Talk:Jane Maria Bowkett

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blanketburrito.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Created article for class assignment, will continue to work on over the next weeks. -- 17:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanketburrito (talk • contribs)

Re POV tag
Hi, and thanks for creating this article. I've tagged the Biography section for point of view, since the third and fourth paragraphs cover subjective interpretation of her works, and it appears that you may have presented individual critics' interpretations as fact. Where sources survey and distil opinion, and that opinion is basically universal, it's reasonable to just state this common opinion. Otherwise, one should explicitly attribute subjective interpretations to distinguish them from concrete facts. For instance, see Danie_Mellor. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree wth the above on the issue of subjectivity. Also, I am puzzled about the terms (and lack of definition) of 'high' and 'low' art. Is high art professional and expensive while low art is amateurish, cheaper and purchased at locations more frequented by the general public? Although JM Bowkett never exhibited at the RA, it is indicated that she did exhibit at the British Institution and the RBA where many distinguished professional artists also exhibited. Maybe the 'ambiguity' of J M Bowkett's style can be better expressed by 'Jane Maria Bowkett painted charming pictures of women and chldren, in a slightly naive style, but this adds to their great period charm.' Victorian Painting, Chrispher Wood, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London 1999.BFPBFP1 (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have tried to improve the article by adding more factual information. However, the last two paragraphs are still too subjective, presenting individual critics' personal opinions as fact. In addition the supporting references seem obscure or incomplete.BFP1BFP1 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)