title isn't in public libraries near me, only university libraries. FWIW, I don't think this exhibition catalog is necessary for the completeness of this article—in my exp., exhibition catalogs rarely contain original historical research. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Usernameunique — Pass
[edit]

References

  • #1 — Suggest "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. ISBN should be hyphenated.
Done! —WS
  • #2 — Publisher can be given as Encyclopedia.com. It appears to have a date, too. Is Encyclopedia.com reliable?
Citing this to original publication in Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History (see other source review above). —WS
  • #3 — Suggest "| name-list-style = amp" parameter. ISBN should be hyphenated. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #4 — Any particular reason to use a master's thesis?
  • #7 — Any particular reason to use a Ph.D. dissertation, let alone so extensively?
Will be responding in single section below, so both source reviewers can respond in the same place. —WS
  • #8 — Date missing.
Done! —WS
  • #9 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #10 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. Why do you use the "– via" parameter here but not elsewhere?
Ret. date removed. I had used "via" to try to mention the repository, but I have removed that from the citation. —WS
  • #11 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #12 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter. ISBN should be hyphenated.
Done! —WS
  • #14 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
—Done! —WS
  • #16 — This would be better off in a separate "Notes" section. What is the source for the article being potentially apocryphal? Shouldn't it theoretically be easy enough (if time consuming) to search through that year's issues? Two periods at the end.
Note section made; period dropped. The hypothesis about the story possibly being apocryphal is mine (and therefore potentially WP:OR). I did go through many issues of the New York Herald through newspaperarchive.com but did not find any such article. A lot of the sources I found pick up and repeat this story using the same verbatim quote; I started to doubt whether they had found the article in doing so or were just trusting their sources. For example, Men of Mark (1887) says that the article came out "twenty years ago" and all the sources I've seen seem to have assumed the article dates to exactly 1867. The note was the best compromise I could think of to express my doubts about the story, not being able to track the article down myself. (I could try again.) —Wingedserif (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notes section looks good. But now that you have it, you should convert the cites into footnotes (i.e., the same style as in the body of the article), rather than the in-text shorthand. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! —WS
  • #18 — This would be better off in a separate "Notes" section. "pp." missing in the first cite—but both cites would be cleaner if styled as a note rather than a reference.
Notes section made and page citations added. I realized that I should probably provide information about the source that Holland & Jennings cited as providing the quote. Let me know if the treatment I used was OK, or if I should try to find more information to use the original citation (ie, the 1876 article's title). —WS
I don't think the original source is needed, though it's nice to nail down such details. Nor do I think the "As quoted in" wording is needed (it seems implied, if you just cite to the later source), but if you do use it, you might link Holland & Jennings 1992 to the source (e.g., how "Maryon 1912" is linked at Herbert Maryon#Articles). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded to full citation template for Holland & Jennings. If you're OK with it, I think I'll leave citation for the quotation as is, since the Kenkebala book is so much more easily accessible for readers than the 1876 Christian Recorder. —WS
  • #19 — Chesley seems like it's a first (or middle) name, not a last name. Why just the "W"?
You're right, and a little searching revealed that he's WL-able. —WS
  • #20 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Removed. —WS
  • #22 — What is "Unbound"?
The name of the specific blog run by the Smithsonian. Looking at it now, though, I think the claim is a bit of a stretch from the source I had linked. I'm going to delete this citation and look for another to replace it. —WS
  • #23 — ISBN should be hyphenated.
Done! —WS
  • #25 — Vivien Raynor can take a link. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #26 — Missing date.
Done! —WS
  • #28 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #29 — Retrieval date not needed for archived source, which by design is how it appears on a particular day.
Done! —WS
  • #30 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
Done! —WS
  • #31 — Any reason to cite a Ph.D. dissertation?
  • #36 — Missing date.
Done! —WS
  • #37 — I'm confused by "Catalogues Raisonnés in Preparation. or Art Research (IFAR)-Catalogues Raisonnés in Preparation".
Looks like when I used the cite helper, it weirdly cut off the front of the full site name. I've set the publisher to "International Foundation for Art Research" —WS
  • #38 — Missing author.
Done! —WS
  • #39 — Missing author. Missing date. Missing retrieval date.
Done! —WS
  • #42 — The Boston Globe may as well be linked. And any reason "The" is not included?
Done! (There wasn't.) —WS
  • General — What's the reasoning behind red linking some, but not all, journals?
Gone through all the citejournals and added in WLs–turns out most of them have articles already. —WS

Further reading

  • Inconsistency between "Rhode Island" and "R.I."
Switched so both use spelled-out state name. —WS
  • Why are only initials given for Otto's first name? Any OCLC, or link to it online?
The Holland thesis and Perry book only gave initials for their citation of the article. This looks to have been by a Joseph K. Ott (I had mistyped his last name). I cannot find any other digital reference to it with Worldcat, Google Scholar, or just plain search engines. —WS
Are you sure "1828–1901: " is part of the title? Searching for the just "The Barbizon School in Providence" on Google turns up a few hits (although it remains admittedly obscure). --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, you're right—year range removed from the title. —WS


This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points

  • Notes 1 and 3 should have footnotes, not full citations.
  • As pointed out above (with the Maryon example), note 2 could say "appears in Simmons 1887, pp. 1127–1131.", with "Simmons 1887" a link to the full work (which could appear in "Further reading" or a separate "Bibliography" section). But I'll leave this up to you. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done both of the above (I was having trouble with the sfn template, so I used harvnb instead). Let me know what you think! —Wingedserif (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wingedserif, I've changed the formatting of the notes to allow for footnotes. See what you think of my edits—it's what I had in mind with the above comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for stepping in—as I mentioned, I'm not too familiar with the citing templates you mentioned, even with the examples, so I wasn't sure what you were asking for. I do think that I will remove the in-note pp. range for Simmons—since the range is already in the full ref, I don't think we need to have it duplicated. —Wingedserif (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use of theses
[edit]

I wanted to centralize the questions about this article's compliance w/ WP:SCHOLARSHIP here, for everybody's ease of reference. In short, the article as it is now cites often to two theses (one MA, one PhD), which is normally discouraged.

The solution for the Lee Costa art history MA thesis should be easy but will take some time on my part. Lee Costa's thesis was republished in a scholarly edited collection Locating American Art. I can't find a copy online, so I am going to try to track one down so that I can confirm whether my current citations are still valid (since we have no idea how the text may have changed in the publication process). Similarly, some of its aesthetic judgments are sourced to an article by Gwendolyn DuBois Shaw, "Landscapes of Labor"—I'm going to try to get access to that as well.

The Holland PhD thesis I am less sure of. I have gone through and switched as many citations as I can to other sources. However, Holland's thesis is the longest, most comprehensive work on Bannister I've been able to find. There are details I have only been able to confirm through her thesis (which might raise questions of whether those details are WP:DUE or not), and I think most are worth keeping. Bannister did have quite an impact in his early works and I think it's worth discussing his artistic style in depth; to do so, Holland's thesis discusses Bannister's work in the context of the cultural environment of Boston and the comparative works of Bannister's colleagues. Holland acknowledges the guidance of David Driskell, an expert in African American art, and Lynda Roscoe Hartigan, a renowned curator, in her thesis, as well as that of two Columbia advisers, Barbara Novak and Suzanne Blier. The thesis was cited in a handful of other theses, as well as the academic books Hopes and Expectations: The Origins of the Black Middle Class in Hartford (Beeching 2016), Child of the Fire: Mary Edmonia Lewis and the Problem of Art History’s Black and Indian Subject (Buick 2010), Diaspora and Visual Culture: Representing Africans and Jews (Mirzoeff 2014) and the non-academic The Other Side of Color: African American Art in the Collection of Camille O. and William H. Cosby, Jr (Driskell, Cosby, Hanks 2001). Holland's encyclopedia article and exhibition catalog (the publication of the latter was before her PhD) on him are also cited in this article—I think her work is generally reliable.

I'll leave it there for now; I'm curious to hear what people's concern with the sources and specific citations are. —Wingedserif (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Costa MA thesis with citations to her published book chapter. I've also added the Du Bois Shaw article, which has allowed me to replace a few Holland thesis citations and in other cases add an additional citation in support. —Wingedserif (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about Abbot? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Abbot thesis I'm essentially just using to say "this gallery displayed Bannister works during this time", which I do not think is an extraordinary claim. I have also supported the claim with a web source. The published thesis has been cited in (at least) African American Artists and the Art Market and The Routledge Companion to African American Art History. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note
[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria and Usernameunique, could I get a sense of where we're at from your perspectives re. sources? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on a number of points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a few comments above about the formatting in the notes section. That will be easy to clear up and then I'll be signed off. I would also note that given the explanations regarding the theses above (and the fact that the remaining masters thesis is used for one, minor, point), I'm not concerned about their use. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wingedserif, looking over this with a view to promotion but could we pls have a citation for the final statement under House? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a citation for the year of the sale and university ownership program. I removed the professor's name because I didn't find it listed in any of the news articles about the house renovation—I just don't think it's WP:DUE. Let me know if there's anything else! —Wingedserif (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "he and Christiana Carteaux moved out of their home on College Hill in Providence, Rhode Island". This could imply that they became homeless. I would say where they moved to.
    • Done —WS
  • "until institutions like the National Museum of African Art brought him back to national attention in the United States" Maybe add when. 1970s?
    • Done —WS
  • "Hannah Alexander Bannister". No change needed, but my mother also had the second name Alexander, her mother's maiden name. I wonder whether Hannah had that second name for the same reason.
  • "The brothers' role as barbers and status as mixed race". This is stated as if you have already covered their mixed race. It should be covered above.
    • This one is hard to decide what to do about—sources are divided about the parentage of Bannister: some say his mother was white, others disagree, and there's simply not that much information about his parents. Furthermore, the point is more how the brothers were perceived; the Holland source quote is "Bannister's place in Boston's black community also derived from his designation as a light-skinned African American [...], his middle-class profession [...], and upper-class aspirations. ... Edward and William Bannister, both identified in the 1850 census as mulattos, benefited from this group's greater opportunities for employment and social mobility". I'd prefer to leave the sentence as is, mentioned at the part of his life where the source discusses it. What do you think? —Wingedserif (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the points you are making here are worth adding to the article - the disagreement in sources about his mother's race where you mention her above, and identification in census as mulatto. In view of the importance of race in Bannister's life, the more detail the better Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added more detail to the initial note about Bannister's parentage, to explain how this article's major sources have dealt with the uncertainty. Let me know if you think that works, —Wingedserif (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still confused. You say possibly Barbadian parents, which would usually imply both black. One could be white Barbadian, but this needs explanation and the note says nothing about possible Barbadian parentage of his mother. Holland contradicts herself saying he was mixed race and both parents of African descent. The latter must be wrong as he said in census he was mulatto. Maybe leave out Holland's views on the subject if she does not make sense. Bannister saying mulatto in census should be mentioned and implies mother not African and this needs discussion in the main text. I realise this is difficult in view of the confusion in the sources but it needs sorting out for the reader. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More detail just isn't in the most-used/most-extensive sources, and they do contradict one another. It's difficult to interpret Holland's writing on the subject because the change from source to source might be the result of more research, or just a change in her opinion. I am reticent to use the term "mulatto" in the article since, at that time, US census takers were the ones who determined the race entry for individuals—all it records is how he was perceived by a census taker on that day; I don't think it's a good indicator of overall social treatment. I think the best option, if explaining all the source discrepancies is too confusing, is to cut the note down. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misunderstood you on mulatto - I thought you meant that it was his own description. How about changing "near the St. Croix River, to possibly Barbadian parents." to something like "near the St. Croix River. His father was black Barbadian and his mother's parentage is uncertain, but he was regarded as mixed race." I think you could cut down the note as it has some speculation which is not very relevant. Also I forgot to ask, were barbers then regarded as middle-class professionals? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed that first sentence to use your wording and cut down the note. I did keep the hypothesis about the Black Loyalists because it's mentioned twice in sources. In the context for the quote I provided above, Holland indicates that barbers were a middle-class profession. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps worth mentioning that Christiana was of mixed African American and Narragansett Indian parentage?
    • Done —WS
  • "Bannister's colleague, Jacob R. Andrews" Colleague in what?
    • Done. Andrews framed other Bannister paintings and he was also a member of the Histrionic Club. —WS
  • "solar plates". This needs a link or an explanatory note.
    • Done, linked to cyanotype —WS
  • "Prudence Nelson Bell". This is formatted as a link to a Commons file. I thought external links in text were forbidden. Nikkimaria have I got that wrong?
  • Done, removed link —WS
  • "despite Gould Shaw's Boston Brahmin background." I do not think you need "despite" as he was a strong abolitionist.
    • Going to push back on this. The Kresser source says, "[Brahmin abolitionists] did not consider African American social equality an end in itself, nor did they wish their moral efforts to be relativized through association with a particular cause. Their worldview did not recognize material definitions of social justice; consequently, it did not sanction a regime in which identifiable groups fought and negotiated for equal measures of esteem, goods, or opportunity." Later, "While Lewis and Bannister acted quickly to celebrate Shaw’s legacy, Boston’s Brahmin class, a ponderous collective both deeply conservative and tortuously discreet, worked slowly but purposefully toward a visual interpretation of its own." That "despite" expresses that Bannister's portrait stands in opposition to the Brahmins' self-identification and was used for a specific, practical purpose (the relief fair) opposed to the Brahmins' form of abolitionism. If you'd like me to make that connection more explicit, I can try—I had a hard time representing the source material in writing that part of the article. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first, I have written an explanatory sentence that is a paraphrase of the citation quote. For the second, can you suggest a replacement or say what you do not understand? "Indifferent" is the simplest word I can think of to express the idea that the Brahmin representation's of Gould Shaw showed him as an unengaged, idealized martyr, not one that was invested in the cause he died for. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about replacing "the Boston Brahmins tried to redefine Gould Shaw as an indifferent martyr" to "the Boston Brahmins portrayed him as having died for a cause he did not greatly care about"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get what your suggestion is going for; I'm trying to think of a more concise replacement... what if I changed the sentence to this?: "Through art like the 1884 Robert Gould Shaw Memorial, the Boston Brahmins tried to reject the possessive "Our Martyr" label given to him by Black artists like Bannister and Edmonia Lewis." —Wingedserif (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike the Hudson River School style,[1]:49 Bannister did not create meticulous landscapes". It sounds odd to say that Bannister was unlike a style. Maybe "Unlike the Hudson River School artists,[1]:49 Bannister did not create meticulous landscapes["
    • Done! —WS
  • "Approaching Storm". Another external link which should be removed. You could add "(see right)" instead.
    • Done! —WS
  • "In one work, Hay Gatherers, Bannister depicts African American field laborers that combines his rural landscapes with a representation of the racial oppression and labor exploitation that marked Rhode Island". This is ungrammatical.
    • Split this up into two sentences to make it grammatical. —WS
  • "he combined a seemingly idealized landscape with his early political practice". Combining a landscape with practice sounds odd to me.
    • I think I've made the two elements sound more compatible. —WS
  • "Rhode Island College dedicated its Art Gallery in Bannister's name with the exhibition: Four From Providence: Alston, Bannister, Jennings & Prophet" I do not know what "dedicated its Art Gallery" means in this context. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see anything about the exhibition in the source. Perhaps "The Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame inducted Bannister in 1976 and Rhode Island College's art is exhibited in Bannister Gallery, named in his honor." Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Edward_Mitchell_Bannister/archive1&oldid=1210787361"