Talk:Carroll N. Jones III

Comments on draft
, please allow me to provide some hopefully useful comments on your draft article. This article does not have an introductory WP:LEDE that summarises the contents of the article. I would expect an article of this length to have two reasonably short paragraphs introducing the topic to the reader. This is related to the first part about no introduction, but at first it was somewhat difficult to figure out "what is the actual topic of this article?" Overall, it is a biography of Carroll Jones III, but the first paragraph about the Ashcan School has very little to do with Jones. If it is included as an important influence on Jones' work, then it should be in a "Influences" section. Also, the title is misleading. That can be overcome by moving the page to Draft:Carroll Jones III, using the "Move" button next to the View History button at the top of the page. Before worrying about the nitty-gritty of the Manual of Style, let's look at the basic structure of the article. I think a basic biography about an artist like this should be laid out with the following sections: Introduction (not a section itself, but placed before the first section), Early life, Early career, Later career, Notable clients, Influences, Gallery and References. Given that he is now 70 years old, perhaps a "Legacy" section is appropriate if he has had an influence on other artists. See also and External links sections will also be required at the end of the article at some stage, with the References section placed between these two. Currently I think there are two many pictures in relation to the text. A picture of Jones himself next to the introduction would be good. Apart from that, one (maybe two) pictures that are relevant to each section. The rest can go in the gallery at the end. Too many and it begins to look like his work is being advertised. Jones' name appears a lot in the list of references. It would be good if this article could be supported more by third-party sources. The note about the licsencing of images is unnecessary, and perhaps even inappropriate. That information is covered in the licence for each image, and the text is covered by the standard Wikipedia licence. So this paragraph should be removed. I think you are on the road to a good biography here. Once we get this basic format fixed, we can look at some of the finer details. The tone of the article needs to be improved, as unsourced phrases such as "he told a friend" are inappropriate, but let's not get stuck on that yet. Good luck, and please don't hesitate to message me with any questions along the way. Regards, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No introduction
 * What is the topic?
 * Structure
 * Layout
 * Referencing
 * Legal disclaimer
 * Conclusion

P.S. To the initial reviewer, this is my first time reviewing an article, but I feel as if this is the kind of feedback I would want as an author. Hopefully you can take something away from this too. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is an easy way to review, just use AFCH, this will help you a lot if you use it. I use it to review articles, and they became easier, it is actually a good tool, see WP:AFC.  333-blue  08:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters what tool helps you as a reviewer because, with respect, your reviews are of no help to an author. Do you really think "It looks like that it does not meet WP:MOS." provides any useful advice to a new author? Your follow-up point on your talk page where you identified one missing bracket is almost as useless. In the above I have identified real issues with the draft that the author can now fix step-by-step. By comparison, after your 9-word comment, they can only be left thinking "what's the actual problem?" A single blue link to MOS, which is harder to understand than quantum physics, provides no helpful feedback. If you are going to review an article and provide a big red "rejection", I think you should show the author respect by explaining what is actually wrong. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, 333-blue and Athomeinkobe, I am learning. It will take quite a while to rework the piece, but rest assured, I will do so to the best of my ability. Yes, I know I talked about "a friend", but I have been in daily email correspondence with this man for nearly 4 years. There was so much I wanted to put in there, I could write a book. He is very ...interesting. That was my concern, that it would sound like a sales pitch, or that he was not notable enough, and that is why I asked you, 333-blue. I hesitate to ask Mr. Jones for more 3rd party references. I put in everything he has brought up over the years, but have never asked for more. There may not be anything and I hate to hurt him. I do know of some of his students, maybe they can help me. I have a very high regard for him and his abilities and hope to be more impartial next time, to be more "encyclopedic". Thank you, especially, Athomeinkobe, for spending so much time on the critique. I'm sure it can be used again in your travels and good luck!

If there is a time frame to resubmit the draft, please let me know.

Thank you, 333-blue, for link to AFCH. In truth, this will probably be my first and my last article!!

Jrbwalk (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)jrbwalk


 * It is inappropriate of me to ask what sort of relationship you have with Mr. Jones, but I will note that Wikipedia has rules and guidelines concerning editing with a conflict of interest. You can read about it at WP:COI. A neutral, third-person tone is the most important thing to remember. Rather than asking Mr. Jones directly for more sources, you may be able to find them yourself by doing online searches via google or in art reference books. To maintain neutrality, if you come across critiques that are negative of Mr. Jones work, then they should be included also (giving appropriate weight to the amount of criticism and who is providing it).
 * A draft may become eligible for deletion if it is left untouched for six months. So there is no rush as long as you keep working on it a bit at a time. You seem to know what you're talking about regarding art, so even if you don't write any more new articles, I hope you stick around to help improve the articles that already exist. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Athomeinkobe...it is not inappropriate for you to ask. I have no real professional connection to Mr. Jones. I have tried, and failed, to sell some prints. I am a housewife, my background is Special Education. Jones is Dyslexic, as my son is Dyslexic, and I do this without compensation---except karma, maybe. My son suffered through school, and if he grows to be half as brilliant as Jones, I would want someone to do the same for him. I think I am able to separate my personal connection for love of art. I would love to learn to do this for any artist whose work is believed to further the profession. If Wikipedia lives beyond this era of technology,the art and artists contained within it will live on, too...Look at the brilliance that Wikipedia has brought to Science, my other love.  The quality of the articles are just almost unfathomable to me, far beyond what any encyclopedia would give. A lot of people sacrifice a lot of time for their love of science...and the quality of the articles are amazing teaching tools. Let's say, most art is like alternative medicine. It looks okay, seems real, but it's just BS. There is nothing behind it. It is "pretend" science. The superfluousness of art is as frustrating to professional artists, as alternative medicine is to scientists. There is no craft, no years of study, no blood sweat and tears to alternative science.I thought you might be interested in furthering art on Wikipedia!  You seem to have a lot more than a basic understanding. Again, thank you for your help and time!!! I hope the article grows to be acceptable!Jrbwalk (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)jrbwalk

August 2016 draft
AtHomeIn神戸 I have had some time to work on Mr. Jones' biography. I appreciate your help. Do you see any glaring problems?Jrbwalk (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)jrbwalk
 * , I've broken this off into a separate section so it is clear we are now looking at quite a different article. I am very happy to say that I do not see any glaring problems. I'm glad you've come back to this draft. I've got just a few points for you to think about.
 * Lead section
 * It is not until the second half of the lead, when there is mention of galleries and collections, that we get a clue that Jones is an artist. So I think the first sentence should make it clear, along the lines of:
 * Carroll Nathaniel Jones III (born July 2, 1944 in Palm Springs, California) is an artist in the field of American realism.
 * Forgive me if the word "field" is incorrect, but hopefully you get the idea of the format I have in mind. Please use the appropriate terms. Apart from that, the lead is good. Generally speaking, in a longer article like this is shaping up to be, we only include references in the lead if it is something controversial. As the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, everything there should be repeated somewhere below. If that is done, then the text of the article is the better place to put the references.
 * Biography
 * "Early life and education" is a fairly standard subsection title for biographies, so I think "The Early Days" should be changed to that. For the second subsection, personally I think "As an established artist" sounds better. Note that only the first letter of section titles are capitalized, unless of course it is a proper noun.
 * Whilst his early life is not controversial, it would be good if some of the sourcing is clarified. For example, reference #5 (the patent) confirms Barnes invented something, but it does not confirm that he is Jones' grandfather. It would help if there was more sources to help draw the links in his family history. The Hoboken reference (currently #2) gives us some information on his family history, so that is a starting point.
 * In the "established artist" section, only the first two sentences are really about Jones as an adult person. The rest of it is more about his artistic style and influences, which I think should be broken off into a separate section (see below). Unfortunately, that means there is not much in the way of biographical information beyond his move to Hoboken in 1977. So it would be good if that was expanded. Unfortunately I cannot access the references stored at newspapers.com, so I don't know whether there is anything useful in there.
 * Style
 * As mentioned above, I think discussion of Jones' artistic style and influences should be in a separate section from his biographical information. As well as the text currently in the "established artist" section, this would also be an appropriate place to discuss the realism/surrealism point which is mentioned at the end of the lead.
 * Finally...
 * "Notable Clients and Patrons" in the next section's title should be written in lower case. I believe the "But" at the start of the legacy section is unnecessary because it is more of a story-telling device. Finally, the gallery should be moved up above the references. In the references themselves, it is normally unnecessary to include a quote of what you are referring to.
 * Once the lead, section titles and gallery placement are fixed, I think this draft is ready to go live. Let me know if you want any help or advice on how to do that. Or submitting it for another review is also an option, so another pair of eyes can have a look over it. Once the article is moved to "main space", you can expect to see quite a few people making edits to it.
 * Let me know if you have any other questions, and happy editing! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * AtHomeIn神戸 Beautiful. Thank you so much. I will be in touch much sooner this time. Jrbwalk (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)jrbwalk
 * You're welcome, but don't worry, there's no rush. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016 draft
AtHomeIn神戸 I have done more work. I think I may be ready to go live. Should I resubmit my draft? The page has a blue "resubmit" button on it, but that seems too easy. I will have more to add to the gallery in time. That can be done after it is accepted, right? Thanks so much! Jrbwalk (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Jrbwalk
 * AtHomeIn神戸 I want to add, for you, and others, re:Newspapers.com: Note the optical character recognition (OCR) text on, for example, this page: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/95588617/  It is near the bottom of the page. I found it very helpful, although I also made copies of the scanned(?) pages.Jrbwalk (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Jrbwalk
 * , I think this article is more than ready to go live. Clicking the "Resubmit" button will put it in the waiting list for someone to review it again. I would be surprised if anyone finds problems after all the work you've put in, but another pair of eyes never hurts. Once the article goes live plenty of people will check it anyway. There is a principle that an article is never "finished", so of course you can add to it at any time in the future. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * AtHomeIn神戸 あなたは偉大な教師であり、ありがとうございます！ Google Translate wants to say, "Thank you, you are a great teacher!" I learned so much from you.  I feel privileged that you were my editor because of the clarity of your directions, like my college English professor so long ago. Mr. Jones wants to thank you, too, I am sure! He is a great man, and a great artist.  Jrbwalk (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Jrbwalk
 * , it has been a pleasure working with you too. I hope to see you around some more :) P.S. Google gave you a fairly accurate translation. Thanks for the complement. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of notability
, and perhaps. ~Kvng (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio
Got hits on and. Material is quoted in our article so I think covered by fair use. Please delete if I'm wrong about this. ~Kvng (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Its in quotation marks so is fine Atlantic306 (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)