Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Utermohlen/archive4

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2022 [1].

William Utermohlen

Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a long while improving this article (about ten months, seven on FAC). The only reason I am here again is because I want to be finished with this; I'm just kind of tired of this and want to focus on my other projects now.

William Utermohlen was an artist that was active for around four decades. When he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1995, he tried to understand what was happening to him the only way he could, art. for about six years, ending in around 2001, he created a series of self-portraits that show the effects of the disease on his art. The portraits show several emotions, but Nicci Gerrard summarised it as "emotional modernism".

This originally started in July 2021 as a hobby, I did'nt originally want to get this to the bronze star or, even GA status. But I felt like it could become an FA after it did become a GA in October. After seven months and three unsuccessful attempts, this is going to be the last attempt. Once I am done with this FAC, I am done with trying to improve this article. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Realmaxxver! Obviously it's not encouraging not to succeed at FAC, but when I look at the article now versus when it first showed up here, I am wowed by the great improvement that was made. (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ping commentators on previous FAC: Wetrorave, DMT Biscuit, Ceoil, asking if your concerns were addressed (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also JBchrch, SandyGeorgia (t · c) buidhe 05:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of prose issues throughout still, and I'm not sure the Neurology Today article has been completely tapped (as I mentioned in FAC 2); I am unsure how quickly I can do a thorough review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, I might give another run through re prose/MOS, which might take a few days, so no panic there for now. Will update when Neurology Today is better incorporated, so hold tough for now. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to do a full review, but I see that substantial additions have been made about the medical analysis of the case in the #Legacy section since the last time I checked [2], which addresses the concerns I had. Perhaps it could be improved and more sources could be added, but I'm not opposing. Whatever the outcome will be I am admirative of @Realmaxxver's commitment. JBchrch talk 14:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biscuit

"He moved to London in 1962 and married the art historian Patricia Redmond in 1965." - how relevant towards the lede is this?
Very relevant. He was an anglophile, married an English woman, and was heavily influenced by Francis Bacon. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"before returning to London in 1975." - see above.
Ditto Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publication seems like a misnomer. Maybe explain the relationship between Utermohlen and the journal.

"He experienced memory loss beginning in 1991" → "He experienced memory loss, which began in 1991.

Changed to "Utermohlen started to experience memory loss, which began around four years prior to diagnosis." Realmaxxver (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"which included two years in the Caribbean" - relevance?
It was two years of his early life, and mentioned in the early life section. Ceoil (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Chris Boicos, Utermohlen's art dealer, said that the subject matter of the lithographs were a metaphor for the forthcoming Alzheimer's disease diagnosis a year later" - admittedly, I am somewhat lost with this. Is it implying that Utermohlen was aware/surmised that he was in falling into the thralls of dementia? If he was aware/foresaw and the metaphor is intentional then that should be reflected by the prose.
Now restated as the lithographs "...are described by his art dealer Chris Boicos as a seeming premonition of the artist's Alzheimer's disease diagnosis made in the following year.[46] By the time Utermohlen completed the lithographs, he was often forgetting to show up for teaching appointments.[47]" Ceoil (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asking due to her citation in a non-academic text, what is Leslie Millin's credentials. Reflect in prose.
A generalist journalist. Restated as "Writing for the Queen's Quarterly, the journalist Leslie Millin" Ceoil (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)u[reply]

"Polini states that the cycle also had elements of war, alongside the cycles Dante and War" - Polini is mentioned by surname before his introduction.
Done Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"created by Rembrandt; describing" - semi-colon to a comma and describing to a more smooth synonym (contending, writing...etc)
Reworded as A 2013 article in The Lancet compared his work to Rembrandts self-portraits, and ... Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink neuroimaging.
Good catch. Done Ceoil (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please contine DMT. Ceoil (talk)

No, I am very much done. If realmaxxer has no objections, I am happy to support on the basis of the above resolutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMT Biscuit (talk • contribs) 13:46, June 13, 2022 (UTC)

Comments fromSupport by Ceoil

My concerns re comprehensiveness in the last few noms are largely met. Closer look to follow with a week or so. I expect to support. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are Sherry Irvin and Alan E. H. Emery (ie say for eg the critic Sherry Irvin etc).

I dont speak citation templates, but things like p 42-43, should be pp. 42-43

To co-ords, have commentated extensively on the last 3 FACs. Closing out here. Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have read through a number of times, now inclined to support on content and prose. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query from WereSpielChequers

I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki..... Re the footnote "He was able to travel through Europe through the G.I. Bill, which he gained from his additional service in the Vietnam War". The article says that he completed his military service, and I think the European travel, before I thought the US got involved in the Vietnam War. Would you mind checking your source on that one? If indeed he did serve in the Vietnam war it would likely have been later and unless he was there as a war artist, an odd digression in a career such as his. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the note because the source itself just says that the portraits allude to the Vietnam War, not that he was in the was at any point. Realmaxxver (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @WereSpielChequers: Realmaxxver (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WSP doesn't need to respond, although an editor with gravitas, he is not a FAC potential voter; your removal is enough to mark this as resolved. Ceoil (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, I may not be the most prolific FAC reviewer, but I thought that all wikipedians were potential FAC voters and that my dozens of FAC reviews had counted. As for my taking 24 hours to respond to a reply to a query I made 11 days earlier...... We all take the occasional day off. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RealMaxxver, it would make sense that the portraits alluded to the Vietnam War - as an American in London in the late 60s he won't have been able to avoid the biggest topic of the day. But being influenced by the main issue of the day and going to fight in that war are very different things. It is possible that he benefited from the GI Bill, though I think it financed education rather than travel. Are there any other parts of the article as contributed by "Thegreatsoldiers" still in the article where you haven't yet reviewed the content to make sure they reflect what is actually referenced? If so would you be able to check or remove them?Ϣere SpielChequers 08:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies WereSpielChequers, to acknowledge that you are an experienced reviewer, and as I mentioned have gravitas, and to be sure you have picked over and helped bring a few of my own noms, it just seemed that the stuff was passing, and didnt want the nom to be held waiting for you to ok an uncontroversial removal. That said, I'll get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ps, your substantive point isnt being ignored....hold on....Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from PMC

Hello! Saw the request for image review on the request template so I thought I'd chip in.

File:William Utermohlen - 1967 self portrait mixed media on paper.jpg: Proof for PD status is thorough and I have no concerns about its validity
File:William Utermohlen's signature.svg: No concerns about US-only PD status, consistent with other signatures
File:The Schizmatics (Canto XXVIII) by William Utermohlen.jpg: As with first image
File:William Utermohlen - Head I.jpg: Appropriate and thorough fair-use rationale, context of image is discussed in the article so it meets the NFCC and isn't purely decorative
File:Self Portrait (In The Studio) - William Utermohlen.jpg: As above, appropriate fair-use rationale, image is contextual and illustrates his influences by visual comparison in a way that text alone could not.
File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg: As above.

I see no concerns with the image use. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

Viewing this version of 28 June

There are still medical issues in this article. Was there an autopsy? I see no indication that there was, so his diagnosis could not have been AD (it would have been probable AD). That's why Crutch et al use language like "probable" AD and "consistent with AD". The case report upon which other sources are based does not misuse the diagnostic terminology. They say "We have reported the case of a 66-year-old man with probable Alzheimer’s disease fulfilling DSM-IV criteria.". See Alzheimer's disease#Criteria for "probable" and "possible"; definitive diagnoses of conditions like AD and dementia with Lewy bodies require an autopsy. This problem permeates the article. His diagnosis is presumed, as stated by Crutch, unless there was an autopsy. Also, the article describes him broadly as having "memory loss" (nonspecific), while Crutch points out that he was able to continue drawing because he had relatively preserved visual memory, which is uncommon in AD. Crutch speculates about why he had this uncommon preserved visual memory, which is another indication that an autopsy would have been needed to establish a definitive diagnosis.

Awkward prose:

"At the time, that section of Philadelphia was split along language lines; his family would've been in the German-speaking part of the city, but inward migration across the United States resulted in their living in the Italian bloc." I'm not sure what that means.
Due to racial tensions, Utermohlen's parents did not allow his venturing outside of his immediate surrounding. ... did not allow him to venture ... ?
Thought what ? "He earned a scholarship at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts (PAFA) in 1951 where he was thought by the realist artist Walter Stuempfig."

Skipping down a few sections ...

The Conversations paintings are described by the French psychoanalyst Patrice Polini as Utermohlen attempt to establish the events of his life before memory loss.

Skipping down further:

Alan E. H. Emery believes that the progressive effects of Alzheimer's gives neurologists "an opportunity to study how [Alzheimer's] affects an artist's work over time," adding that it can also gives a unique method of studying detailed change in perception, and how it can be linked to localised cerebral functions. He concluded by stating that documenting the change over time with neuroimaging could help us understand the relationships between the cognitive and visual pathways.
- First, this is too close paraphrasing, borderline possible copyvio.
- Second, "it can also gives" ... copyedit needs apparent.
- Third, the conclusion is faulty. The conclusion given in that paper is about multiple conditions, not just Utermohlen's presumed AD.
- And finally, the reader is unlikely to know what the unlinked "cognitive and visual pathways" means.
Patricia covered the mirrors in their house because he was afraid of what he saw there, and would no longer used them for self-portraits. ... would no longer used them ...
The article refers to "the research team at The Lancet" ... ???? ... researchers have their work published in journals; Crutch et al were not a Lancet research term.
Sherri Irvin is described as "he" and misspelled as Sherry ("Sherry Irvin says that the portraits show the "perceptual and cognitive disturbances" that are common within Alzheimer's, while also having "remarkable stylistic features, [rewarding] serious efforts of appreciation and interpretation."[112] He notes that their ...") And she doesn't seem to have medical credentials, so why are we highlighting medical statements made by her in an art journal? I'm not seeing what background she has to comment on perceptual or cognitive disturbances in neurodegenerative conditions.

I haven't read further as there are basic copyedit needs. Also, I have repaired the dashes and inconsistent dates, but MOS:LQ attention is needed. And there are HarvRef errors. Attention is also needed to linking medical terminology. This is a worthy effort, but I must regretfully Oppose, as this article is not yet near promotion. Should it approach promotion, a source-to-text check should be undertaken by a medical editor who understands the nuance. I have not read the entire article; these are samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I revisit the article, I have found more copyedit needs ... the lead has "He relocated to Massachusetts in 1972 teach art at Amherst College before returning to London in 1975." --> TO teach art ... this is a problem throughout the article, and I've only offered samples of why the nomination should probably be withdrawn, copyedited, and gone through by a medical editor to reduce undue mention of some speculation and correct some medical nuance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request

@FAC coordinators: I give up. I am not doing this anymore. I am never going to finish this. I don't want to. When I thought about doing this in October, I was stupid, and I kind of still am for trying to get this to FA after that first attempt failed. To all of the people that have reviewed in the four attempts, I'm sorry for wasting your time. I'm moving on now. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:19, 4 July 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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