Talk:Emily Stannard/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 18:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * The middle paragraph seems a bit bloated to me but yet also lacking in any details about praise for her artistic style. Also, the fact that she was part of a recent retrospective might be mentioned, while I'm not sure what her husband died is really necessary. I guess what I'm saying is that you say she's considered one of the finest female still life painters of her century, but a large chunk of the second paragraph of the lead is devoted to her family connections rather than herself.
 * ✅ I've amended the lead section accordingly, but also added more to the article about the praise she received in the press and the opinions of more recent historians. Some of the text in the article has been moved to be part of a new section 'Recognition'. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * The middle paragraph seems a bit bloated to me but yet also lacking in any details about praise for her artistic style. Also, the fact that she was part of a recent retrospective might be mentioned, while I'm not sure what her husband died is really necessary. I guess what I'm saying is that you say she's considered one of the finest female still life painters of her century, but a large chunk of the second paragraph of the lead is devoted to her family connections rather than herself.
 * ✅ I've amended the lead section accordingly, but also added more to the article about the praise she received in the press and the opinions of more recent historians. Some of the text in the article has been moved to be part of a new section 'Recognition'. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The middle paragraph seems a bit bloated to me but yet also lacking in any details about praise for her artistic style. Also, the fact that she was part of a recent retrospective might be mentioned, while I'm not sure what her husband died is really necessary. I guess what I'm saying is that you say she's considered one of the finest female still life painters of her century, but a large chunk of the second paragraph of the lead is devoted to her family connections rather than herself.
 * ✅ I've amended the lead section accordingly, but also added more to the article about the praise she received in the press and the opinions of more recent historians. Some of the text in the article has been moved to be part of a new section 'Recognition'. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Life:
 * "Daniel Coppin was also a collector and one of the founding members of the Norwich Society of Artists. Her mother was a talented" so ... the father deserves a full name but the mother just "her mother"? Treat both equally.. either "Her father... Her mother ... " or "Daniel Coppin was...Elizabeth Coppin was..."
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "but Emily far exceeded her artistic ability." her mother's copying ability or do you mean that Emily had much more originality?
 * ✅ Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "On 3 January 1826, already an established artist who had exhibited works, they were married" I presume the "already an established artist" refers to Emily? It's a bit ambigous... suggest "On 3 January 1826, with Emily already an established artist who had exhibited works, they were married.."
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Stannard belonged to an artistic family." This is the third time something like this has been mentioned, and it's a bit repetitous. Suggest removing.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Their niece Eloise Harriet Stannard and her younger brother Alfred George Stannard were both notable artists" ... who's younger brother - Eloise's or Emily's? I presume Eloise's but given that the subject of the article is supposed to be Emily, it could be confusing. Suggest clarifying.
 * ✅ Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "but only the notice she attracted in the press for her paintings gives any impression of her life during this period" I think there's a word missing between "gives" and "any" ... I can't make heads or tails of what is meant by this phrase.
 * ✅ Apologies, I've replaced the sentence, which I think makes more sense. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Stannard continued to live in Norwich for over 50 years, but only the notice she attracted in the press for her paintings gives any impression of her life during this period." is sourced to a Family Search source titled "Birth, Marriage, & Death, FamilySearch" I am going to go out on a limb here and say that even though I can't access the source, It probably is a primary document connected with the census and thus does NOT support the "but the only notice she..." part.
 * ✅ Ref now added. Regarding the FamilySearch reference, i checked using WP:PRIMARYCARE, and as the source is only used to state straightforward facts, I thought it was appropriate to it (I found nothing equivalent to replace the source, but if I do find something else, I'll use it instead). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Teaching:
 * " Little of this aspect of her life is known" needs a source.
 * ✅ I haven't found one yet, so the text has gone. I'll keep on looking though. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Works:
 * There's an ambigous tag on "Her early paintings were influenced by the Dutch masters Huysum and De Heem;" that needs resolving.
 * ✅ Sorted, see here for why it was impossible for me to attempt to include any reference to a specific member of the De Heem family of artists. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There a reason we have "Prices paid for her paintings include £400 for Still life study of dead birds on a table oil on board in 2017, £1600 for Still Life Study of Mixed Flowers and Fruit in Basket on Marble Ledge in 2015, £920 for Still Life Study of Mixed Flowers, Birds Nest and Butterfly on Marble Ledge in 2015, and £130 for a watercolour painting Tranquil River Landscape in 2010. Her larger painting The game larder (52 x 43.2 cm) was sold at Christie's in 2013 for £10,000. " commented out?
 * ✅ - now sorted (I'd forgotten about deleting it). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "On least one occasion Emily signed a painting using her Christian name," this is ambigous - did she just sign "Emily" or "Emily Coppin" or "Emily Stannard"? Better to be specific, I think. Also, I think we need to call her "Coppin" or "Stannard" instead of Emily here.
 * ✅ Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Footnote 3:
 * "Emily also donated the paintings of her parents and her grandmother Elizabeth Coppin, in what the author Kate Hill described as "an unusual example of an attempt to memorialise women artists". the way this is worded, it implies the daughter donated ALL the paintings of her parents. OR were these portraits - since it says "of her parents"?
 * ✅ Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You have several FamilySearch/primary records as sources. How do you know that the "Emily Coppin" listed in those is the artist? I have grave concerns about wikipedia editors determining that specific primary records refer to the subject of an article without any corroborating secondary sources - this is getting into OR territory.
 * ✅ I've taken out the text and accompanying references. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Likewise with the will - how do we know that this is the proper will, it likely is, but the job of determining that it is should be left to historians, not wikipedia editors.
 * ✅ also deleted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Refs 15 and 22 have links that are not given titles. They should have that and they should be much more informative like the other Family Search links - where the exact database is given. (Not that we should be using these links, but...)
 * (✅ - refs already deleted Amitchell125 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC) )


 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool no copyright concerns - the one thing it flagged as a possible ... I checked and it's flagging up the various publication names for her works.
 * ✅ Thanks for that, I've amended some of the article a little, so no percentages are above 20.
 * I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything. Note that I did a LOT of copyediting on this... please make sure I haven't introduced errors.
 * Overall a very nice little article - just a couple of spots above.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've finished going through your comments, . Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay... the roads got really bumpy and we ended up going home a day early... heh. I lost yesterday to getting everything out of the truck and settled back at home. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)