Talk:George E. Russell

I took a look at at the recent edits and checked the sources. Several meet WP:IS—The CBC, the Montreal Gazette , canadianart , and the Saskatoon StarPhoenex. Those publications all published full articles on Russell, which argues in favor of WP:Basic. Also, the owner of a prominent gallery and a former currator from the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts both consider his work significant. Galleries are also continuing to exhibit his work four years after his death. The full monograph cited (George E. Russell, Rétrospective) is in the Quebec State Library's collection and the author has a masters in art history from Université du Québec à Montréal. Those feel in favor of the first criteria of WP:Artist. The original author seemed to do a good job modifying the tone to meet WP:NPOV and I added a paragraph to the Donation and discovery subsection to help explain Russell's notability. Any thoughts? Bruce (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

 * , this needs to be explained in the lead paragraph and supported by the sources. PressReader is a news aggregator though, so that can't be used as one of the WP:THREE sources. Also, the article shouldn't have a lead quote that reads like a dedication to his memory. As soon as I saw that, I had to tag it for NPOV. You may need to ask  why the article was rejected afterwards.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll rework the article to make things more clear in the introduction and then update the talk page to highlight three best sources for . I found the PressReader article on the newspapers website, so will change the link. The lead quote is from the monograph on his work. If I make that sourcing clear, would it make sense to put that in a section focused on critical response? Thanks so much. Bruce (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the quote can be mentioned in critical reception with attribution. (critic) of (newspaper/magazine/journal) wrote that "(quote)" AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I rejected it because it wasn't in a neutral point of view. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  21:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But now it is. Thank you for fixing the draft. You are welcome to resubmit it. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  21:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Three best sources for resubmission.
Per WP:THREE:

Bruce (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CBC News
 * canadianart magazine
 * The StarPhoenix