Talk:Josepha Petrick Kemarre/GA2

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * (a) The article is poorly written, using odd sentence constructions, tenses, and unencyclopaedic formats. Issue addressed.
 * I am now happy with the prose quality in the current version of the article. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]


 * Can you give some examples? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the entirety of "Married to Robin Petyarre, brother of artist Gloria Petyarre, Josie Petrick moved to the region of Utopia, north-east of Alice Springs. They had seven children. By 2008, Robin had died; their son Damien Petrick went on to marry and become an artist like his mother." Requires sequencing and grammatical conjunctions.  Also "Her paintings, which portray 'dreamings', or stories, of bush plum..." should probably be "of C. spinarum, also known as the bush plum", or at the very least "of bush plums" (plural). - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try and rework those, and look at the rest. "Of bush plums" I think would be incorrect, as sources only ever refer to "bush plum dreaming" - the plural "dreamings" is meant to refer to two: bush plum, and women's ceremonies - which itself is usually written in the plural, in contrast to bush plum. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I think you may have another problem, in that the indigenous Australian sense of "dreaming" is not widely understood, and our article on the subject is also not terribly helpful. You'd need to go further efforts to explain the significance of the bush plum, and elaborate exactly what a "bush plum dreaming" is, either directly in this article, through quotes from sources, or by a reworking of the main article on dreamings. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the lead, and will see what I can find in the sources that will elaborate on the specific dreamings involved (sometimes sourecs say very little about this). hamiltonstone (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now added some detail around bush plum dreaming. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to ask for more explanation of dreaming (it may well have come up at FAC; I don't see it as GAN issue). I don't really see the "poorly written" "odd sentence constructions". As I'm sure you're aware, the GA criteria do not ask for brilliant prose; just that it's clear and concise (presumably you disagree that it is) and that it has correct spelling and grammar. If there are specific sentences that use incorrect grammar, perhaps you could be more specific? Perhaps you could fix it yourself if neither Hamiltonstone nor I can see it? Or are you happy with the changes made already?-- Beloved  Freak  12:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (b) The article does not comply with the MOS for lead sections, in that it is disproportionately long compared to the (very short) article and does not accurately summarise the article contents. It contains assertions (that she was part of a painting movement) that are not substantiated by the article text.  The article now complies with the MOS for lead sections. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]


 * Let's separate out the two issues.
 * On length: it was slightly shorter and I actually lengthened it in resposne to the GA review. But it is still extremely short by GA standards broadly, and I think it is in proportion to the article. If other editors have a view on this, that would be useful. Is there any particular element(s) you believe should be removed? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it it is difficult to write leads of appropriate length for short articles. I was concerned (apart from my knee-jerk reaction of "too short!" which is entirely irrelevant) that all the main points of the article weren't summarise which is why I requested an addition. Perhaps you (DustFormsWords) could be more specific about what is in the lead that shouldn't be?-- Beloved Freak  12:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD suggests one or two paragraphs for articles of less than 15,000 characters. This one is ~5000 characters.  WP:LEAD doesn't seem to contemplate that articles this short could possibly be considered complete enough to be worried about style guide compliance, but still I think that in view of the extremely short length of the article you should be erring towards one paragraph instead of two.  An appropriate lead might be, "Josie Petrick Kemarre (also known as Josepha)  (born c. 1945 or 1953, date uncertain) is an Indigenous artist from Central Australia. Her work, which primarily deals with bush plum 'dreaming' and women’s ceremonies, is featured in several major Australian collections."  This phrasing also has the side benefit of removing the redundant word "woman" (we don't generally need to say that males are "men"), removing the vague/relative term "successful", and removing irrelevant detail (her spoken language, examples of collectors). - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Converted to one para. Removed "woman", and the reference to the book cover, which had been added during the initial GA review process in response to a suggestion that the lead may have been too short. Disagree with remaining suggestions as I think this makes the lead too short. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have added: spoken language is a fundamental identifier of tribe / location / cultural association amongst Indigenous Australians, and is always listed in reference works on Indigenous artists (for examples, see McCulloch's Encyclopedia, Birnberg Dictionary (offline) or Newstead's entry (online)). hamiltonstone (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced on the language point - we don't necessarily list either a person's sub-national origin or their ethnicity within short lead sections, except where it's specifically relevant to their notability - but it's not a GA showstopper and I'll yield to your greater interest in the area on that specific point. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually you've made me twig to the fact that the language (and a cite for it) isn't actually in the body text. My mistake, now fixing. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On assertion of membership of a painting movement. I find this one odd, but it may be because of my familiarity with the subject. If you read Contemporary Indigenous Australian art, you will see that membership of this movement is essentially defined by four things: date; Aboriginality; use of western art materials; and presentation of works for sale in the commercial art market that generally (with a few exceptions) include Indigenous motifs, themes or ideas. It is not a movement characterised by a written manifesto (a la Dada, IIRC), or personal networks and specific stylistic preferences (a la pointillism or cubism). In these circumstances, she is a member of this movement by virtue of being who she is and doing what she does. One would be hard pressed I think to find a source that says this, because it is regarded as self-evident within the field. Are you sure you really have a problem with it? If so, would you consider Newstead's article title: "Top 200 Australian Aboriginal Artists" (in which she is included) as sufficient? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OR, she's not a member of a movement because she meets the criteria for it, she's a member of a movement because she's identified as such by a reliable independent source. You need a source to claim she's a member of a movement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, then can you give your view re my proposal to use Newstead's title? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of "She has been named as one of the top 200 Australian Aboriginal Artists"[cite] would be both verifiable and a good addition to the article, yes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that is not my question - my question is whether that would be an adequate citation for the phrase "...contemporary Indigenous Australian artist, part of the painting movement..." etc. or whether you are suggesting it must be more explicit than that. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, it needs to be specific. This is exactly the same issue as determining what musical genre a band belongs to.  There's only one answer: the genre specifically attributed to them by reliable independent sources.  If you don't have a source for what painting movement she belongs to, then you don't mention it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, see what you think of the revised lead now. Shorter, and no reference to it as a movement of which she is part. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I now have a reference (Birnberg, p. 13). Will look at reinstating, or rephrasing, the adding text to the body with the reference added. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (b) The article complies with the MOS for words to watch, but could stand to have expressions that lack precision removed. (i.e. "frequently") (Issue resolved.) [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]


 * I've had a run through. I think "successful" in the lead is a reasonable summary of the information provided later, but am open to changing that. Saying her career received a "significant" boost seems to me to be an accurate summary of what Newstead says in the cited webpage. I think the use of "frequently" may be redundant, but is consistent with the source (ie. the source says this is a prevalent practice but does not quantify it). Any others I've missed? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that sounds about right. This was by far the most minor of my concerns and I would never have challenged the GA on this alone. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (b) The article does not comply with the MOS for embedded lists in relation to the list "Collections". This list does not explain its context or its contents, and there is no pressing reason why this information could not instead be presented through well-written prose. (Update: The list has now been converted into prose form, and therefore the article now complies with the MOS for lists.) [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]


 * I've been creating these lists in several articles, passing GA and at FAC, for years and this has never even been raised, let alone requiring alteration. I suggest this is an overenthusiastic application of WP:EMBED, and I would oppose it. For a comparison on good practice in this field, see how entries on artists are laid out in the standard Australian reference work, The new McCulloch's Encyclopedia of Australian Art, which includes major collections as a list at the end of entries. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All I can say is what the relevant policy says: "In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." At the very least, the list should begin with text explaining that Petrick has works in several galleries, and then go on to some description of what works, exactly, are in which galleries, or how many, or when they were acquired.  The current version of the list provides no encyclopaedic relevance as it doesn't provide information on its own and the links do not go through to relevant information about Petrick in other articles. I can't comment on your previous GAs and FAs; possibly those lists had significant differences, or possibly they were just wrongly passed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The lists had no significant differences. If individual collections or works are notable, they are often listed in article text (as indeed is the csae in the Josie Petrick article), but the full list is at the end for comprehensiveness. Please consider the possibility that this is not a good application of that guideline (not policy): a lot of eyes have passed over those lists in aggregate: they are in Minnie Pwerle, Wintjiya Napaltjarri, Kwementyaye Napanangka and Bronwyn Bancroft, all Featured Articles, as well as about thirty other articles, half a dozen of which have passed GA under several reviewers. I reiterate also my point about good practice in this field (I mean biographies of artists). I request you strike this objection. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the list is a problem. It's not quite a list of works, but I see it as along the lines of a bibliography or filmography, which are included in a great many featured articles. This apparently is the current practise and, bearing in mind that the rules here are meant to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive, I was a little surprised that WP:EMBED doesn't cover lists of works. (Just to nitpick, it's a guideline, by the way, not a policy).-- Beloved  Freak  12:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that for filmographies of an actor or a director, if you click through to the individual entries they talk about the director or actor in the context of that film. The significance of each entry is justified by the article it links to.  Here, if you click through to any of these collections, they don't say anything at all about Petrick or even verify that they hold her works.  Therefore you need to explain the significance of the links in this article, and the best way to do that is through prose, or alternatively through adding text to this bulleted list to explain it.  WP:Embedded lists gives plenty of examples of how to do this. I'm not inclined to accept an argument of "other reviewed articles have similar constructions", largely because (a) as this article shows, reviews can be less than thorough, (b) a hundred articles can be non-compliant with policy as easily as one, and (c) it's not the outcome that's important but the evidence of consensus behind it - I'd be more persuaded by links to discussions of these lists than merely their continued existence. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We may have to agree to disagree on this, and can discuss at community GAR if necessary. You say "The significance of each entry is justified by the article it links to." - but I'm pretty sure in filmography entries etc I've seen links where there isn't such justification - an actor's page has a link to the film, and the film page may or may not have a link to the actor (depending on the significance of their role), but no actual discussion of the actor in the film article. In other words, the connection is nothing more than 'mutually linked lists' at the end of each article. Nevertheless, I've always thought they represented appropriate reference material - the sort of thing I would expect in an encyclopic entry. You also haven't addressed my point about this being good practice for reference works in the field - do you not see this as a valid consideration? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You say "they don't say anything at all about Petrick or even verify that they hold her works" - surely the citations after each entry in the list verify that they hold her works? (a) I disagree that my review was "less than thorough" just because we have a difference in opinion of how to apply the GA criteria, but that doesn't really matter here. (b) You say :"non-compliant with policy", but WP:EMBED is not a policy, it's a guideline which states "it will have occasional exceptions". My interpretation is that this list, like lists of works, is fine. As I see it, consensus has it that they're fine. Your interpretation appears to be either that this list is not comparable to lists of works in other articles, or that articles (including featured articles) are non-compliant with this guideline. I'm not sure which one you're going with. (c) Just to be clear, you're wanting links to FA discussions for articles which passed, and have embedded lists? Or discussions that specifically deal with the guideline? Perhaps, as you're the one contesting the review, you could provide some links? To be honest, I think  this reassessment would be more appropriately dealt with as a community reassessment.-- Beloved  Freak  11:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The GA criteria specifically require full compliance with WP:EMBED, so it doesn't matter whether it's a policy or a guideline or whether there are exceptions. Either it's fully compliant, or it's not a good article.  No case for an exception has been made here.  No reasoning has been given why this text cannot be presented in a prose format, and it seems to me that it would be more readable, not less, in prose.  I have added a lead section to the list, which at least explains what the list is supposed to contain, but it still requires improvement, or removal.  An ignore all rules interpretation would suggest that the purpose of the Good Article process is to provide incentive and recognition for the improvement of articles, and the specific criteria shouldn't get in the way of achieving that objective, so if you're able to in any way improve the list, either by the addition of text explaining each entry, or by turning it into prose, I'll give you the tick, but right now it's still a completely useless list, in that it doesn't add anything to an encyclopaedic understanding of the topic.  Normally at this stage I'd just fix it myself, but the way I'd personally fix it is by deleting the list - I don't think it adds anything - and I suspect you'd rather have the chance to improve it instead of see it deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed with your appropach to this point, which seems to me excessively rulebound. First, I don't think that is the only way to interpret an IAR approach. Leaving it as it is would be consistent - rather, that is not the approach you support. Fair enough (that is, I have no objection to your arguments which are reasonable - I just don't agree that they need have the consequence of removing or changing the list), but it isn't the only way to interpret IAR. Second, you never addressed my good practice argument. I have made the article worse (in my view) by turning the list into prose. I hope I will get around to seeking a consensus elsewhere to preserve these lists in articles, and if that works, I will revert to a bulleted list at that time. I'm sorry we cannot agree on this point. Your other suggestions have been helpful and in most other respects I think the article has improved. I appreciate your hard work here. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (b) The article complies with the MOS for layout. The MOS for fiction is not relevant to this article. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * (a) The article complies with our policies on the formatting of references. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (b) Challengable statements are backed by appropriate inline citations. The majority of sources are offline and so their reliability cannot be checked.  Good faith is assumed.  [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|16px]]
 * If you are assuming good faith, then their offline status is not relevant. Why the neutral symbol? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I can't positively check them, and it's open to another editor who can to come in and confirm or deny that they support the article. In the absence of someone denying they support the article, this criterion won't stand in the way of GA status. - 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (c) There is no evidence of original research. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * (a) The article has major omissions requiring very substantial work to fix. It provides no information about the life of the artist between 1953 and 1990.  It has no information about her major or notable works.  It has no information about her cultural impact.  There is no coverage of critical reception of her work.  Coverage of the themes of her work is very limited.  (Update: The article is still very limited in scope and would not be of significant assistance to any but the most casual reader.  However, I am unable to point to further sources to improve the article and therefore it passes the GA criteria.)  [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * I have consulted a wide range of online and offline sources. I believe there is nothing at all written about her life between 1953 and 1990, and we cannot write about that which has not been written about. I will however check sources on the other items you list - there may be some more on these. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Major omissions in terms of what has happened in her life? Or major omissions in terms of what has been written about her in reliable sources? If you know of critical reception that's not been included, it would be helpful to point it out.-- Beloved Freak  12:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now added two mentions covering "critical reception of her work". Unfortunately, there is no published information about the work(s) held by Artbank, and her work held in the NGV is untitled, and there is no online image or commentary. At this stage I don't think there is anything published on "her major or notable works" beyond that which is included (Although Newstead talks about three different paintings, I don't think his material offers anything that can be added to the article on this front). I have a couple more ideas I want to try, and will leave another note once I'm done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have confirmed nothing published online regarding the work(s) in the Holmes a Court collection or the Charles Sturt University collection. Offline is unlikely in these two cases (and if so, not found using Google Books or Google Scholar). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliable online sources you are already using in the article contain significant amounts of additional relevant detail that you have not used, pertaining to her style (not currently covered) and the course of her career (not all relevant aspects have been touched on). I'm specifically referring to the Top 200 article here.  Given the way that piece has been skimmed, my suspicion is that there is further relevant information in your offline sources which would also appropriately expand the scope of the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will check Birnberg and the AAC article tonight, but I can confirm there isn't anything further in the other offline sources. I'm not sure what you are referring to from Newstead's page. It has this near the start: "Her aerial depictions of bush tucker Dreamings featuring overlapping dot work entail only a semblance of Aboriginal iconography, while in her Women’s Dreaming’s each row of dots is rendered in a different colour with the inclusion of iconic womens symbols." With the exception of the reference to these being "aerial" depictions, i think a version of the rest of that information is already effectively in the article in this text: "These paintings are undertaken with red, blue and orange dots that represent the fruit at different stages in its development. She also paints women’s ceremonies (Awelye) and dreamings, and these are created using rows of coloured dots and include representations of women's ceremonial iconography". I don't want to use the last para of Newstead, because it refers to one particular painting (that is not illustrated in the WP article), and therefore may not apply to her works more generally. There is not enough clarity in Newstead's text to determine whether the two "styles" he refers to correlate to the two dreamings, nor is there enough information to describe what those two styles look like. What am I missing here? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Birnberg has a few words on Kemarre's style, which I didn't originally think added much, but have now included in the review. The AAC page does not have anything suitable, mainly because, while published in a reliable magazine, it is actually written for a gallery selling her works. OK for things like collection locations, but not for critical assessment of the paintings. I think that is now it for all sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (b) The article's level of details varies wildly with no obvious theme. Much of the article is devoted to what name she prefers to be called by, and to unrelated artists of the western desert, while information about the artist herself and her life is trivial or missing altogether. (Update: The article now maintains an appropriate and consistent level of detail.)  [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * I don't know if you saw the drama caused when Minnie Pwerle was TFA (not sure if it's in an archive) because of the use of her first name. I think it's important to explain the reasoning behind how she is referred to. Perhaps it would be better to put the skin name information in a footnote, to avoid distracting the reader? You asked for further explanation of dreaming, further up this page, to me this is the same kind of explanatory background information.-- Beloved Freak  12:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that this is unencyclopaedic content. It clearly belongs in a Good Article on this topic, and when you have enough substantive content to make a Good Article it will be fine how it is.  The problem right now is that it's a disproportionate level of detail given the tiny size of the current article.  The article has eight substantive paragraphs (that is, not counting the lead, references, or embedded list).  Fully a quarter of them deal with the issue of her name.  Only one of the eight provides biographical details.  At the very least the name information should be shuffled off into a footnote. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It is difficult to say the article presents all notable points of view, as it is so short and small in scope, but there is no obvious bias in what is currently there. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is reasonably stable with no outstanding disputes. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The article features no images. There is no discussion here or on the discussion page as to the availability of images or otherwise.  If photos of the artist or her works are not available for copyright reasons, it may be possible to illustrate the article with images of her home town, her house, or the galleries where her works are held.  (Update: The article now features as good an image as can be found, with appropriate licensing and captioning.)  [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * See separate discussion below. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: This article now features technical compliance with all the Good Article criteria, except for the requirement for it to be compliant with the Manual of Style on embedded lists. More importantly, it has fulfilled the intention of the GA process by undergoing a substantial program of improvement to reach compliance and is a better article as a result.  If compliance with the embedded list syle guidelines can be reached, the article should be passed as a Good Article.  I will be happy to return and pass the article when those changes are made.
 * The article has already passed, your option is to delist or not. I still strongly disagree with you about the list, I don't know what Hamiltonstone thinks at this point. Perhaps we should ask the wider community for further opinions? -- Beloved Freak  23:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More opinions would be great; I think part of the problem here may be that this series of indengous artist articles hasn't received a wider readership generally, and has problems which may be replicating across the entire series. You're right that I can summarily delist and move on, but when it's a fairly simple change to the list I'm asking for it doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time for me to delist and make you wait for another entire review process when you can spend ten minutes fixing the list and get the tick.  I'm happy to make the change myself (by deleting the list) but it seems possible that you might know a way to retain the list while keeping it compliant, which would be an even better outcome than deletion.  Presumably everyone wants a better article, presumably everyone agress that articles that comply with the style guidelines are better than ones that don't, and presumably everyone can see why I say that the list doesn't comply with the style guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean delist and then take to community GAR, I was wondering if we could just switch it to a community discussion on this last point. Do you know if that's possible? Although I've participated in both individual and community GAR discussions, I find the difference in procedure a little confusing. I would have thought we could just list it at WP:GAR and ask for input on the single point, what do you think? I agree that we're all wanting the article to be improved, that's the best outcome regardless of how the article ends up "classified". I just disagree with your interpretation of WP:EMBED. You're possibly right though that these articles could use more eyes just because they are a bit different. It's not like an article about a film or a pop singer where we have hundreds to compare to. If you don't think listing at WP:GAR is the way to go, what do you think about asking for input at a talkpage, WT:GAN, or one of the MOS talkpages? (sorry, I only just noticed your related reply further up. While I do see where you're coming from, I still think there is enough disagreement to warrant some further opinions.)-- Beloved Freak  23:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to do it is start an independent discussion elsewhere about the list - say, on the WP:EMBED talk page, or the WP:GAN talk page - and politely ask me to hold this review open pending the input from that discussion, which of course I would be more than happy to do. If you start such a discussion let me know and I'll keep an eye on it.  It's entirely possible I'm completely wrong in my interpretation, and if I am, that should become clear fairly quickly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At least we can keep a sense of humour, even if we don't agree on everything! While I think we both see that delisting then opening a community GAR would probably be a waste of time/effort, it's really up to you. I'm not entirely sure that I should be the one starting a discussion elsewhere, since it's you contesting the list, but I'm happy to do so if you don't want to. I'll have a think where best to do so.-- Beloved Freak  23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably better for you or Hamilstone to start the discussion, because it apparently has implications for other indigenous artist articles, so it would probably benefit from you opening your argument in the general, rather than me just going, "Look at this list, isn't it awful?" Besides which, I have an opinion on what the policy requires, an easy way to ensure compliance (deletion), and the power to summarily enact that compliance or elsewise delist the article.  I just don't think that doing any of that will be productive in the long term (or fair on the people who have done the hard work of starting this article in the first place, establishing notability, and bringing it up to its current standard) so I'm effectively encouraging you to go round up (policy or experience-based) support for your argument prior to taking action myself. - 23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I have this ready in an edit box but before I do, I just noticed something that may change my mind. (Apologies if you have made this point already, DustFormsWords, and I have missed it in all the kb above...) Hamiltonstone: is there a reason only four collections are mentioned? Do we have a complete list? I'm not sure we should be including it unless it's a complete list, or there's a specific reason for including those four. (By the way, I will start the discussion anyway, however this works out) -- Beloved Freak  23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What?? This whole thing is completely out of proportion to the issue. How can it be a complete list? The artist is still alive and painting, for a start - and, alive or dead, who knows whether a gallery purchased one of her works last week, last month or last year? The chance of finding a source that would seriously attempt to claim "Here is a complete list of all major galleries holding this artist's work" is nil, and if one did, that would say more about the foolishness of the source than anything else. It is a list, aggregated from reliable sources, of all major collections that those sources report her works to be held in. Since no-one seems to be giving it any attention, i'll put the other key point in capitals: GOOD (and standard) PRACTICE IN THIS FIELD (ART BIOGRAPHY) IS TO INCLUDE A LIST OF MAJOR COLLECTIONS. Online see Dictionary of Australian Artists Online; or the bigraphies at a significant private commercial gallery; offline see The new McCulloch's Encyclopedia of Australian Art. I've added a thread here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall (updated 18 January): The article now fulfills all the criteria for a Good Article. Congratulations on the hard work put into improving this article.  Suggested lines of expansion for the future would include identification of further sources to expand the scope and detail of the article, and identification of additional or better images for use in illustrating the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
It's late here and I will come back to this in the morning. i will just address one comment though "There is no discussion here or on the discussion page as to the availability of images or otherwise." - I did in fact bring this up at the review - you will see I mention it under no. 6 in the checklist at the top of the page. Hamiltonstone responded to it further down. I have reviewed a couple of articles for Hamiltonstone, and observed others, at GAN and FAC, and am aware of the issues concerning free images for these artists. Having an image is not a requirement to pass GA (or indeed FA). While Hamiltonstone mentioned that an image might be available that could be used under fair use, (although currently having technical problems) I saw no reason to hold up the review since there is no requirement for an image. If no images are available, or there is not enough commentary in reliable sources to justify using a non-free image, I don't think that one should be shoe-horned in just for the sake of decorating the article. I'm not saying that your suggestions would necessarily mean that, but it's worth considering.-- Beloved Freak  00:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment from Belovedfreak
 * The requirement is that the article should be illustrated where it is possible to find an appropriate image. I can't see any reason why an image of a gallery holding her work would not be both available and appropriate.  Alternatively you might find an image of the type of canvas she works with, or her preferred brushes, or a freely available photograph of an area or subject that she has painted.  There's no article so short as to be able to pass GA without having room for an image in an infobox. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * DustFormsWords, the inclusion of such an image is a violation of Australian copyright law unless (1) the painting is on permanent public display and (2) is able to be photographed by someone in that location, and (3) that person is willing to then give away the copyright that subsists in their own taking of that image. I am not aware of a work by Kemarre that meets these criteria. Let me know if you are. Accordingly, the only way to include an image would be under NFCC#8. As I said at the GA review, this article may squeak over that line if we could get an image that matched the descriptors of her paintings that are included in the article text, but I have been unable to do so so far. Again, if another editor is able to do so, that would be great, but in my view there is no problem WRT WIAGA#6. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, the image doesn't have to be of her paintings. Think outside the box.  There are many notable aspects of this woman's life that are illustratable by public domain images.  No effort has been made to find images of her residence, of art materials similar to the ones she uses, or of the (exterior facades) of the galleries her work is hung in. Please note that even if an image is found (or good reasons are given why no appropriate image can be found) there are still significant problems with the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take care not to infer what others have or haven't done. I did in fact search for a commons-licenced image of Santa Teresa Mission, but did not locate one. I reflected on the issue, and had felt that including a picture of the NGV for example, while not having one of either the artist or her work, was illustration distracting from the subject of the article. I accept that others feel differently, but I'm surprised you think this is enough to claim there is an issue sufficient to invoke failing WIAGA#6 (as distinct from it being something that might improve the article). We may have to agree to disagree on that. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the bush berries image, for example. It's supported as being the subject of her work by the Mbantua Gallery link, it gives some idea of what the finished work might be trying to convey (in as much as pointilist art has any direct correspondence to the form of its subject), and it makes the article more visually atractive and thereby draws the reader in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about including it in the absence of an image of her work, but have gone ahead. Thanks for locating that. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I strongly disagree with including images for the sake of it, just because we can. I don't think that the image of berries improves the article, nor do I think that a picture of the nondescript grey side of a building would, just because it is a gallery that has some of her work. (If it was her birthplace or something, I might feel differently). I can't imagine that including pictures of blank canvasses or paintbrushes would improve the article either. It it was an article about a film for which no free images could be found, we wouldn't include a picture of film reel with a caption "this is similar to what the movie was filmed on". I think "appropriate" is the key word here, and I guess I'm disagreeing with you on what is appropriate.-- Beloved Freak  11:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See our policies on illustrating articles dealing with abstract concepts. The consensus is that articles should be illustrated wherever possible, even if illustrations directly depicting the subject matter are unavailable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But this isn't an "abstract concept"?? I looked at Image use policy, and Images and didn't really come up with anything along the lines you suggested, of "wherever possible". WP:IMAGES states that they should be "significantly related to the article's topic", but I'm not seeing statements along the lines you're indicating. Can you provide a link? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a biography about an artist is not an abstract concept. The appropriate images to include would be pictures of the artist, pictures of her work, perhaps pictures of a place that was an important part of her life/central to her work. If those are not available, I see little value in inserting pictures of her preferred type of paintbrush. That said, I can't find out policy on illustrating articles dealing with abstract concepts, so a link would be helpful there. Please provide links that demonstrate that "the consensus is that articles should be illustrated wherever possible, even if illustrations directly depicting the subject matter are unavailable". Again, I really think this discussion should be taking place at WP:GAR.-- Beloved Freak  11:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)