Talk:Jennie V. Cannon

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because: 1) The subject was an artist of significance who happens to have fallen into obscurity, like many others. 2) No one stands to profit from the article. 3) We thought her notability would be established by the numerous awards she received, her leadership in the Carmel and Berkeley art colonies, her listing in California and Californians, and the traveling exhibitions of her work.

I have been a Wikipedia editor for almost ten years and have contributed to many articles, especially ones relating to historic California art. I was so impressed by Robert Edwards' book on Jennie Cannon and the other artists of Carmel and Berkeley that I've encouraged him to add to Wikipedia. I'm helping him with some of the technical aspects, although I'm not expert in the finer points, and I'm encouraging him to create a Wikipedia editor account.

I didn't go through the Articles for Creation process because I think some of my fellow editors have become too picky.

Please advise on how we can make this conform to Wikipedia standards, and please remove the "Speedy Deletion" section. I would also like to know if I/we should add categories or if that will be done automatically. HarZim (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

POV
Since an explanation has been requested, an explanation shall be provided. The lead has some promotional phrases. For example, the first sentence says that she was an "acclaimed" artist. Further down it says she was "instrumental" in founding an organization. In the first paragraph of the next section, it says she was a "voracious" reader and her career "quickly accelerated", and then further down in the same paragraph it says she "was compelled to move". I think the lead gives undue weight to certain aspects of her career (although that may simply be a matter of copyediting it). Do I need to go on? –Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That is absolute nonsense, and if you think that's POV—let alone if you think this warrants speedy deletion as spam—you should probably not be patrolling new articles since your assessment of what constitutes NPOV is wildly out of sync with Wikipedia consensus. It's not POV to say someone is acclaimed, instrumental etc if you can demonstrate that sources consider them acclaimed or instrumental; by your logic, most of Featured articles (indeed, most of the biographies on Wikipedia) would be deletable as spam. The rest of your points are incomprehensible; what's wrong with "compelled", for instance? &#8209; Iridescent 16:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The tone remains somewhat boosterish - I could do without the rather meaningless "acclaimed", but the subject seems clearly notable, and attempts to speedily delete clearly a mistake. As Iridescent says, other points make little sense. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If they're sourced, that's another thing. However, these statements, along with most of the article, aren't. Speedy deletion was a lapse in judgement, although I think I get a bit of credit back from the fact that the admin also initially deleted it. As far as your claim about featured articles, they obviously have quite sufficient sourcing for those statements—they wouldn't be featured otherwise, would they? And as the rest of Wikipedia articles go, that statement is not true. You can look at quite a few of the biographies I've reviewed recently: Tomima Edmark, Andrzej Buras, Christopher Sean, Peniel Shin, and I could go on for a very long time. Tone may be more appropriate than POV, but I don't believe my point is complete nonsense. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately many admins don't check these things as they should, which is all the more reason not to make ill-considered prods. It's not clear what the refs exactly cover, as so often, but I expect the article sticks all too closely to them. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, that was a lapse in judgement. As far as the references are concerned, I haven't actually read them, though I can guess what they are about and therefore what they are verifying. The first two are about the art associations. They may support the position that Cannon was "instrumental," though I don't actually know. The third is an autobiography, and so really shouldn't be included as a reference except for basic information. My guess is that in the context of where it appears, it's only actually intended to reference her degree. Certainly, we shouldn't be attributing an assessment of her success to herself, for obvious reasons. The fourth is about female artists from the American west. Although I don't know how long the book is, I would suspect her section isn't very long. The reference is only for two pages. I certainly don't think there's two pages just on her annual trip to the Monterrey Peninsula. The fifth reference is simply a reference to California and Californians about the fact that she is in it. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennie V. Cannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160429115613/http://tfaoi.com/aa/10aa/10aa557.htm to http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/10aa/10aa557.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)