Wikipedia:Peer review/Tornado Over Kansas/archive1

Tornado Over Kansas

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it to Featured Article status. All sorts of comments, from prose to sourcing to formatting, are welcome.

Thanks, GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wingedserif

Description: If possible, I think this section needs one or two more sources to give more detail. Also information about how the painting exhibits an American Regionalist style, in its palette, painting materials, technique, etc, would be helpful context. Are there any detail images of the painting that could show brushstrokes or particular sections close up?

I moved the sentence in Interpretation about American Regionalism into Description, but I'm still looking for sources that go more into depth about this. I guess I can make crops of the original image for details like I did for The Thankful Poor, but the resolution of the painting on WikiMedia commons is not very good. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted my existing sources, and none of them seem to point to specific artistic techniques in the painting that are emblematic of Regionalism. Kroiz often points back to the quote in the 1934 Time article, which is already described in the article. I also included another source that said that at the time, works were often labeled "regionalist" simply because they depicted rural Midwestern life. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Are there any preparatory drawings or similar works by Curry (like The Tornado) that have images on Wiki Commons that we could also use to illustrate the article?

None of the lithographs are on WikiMedia commons yet, I believe, but there are similar paintings like Line Storm that are not mentioned explicitly in the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to make a connection to Line Storm. Let me know if there is more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception: I think this section would be improved by having more secondary sources that interpret the response to the painting. The citations to the original Time and exhibition articles are helpful, but I think we'd ideally have an art historical academic source to summarize what those articles mean.

I'll look over the secondary sources used in the article, find more if necessary, and will follow up when I have completed this. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find any more sources that specifically summarized the existing news articles cited in the article, but I did find a line in Kroiz that summarized criticism towards Curry's amateurishness, which I included. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation: What does "or the dismemberment of these ideals." mean? Reword the couple of sentences that say "can be seen" into active voice, eg, "a sense of claustrophobia can be found in the crowded figure groups in the foregrounds" —> "the crowded figure groups in the foreground create a sense of claustrophobia"

The original text reads: "Indeed, it is hard to tell whether the canvas is a celebration of traditional American ideals—the nuclear family, hard work, the farm, the manly man, and the feminine female—or a kind of dismemberment of these ideals to create a new system of order." I felt like the original text's use of "dismemberment of these ideals" was well-worded, and it indicates the ambiguity of Curry's use of stereotypes (was he celebrating them or criticizing them?)—but that could be from my bias as the article writer. Original wording of the other sentences you pointed out was indeed awkward, and those changes were applied. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structure: I would put the Description and Interpretation sections next to one another, since they both inform one another directly. (To me, it feels like Interpretation should be moved up to follow Description.)

Done. This differs from previous painting article structures I've used, but I think it works well in this case. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small changes

"a notably dramatic scene" –> "a dramatic scene"
wikilink for "Muskegon Museum of Art" (which redirects to Muskegon Historic District)
Delete "One such lithograph was acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1935." and just keep the Met citation attached to the previous sentence. I don't feel like the article needs to go into the lithograph's material history.

All done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful! —Wingedserif (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingedserif: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I applied the easy-to-do ones, followed up on others, and will update you when I get the more research-involved ones finished. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingedserif: I followed up with some more progress I made today. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]