Talk:Martha Elizabeth Burchfield Richter/GA1

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 09:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I should say, at the outset, that I think the article's nominator, and main editor, User:Erikaschoene, probably needs to declare a Conflict of Interest. I think it likely there is a connection between the editor and the Louise Simon Schoene mentioned in the article as the owner of the largest collection of Burchfield's works and of the copyright to all of her paintings. I have raised this with the editor, on her Talkpage, on the article's PR request, and here, but have not had a response.

That said, MX has kindly agreed to support in reviewing the article, so I'll now proceed. I should complete today but shan't conclude it without checking with MX. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow.

Main review
1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):

The prose is generally of an acceptable standard, although the whole article is written as a series of very short, often one-sentence, paragraphs. I return to this in 1b, but most would be better amalgamated to form longer paragraphs, in accordance with MoS guidance on paragraphs, here, I make some suggestions for prose improvements below:
 * Lead
 * "Similarly to her father, Burchfield had an affinity for flowering plants, trees and landscapes." - Why not, "Like her father, Burchfield had..." And I'm not sure what the rest of the sentence means. Does it mean Burchfield was drawn to depict flowering plants, trees and landscapes in her art, or that she just liked them?
 * "She is known by the customary signature "M. Burchfield" on all her paintings. Including those painted after the change of her surname following her marriage in 1946 to Henry Richter." - The second of these statements isn't a sentence. Could it not just run on from the first as "She is known by the customary signature "M. Burchfield" on all her paintings, including those painted after the change of her surname following her marriage in 1946 to Henry Richter"?


 * Life - Early years
 * "At 2 years of age, Burchfield with her family moved to the Gardenville area..." - Wasn't it Charles's family, and presumably his decision to move? Perhaps "In 1926, Charles moved his family to the Gardenville area...where Burchfield lived for the rest of her life."
 * "Though the decision to leave Birge wallpaper company..." - perhaps, "Though the decision to leave the Birge wallpaper company..."


 * Life - Education
 * "Gardenville High School, which was named for its location in the Gardenville section of West Seneca" - that it was named after its location is probably obvious and doesn't need stating.
 * "she followed in her father's footsteps..." - a cliché. Perhaps "she followed her father to the Cleveland Institute of Art"?
 * "Her aunt, Louise Burchfield, served as the institute's assistant curator of painting at the institute." - the second mention of the institute is redundant.


 * Life - Family and personal life
 * "and said she loved the Western New York countryside" - is Western New York a specific geographic area that requires capitalisation?
 * "in the Army Air Force in the European Theater" - perhaps, "in Europe"? And, as an aside, should you link Army Air Force?
 * "The couple was married in her parents' home" - "The couple were married in her parents' home?
 * "just a little more than a mile from her parents' home" - perhaps, "close to her parents' home"?
 * "She stayed home with the children while he served as.." - You mean Henry, rather than the David immediately preceding the "he"?
 * "In news interviews, Richter.." - I appreciate Burchfield's now married but I think it confuses to use her married name here. And you subsequently go back to calling her Burchfield, or sometimes Burchfield Richter. It needs to be consistent.
 * "But I fought against it. I'd stand in front of Dad's paintings and I'd think Why try?" - Is Why capitalised in the original?


 * Life - Death
 * "taken in July 15, 2016 by Laurie Kaiser a writer from Buffalo" - do you not give, rather than take interviews? Perhaps, "given on 15 July 2016 to a local writer, Laurie Kaiser"?
 * "which often left her in a fog instead of feeling better." - Not an encyclopedic description. Is it a quote, or your personal view?
 * "While her depression was a very difficult for her and her family" - superfluous "a".


 * Artist style and influences
 * Should this be titled "Artistic style and influences?


 * Exhibits
 * "In 1973, Burchfield again exhibited with her father and her daughter at the Raydon Gallery..." - given that her father had died in 1967, I think this needs re-wording for clarification.


 * b (MoS):

A few issues for consideration.
 * Paragraphs
 * The whole article comprises a series of short, often single-sentence, paragraphs. I think this goes against MoS guidance on paragraphs,, and it certainly makes it more difficult to read. As an example, the Artist style and influences section comprises nine paragraphs. Four are single sentences, three more are two sentences. Is there any reason why these all don't just form a single paragraph?
 * Quotes
 * There are some pretty long quotes, which runs up against the MoS advice, here, . Examples include "All my life I wanted to be an artist. But I fought against it. I'd stand in front of Dad's paintings and I'd think Why try? But they inspired me, too. But it was a lost cause, and I decided that all I really wanted to do was paint, so why fight it? Painting isn't something I took up as a means of escape from dishes and diapers. The urge to paint was there before any frustration with housework. A serious artist paints because he has to; it's an inborn drive." and "Western New York's meadows, creeks, roads, and small towns are sensitively recorded by her brushes….If there is a quality, rather than a technique, which she shares with her famous father, it is the spirit of fantasy that animates her skies, mottling the horizons with clouds that seem under pressures of wind to achieve a full, rolling boil." and "is content to look at what she views and to delineate it with a given vocabulary of colors and an accepted grammar of strokes. She does not probe beneath the surface for the inherent magic or mystery. She can set the scene well but the drama remains offstage." I like quotes, and liberally use them in articles I contribute to, but I wonder if some of these can be trimmed or paraphrased?
 * Lead
 * The lead should summarise the content of the article. MoS, here, . In this article, the last two paragraphs of a four-paragraph lead focus on Louise Schoene's collection. None of the information in these two paragraphs recurs in the article. As critically, given the possible CoI mentioned above, most of the information is not sourced. Either the information is expanded and properly sourced in the main body of the article, or it needs to come out of the lead. As a supplementary, the penultimate para. mentions an April 2017 exhibition. Did this happen?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):

See below. Currently on hold.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):

MX has kindly addressed the issues with the references and sources below, so I'll move on to 2c. Two quick thoughts before I do, however. Many of the very short para.s end with no citation. If they are to remain stand-alone, they need cites to conclude them that support their content. Second, the Laurie Kaiser, identified as a writer from Buffalo in the Death section, appears to be the same Laurie Kaiser who is the author of Source 1, and is identified there as a staff writer/PR person at Buffalo State. I think this should be made clear. And was Source 14, which provides six cites ever published anywhere? On hold for now.
 * c (OR):

I think it unlikely the article contains OR, except perhaps on the issue of Burchfield's mental health treatment mentioned above, but as almost none of the sources can be checked on line, I think it's prudent to leave this on hold until we can check the sources.


 * d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

The copyright vio tool shows a 72.4% match with the www.meibohmfinearts.com source. But I think this is mainly accounted for by the long quotes, referenced above, which come from this source. I do also have a concern about the source itself. It is the website of a commercial art shop. Although a long-established business, I'm not sure it quite meets RS. It's not, for example, like the History of Art department of a university, publications of which would be subject to scrutiny and review. MX may have a view and I think it safest to leave it on hold for now.
 * I think the source is fine. I didn't find anything at WP:RS that raised a red flag. The website cites where it got the information at the very bottom, and we know the author was a guy named Mark Strong. I don't think the source falls under WP:QUESTIONABLE. But we ought to be careful about making promotional/negative claims about the subject using this website, and stick to straight-forward statements of fact. Ideally, it would also be better if the nominator had access to the sources Mr. Strong used to write that page ... Though that would just dump more work on the nominator. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 17:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):

The coverage seems about right, in that the key events of her life an artistic career are covered. As far as I can see, Martha Burchfield has little on-line presence, beyond Facebook and Pinterest pages, which leads me to think she is an artist of primarily local interest. This appears to be borne out by the sources, which are almost entirely from institutions based in the New York State area. As such, I think the key aspects are probably covered and I'll Pass here.
 * b (focused):

Again, I don't think it strays unduly from the main point, the life and works of Martha Burchfield, so happy to Pass on this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy
 * Generally, the article presents a positive, but seemingly balanced, appreciation. Such critical commentary as there is, is broadly sympathetic, although the second Trevor Thomas quote appears to contain a subtle criticism. One might have expected a greater degree of coverage, both pro and con, but perhaps she is an artist who has not been widely studied? I shall leave as on hold at the present, giving the nominator the opportunity to include some more critical reactions to Burchfield's work, should these be available.

5. It is stable
 * The article appears to be stable and is not subject to significant recent change or to edit-wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

The illustrations appear to be appropriate though this is not an area of expertise for me. If the article is correct as to Ms Louise Schoene holding the copyright to all of Burchfield's work, then presumably she holds the copyright for the image of July Reflections? Does the licence work? Similarly, is the licence for the three Burchfields acceptable? I shall seek another view and leave on hold for the present.
 * Not seeing the rationale for the given tag on July Reflections; however, based on username the uploader is possibly a relative of the copyright holder, so perhaps an OTRS message could resolve things? Conversely, copyright for the newspaper image would quite likely still be with the newspaper, possibly with the archives, but either way I don't see a justification for given tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, with many thanks to Nikkimaria for their input, there are issues with both of the main text images. It's possible both could be resolved, but they need to go On Hold for now.


 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Captions seem appropriate.

7. Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Like MK, I'm quite open to extending the normal seven days if the nominator needs more time. For now, once I've checked with MX, it'll go on hold. I think there is quite a lot of work to do, to bring the article to GA standard. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * With many thanks for the various contributions, I'll now put the article On Hold and drop a note on the nominator's Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The review has now been open seven days and the nominator hasn’t responded in any way. I’m therefore closing as a Fail as it can’t Pass as it stands.  Thanks to MX and Nikkimaria for their input. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Second reviewer
Hi, I'll let the original nominator take care of the prose suggestions. I want to bring up some issues in sourcing. All of the sources have incomplete formats (for news, please use the format found in Template:Cite news; for normal web pages, use Template:Cite web). Having full references is important because it prevents WP:LINKROT.

Now, given the potential conflict of interest pointed out above, I think the best course of action here is to request the nominator to provide us with the offline sources, per WP:OFFLINE. That way we can verify the information ourselves so we can verify the information. I'm open to keep this review on hold longer than the 7-day requirement, just as long as we have the nominator's commitment to provide us with the information.

I added a few [Citation needed] tags that need to be addressed. Also, the introduction is longer than the suggested size, per WP:LEADLENGTH. This article currently has 2090 words (readable prose), so it should be 2–3 paragraphs. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)