Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Utermohlen/archive2

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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 13 January 2022 [1].

William Utermohlen

Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about William Utermohlen, who created self-portraits after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1995. I have been expanding this article for five months now and in the past three there has been a successful GA review, the previous unsuccessful FAC and a peer review which has just been closed today. After all of that I am highly sure that this meets the FA criteria. Realmaxxver (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pink Saffron

As the nominator said, it has almost all of the FA criteria met. It is also a very interesting article, I think it should be 100% the Featured Article of day. ----Pink Saffron (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Saffron, I see this is your first FAC review; more engagement with WP:WIAFA is expected at FAC, which is “not a vote”. It might help for you to read through some other FACs on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Placeholder. Fascinating. Ceoil (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed it, the article doesn't say who devised and titled the six cycles.

Most the cycle titles can be seen on his website, citing a 2006 essay from Patricia (Utermohlen's wife); so I may attribute her. Realmaxxver (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-syntax - A painting, "A series of paintings" (you had the other way around) Ceoil (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I love the article, any chance of including more artworks - we now only have two. Ceoil (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

I did not do a full review— just browsed for medical and MEDRS issues. I found no statements about AD that breach WP:MEDRS. I did see grammatical errors and typos as I read through, but assume others will get to those on copyedit. Google scholar produces a large number of sources that should be used for comprehensiveness; I don’t think the article can meet comprehensiveness without consulting those sources. Also, the original Lancet article should be provided, which I believe is this one (but I find it odd that sources don’t seem to specify), and might mention it was published as a case report:

Crutch SJ, Isaacs R, Rossor MN (June 2001). "Some workmen can blame their tools: artistic change in an individual with Alzheimer's disease". Lancet. 357 (9274): 2129–33. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)05187-4. PMID 11445128.

This source is used in the article, but it offers a lot of untapped potential. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an issue accessing sources for expansion of the article, Realmaxxver, many of these sources can be accessed via WP:TWL and others you can request at WP:RX. I share Sandy's concerns about comprehensiveness, however. (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from JBchrch

One comment: for an artist whose work is famous for depicting the effects of Alzheimer's, I was expecting a bit more content on to the relationship between his disease and his art, i.e. how the medical symptoms of Alzheimer's are expressed in/illustrated by his works. As mentioned by SandyGeorgia, the original Lancet paper has some good material on this. Palmiero, Massimiliano; Di Giacomo, Dina; Passafiume, Domenico (August 2012). "Creativity and dementia: a review". Cognitive Processing. 13 (3): 193–209. doi:10.1007/s10339-012-0439-y. is also an interesting MEDRS source, as it uses Crutch and al. 2001 as one of its primary materials. JBchrch talk 13:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although, in using those sources, care must be taken not to breach WP:MEDRS when using a case report to discuss the condition, rather to state what Utermohlen’s physicians observed about his art, or to restate only generalities about the condition that can be cited to secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up any support. Unless it shows considerable further signs of building a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in reviewing this article, but I am not sure whether the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia and others are fully resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have not, and there remains much untapped potential in the sources I mentioned; also, considering there are independent secondary sources, the article relies very heavily on his wife's publications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request

@FAC coordinators: I am requesting to withdraw this nomination. I need more time to fulfil comprehensiveness and also (Because SandyGeorgia pointed it out) try and replace some of the sources from Utermohlen's wife (like those from Utermohlen's website) with more secondary independent sources. Realmaxxver (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.