Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Alston/archive1

Charles Alston

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I've been utilizing the Archives of American Art and other resources to expand the original article. I recently completed a vast biography and detailed project the museum I work for regarding Alston's life and work. I've never had a peer review and felt like this was a great article to try it with. Images are hard to come by, that I know, except the illustrations Alston created for the military. Anyway, I'd just love some constructive criticism and thoughts on if I should continue to expand it (I feel like I've reached the limit of information that is worth exploring, honestly), what I should expand on if at all, and what steps I should take next to perhaps consider it for FA. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maria

Hi, Missvain, welcome to Peer Review! This is a very interesting article, and while art isn't exactly my area of expertise (that's putting it lightly), I enjoyed reading about Alston. First, I will suggest that after the PR you perhaps set your sights a little lower than FA; WP:GAC is a great step in the right direction, and doesn't require having to reach the increasingly high demands that FAC does. After that hurdle is jumped, FAC becomes a lot less intimidating! With the GA criteria in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement:

I wouldn't worry about the lack of numerous free images -- most articles about contemporary artists don't even have three!
At only one sentence long, the lead does not fulfill WP:LEAD. Be sure that the first few paragraphs summarizes the article, hitting the important points of Alston's life and career. Where was he from? What is he known/remembered for? Keep in mind that many readers don't read beyond the lead/infobox, so make sure it's worth their while!
I see several books used as sources, which is awesome, but I don't see any page numbers. Per WP:CITE (specifically WP:Page numbers), "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited". Be specific; the more specific you are, the more helpful this article is to future researchers.
There may be some over-citing throughout the article. Are four separate citations needed to prove Alston's family moved to New York during the Great Migration, for example? Do these citations repeat themselves? If so, only one is needed. If one citation says something that the others don't, and that point is mentioned in the article, than list it as well.
Wikipedia uses what is called logical punctuation. It's annoying, and I don't know of anyone who actually likes it, but it's something that's always nitpicked by reviewers. I see a few instances in which the article is probably not following this guideline, so you may want to check throughout:

...shows a black man standing against a red sky "looking as frustrated as any individual can look," according to Alston.
"...where facial features were suggested rather than fully formulated in three dimensions,".
Art critic Emily Genauer stated that Altson "refused to be pigeonholed,"

I fixed some dashes throughout per WP:DASH, but be on the lookout for others.
The references seem to be inconsistently formatted; are you using APA or something else? Make sure to italicize the title of the work, and decide whether to include the author's full first name, or simply the initials. Editorializing such as "Book that documents the concept of and recipients of Rosenwald Funds" is also frowned upon in high-quality articles; after all, if you include the full bibliographic info, people will be able to research the matter elsewhere.
As for the prose, with any editor hoping to make it to GA/FA, I suggest a copy-edit or two from someone with well-trained and detail-orientated eyes. WP:GOCE may be able to help with that, otherwise don't be afraid to ask someone with GA/FA experience to look it over for you. I notice a few things just from my quick read-through:

and was the youngest of five children. Only three survived past infancy: Rousmaniere, a daughter, and sons Wendell and Charles. -- This is confusing, so maybe it would help to combine these three thoughts into one cohesive sentence? He was the youngest of five children, of which only three—daughter Rousmaniere and sons Wendell and Charles—survived past infancy?
Locals described him in admiration as the “Booker T. Washington of Charlotte”. -- You mention both Alston and his father in the previous sentence, so the "him" here is ambiguous.
What does "Spinky" mean? Just curious.
His mother was a gifted embroiderer and tool up painting at the age of 75. -- tool up?
His father was gifted at drawing as well, wooing Alston's mother with small sketches in the medians of letters he wrote her. -- Because this is mentioned a paragraph after the Reverend's death, it seems very out of place.
he decided that math, physics and chemistry “was not just my bag” -- verb-disagreement: WERE. Also, is the quote correct? Should it maybe read "just not my bag"?
Be careful with the tone and use of slang. I know how difficult it is to keep an encyclopedic distance while writing a biography -- so often you want to depict that person's style/personality through prose! I see a few instances of "hang/hung out", and there might be others.

I believe those are the main points to consider at this stage. There aren't too many FA-art biographies, but you may want to look at those in order to get a better sense of where you'd like to go with Alston. Best of luck! I hope these comments help. María (habla conmigo) 13:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]