Talk:Mural (Julie Mehretu)/GA1

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 20:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @UndercoverClassicist Thank you for taking this on. Always a pleasure to work together and I look forward to your feedback/comments.  Ppt91    talk   19:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Initial thoughts: looks pretty good, an interesting article about an interesting piece of art that also happens to have inadvertently placed itself at an interesting historical moment.


 * : hyphenate Ethiopian-American (assuming that she's American of Ethiopian ancestry; if not, we may need a more complicated description). Comes up in body text as well.
 * : suggest cutting or clarifying: everyone's contemporary with something.
 * Per MOS:LEADCITE, I wouldn't cite the painting's dimensions in the lead (because you'll cite them elsewhere), but I would consider a conversion into metric.
 * The introduction of Braudel sits a bit oddly with me, as he's mostly known as a historian of the Mediterranean and of world-systems theory, but I'm not sure I can quite put my finger on why.
 * I'd be open to suggestions; changed to "French historian" for now
 * : really, we should attribute the quote, even in the lead.
 * paraphrased and kept the footnote; let me know if you think this works
 * : cut while located in a private building, perhaps? The exception proves the rule: if we've said that it's visible from the street, we've implied that it's not visible from elsewhere.
 * Per MOS:BIO, we shouldn't have bracketed dates of birth in e.g. subheadings (or really anywhere except the first sentence of that person's article).
 * : needs a comma after Ethiopia (MOS:GEOCOMMA).
 * On abbreviations like BA and MFA: the dots are now a bit archaic, but this is a matter of personal taste.
 * I tend to like them, personally.
 * It's a little weird to have a section (Background) entirely composed of a subsection (Julie Mehretu). Is this part unfinished, or can that L3 heading be removed?
 * Kept only "Background" and we can discuss this further.
 * : could we shorten to visible through a glass wall from West Street or similar?
 * : I can't remember if we've discussed this before: the MoS would prefer Goldman Sachs's.
 * : firstly, I'd be clearer on "it", as we've had a lot of new things in the last sentence ("the painting"). Secondly, this contradicts what we said earlier about it being public art: perhaps we could bring together these ideas to say something like "critics debate whether the painting can be considered public art. On the one hand ... on the other ..."?
 * Changed it based on your suggestion; I think it reads better, although happy to edit further if you think it's needed.
 * A small brevity suggestion: simply the general public instead of members of the general public? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * : less verbose as "considered one of her best paintings".
 * I made a mistake here: as it's best-known, not best, we could just say "is one of her best-known paintings", unless you think that might be uncertain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * : I'm not a fan of false titles (so would do the author), but that's again personal. However, can we be more specific than author here -- what's this person's particular expertise?
 * : as she's still alive, has created is better.
 * : simpler as ?
 * I would link Goldman Sachs (and other terms linked in the lead) on first body text mention.
 * : something has gone wrong here: it would be inspired by the history of capitalism and it [the painting] would tell that history through abstract forms; it wasn't inspired by other people's attempts to tell the history through abstract forms.
 * : cut influential as WP:PUFFERY.
 * : does Mehretu only have two friends? Would suggest, for balance,.
 * We are inconsistent about which symbol to use for US dollars: as it's obviously an American article, would suggest simply $ rather than US$ or similar.
 * : we should be in the present tense here, I think, as the artwork still exists.
 * : each incorporated, unless they were never made?
 * : not quite grammatical: you consult a person, so consulted the building's designer ... with her ideas ....
 * : per MOS:QUOTEPOV, I'd lose the quote marks here and cut as puffery.
 * : MOS:SAID: "recognized" is not the right word for a subjective judgement.

Prose

 * : this might be a little vague: in particular, I'm curious as to exactly how you quantify the number of colours a painting uses (as distinct from shades of a colour, for example).
 * this is based on one of the sources (was also the DYK hook), so I cited it here to be specific where the number is coming from
 * Fair enough. Per MOS:LEAD, probably should be in the body and cited there, rather than cited in the lead. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is cited in "Design"; it has been linked in the lead primarily for DYK purposes and to make the source immediately available to interested readers; I don't feel strongly about keeping it, so it's up to you.
 * The pullout quote doesn't quite sit right with me; we don't generally do pull quotes (there's a MoS page somewhere), because they put WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on individual bits of text in a way that's rarely supported by the sources. More concretely, the parenthetical citation to its source needs to be reworked; those are deprecated.
 * do you think we should remove it altogether?
 * I would do so; there might be a good way to incorporate it into the prose. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * removed for now, we can address adding into the body later if it works ✅ done
 * : perhaps slightly too much detail on the gate and its current location for this article.
 * This is ironic, as you were one of the editors I was thinking of when adding this bit--and that was way before this GA review. As disappointed as I am to learn that it's not the classicist homage I had hoped for, I'd still like to keep it. :)  Ppt91    talk   23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Personal taste, perhaps: I think the date is fine, but I'm not sure the present location really is, unless we know for sure that Mehretu visited it in Berlin and that this fact is somehow significant? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd have to check, because I can't remember. Either way, I'd prefer to keep as is for now, given the work has been cited in reliable sources as one of the influences on the mural.  Ppt91    talk   18:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a huge problem for GA. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * : prominent is probably another example of WP:PUFFERY: would cut. ❌ not done; I am not sure I agree. Cobb's prominence seems relevant here due to his impact on corporate office architecture in the U.S. (he co-founded Pei Cobb Freed and Partners with I.M. Pei), especially for an uninformed reader. We can think of an alternative, like "influential", but ideally keep as it is now.  Ppt91    talk   18:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The usual way to solve this is to provide something verifiable: something like . There's nothing wrong with demonstrating Cobb's prominence, but we can't just assert it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course, that we cannot just assert someone's prominence but we also need to recognize instances when using this kind of language is appropriate due to one's broadly recognized accomplishments. For example, I would not see an issue with calling Mark Rothko a "prominent" American painter without needing to provide a source as his contributions to American visual culture are commonly accepted and such description is not controversial.
 * That being said, I have added a citation to an obituary from the Boston Globe, though it feels and looks a bit awkward in my opinion. Another possibility is including a description from the NYT obituary which says that he "designed some of the country’s most prominent buildings". (here is the source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/arts/henry-cobb-dead.html) Happy to go with whatever you think works best.  Ppt91    talk   21:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd still avoid similar terms with Rothko, Picasso, Monet and so on: "she admired painters like Picasso and Monet" is, to me, far more encyclopaedic than "she admired famous painters like...", unless we're trying to draw an explicit contrast (that is, to imply that she disdained unknown painters). I don't think this one is a show-stopping problem for GA: you might want to use a refn tag for the reference and do something like .  UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist I've edited to reflect the description of Cobb as discussed by Tomkins. I think it now sounds less vague and more relevant to the topic at hand. There is no rush on my end, but other than spotchecks, which I know might take you a while due to other commitments, is there anything else that I may have missed? And thank you again for all your work on this review.  Ppt91    talk   19:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've put in one query re. one source; once that's sorted I think we'll be good to go. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Stopping here for now.
 * @UndercoverClassicist Thank you; I think I addressed everything remaining. Let me know if there is anything I missed.   Ppt91    talk   18:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist Those are very helpful comments! I have accepted most of your suggested edits (struck means done). For the rest, I've responded to each separately. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the remaining sections. Thanks so much. Ppt91   talk   23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it's been useful; I'll carry on when I get a moment. One small thing: could you not strike my comments when you've actioned them? It makes it difficult for me to see what I've been able to look at, and gives the potentially false impression that I've withdrawn that suggestion or concern: better to reply "done" or similar. I've unstruck for now, though that doesn't imply any quarrel with your solutions. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience with this one: I know I'm going slowly (real life is rather getting in the way at the moment!). I've resolved most of the comments; those above are, I think, still "open".

A few more:


 * : I take it that's Lewis's interpretation? If so, I'm not sure we can so confidently assert that the work represents this as a factual statement. Suggest something like "which she interprets as an allegory of..." ✅ done
 * : because of the not, better to start a new sentence after place: "Instead, they overtake..." (but consider if this is really an empirical judgemnt) ✅ done
 * : similarly, not quite grammatical: suggest "Shiff interprets one section of the composition as an homage to...". ✅ done
 * : this sounds as if Carrier criticised G-S for employing a biracial lesbian; I'd suggest he was probably more accusing them of pinkwashing. ✅ done (see if you think this phrasing is accurate)
 * : needs a comma before pointing, but I would split this sentence somewhere. Again, the general public is briefer than members of the general public. ✅ done
 * The market gate caption needs a the at the beginning. ✅ done  Ppt91    talk   18:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Images

 * Happy with the FUR for the image of the artwork.
 * Strictly speaking, File:Market Gate of Miletus in the Pergamon Museum.jpg should have a tag for the original work; the uploader is the creator of the photograph but not, presumably, of the gate.
 * Apologies, but not sure I follow. Do you mean in the caption?  Ppt91    talk   18:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No -- on Commons: we need to show that both the photograph and the artwork depicted are PD. The uploader can release the rights to the image, but we need also prove that the gate itself isn't in copyright as a work of art. For ancient objects, this is easy enough: I've added the necessary tag myself. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 13:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist Thanks!  Ppt91    talk   21:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources and spotchecks

 * Note 5: checks, perhaps slightly close paraphrase, but I think just about on the right side of the line.
 * Note 8: checks
 * Note 10: checks.

Almost all sources seem reliable and appropriate to their level of evidential weight.

I have a small query with note 17 (The American Conservative): this is, fairly openly and unapologetically, a partisan source, and it's being cited here as a primary source (that is, as a source for its own views). What makes it notable enough to include here? In general, it's much more comfortable when we can include assessments of an article's subject at second hand (e.g. "The New York Times reported that The American Conservative called the work...") -- otherwise, we need to be very confident that the assessor is worth listening to.

@UndercoverClassicist Thanks for bringing this up. I agree that this publication is highly partisan and not a paragon of journalistic integrity, while that particular review seems to me like a babbling rant against contemporary abstraction disguised as legitimate art criticism. However, there are a few reasons as to why I think including it might be a net positive. Let me know your thoughts. Ppt91   talk   16:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) retaining WP:NPOV; contemporary art reception has a liberal bias, so I wanted to find some counterbalance, even if it is not of the highest quality. Frankly, and without getting into a longer discussion about it, it is hard to find counterbalance of *high* quality. This is mostly because many conservative voices, the current reviewer included, tend to feel threatened with anything that deviates from their securely held set of traditional Eurocentric beliefs about what constitutes cultural production and what the social role of art should be. I am not pleased with this source, but I do think that it will ultimately help the reader arrive at their own conclusion while also not making it seem like the article has an ideological agenda of some sort.
 * 2) The American Conservative is not entirely unreliable as far as WP:RSP list goes. According to the most recent discussion, no single consensus about reliability was reached with the following conclusion (1) TAC may be used as a source for opinions but it should not be used as a sole source for facts. (2) Where a more neutral source exists than TAC, the more neutral source should always be preferred. (3) Where using TAC as a source, it is mandatory to provide both an inline citation and in-text attribution.. The article includes both the in-line citation and in-text attribution when referencing the source.


 * I can wear that line of argument -- if I've got it right, TAC essentially stands in for the anti-modern-art, "my kid could make that" brand of art 'criticism', which is definitely notable as a totality even if any individual exponent of it might not be. I don't think it's sufficiently unreliable to cause us a problem, in any case, and there's no additional reason (WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY etc) to cause us to push up our standards. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 17:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Editør

 * I think the background section can be improved by changing its perspective/focus. The single subheading is indicative of the issue: the section gives background info about the artist, but it would make more sense if this article's background section would focus on the painting and only discuss the artist's background where it is directly relevant to the painting instead of giving a biographic summary for the artist. For instance, I don't think that mentioning "Kalamazoo College" is relevant to the painting. – Editør (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Editør Thanks for your comments! I agree with what you said about education and I've removed that sentence altogether. Per GA review comments from @UndercoverClassicist above, I've also removed the subtitle and kept "Background" only. I am happy to talk more about this, though I do think it works much better now.  Ppt91    talk   23:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like an improvement already. – Editør (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For accessibility, the images should have alt texts per WP:MOSALT. – Editør (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added the image alt texts. I've also made a minor correction to the comma of the postcard title. – Editør (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In the see also section, the link to Pei Cobb Freed & Partners should be removed, because it is already linked in History > Design per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. I think the entire section could be removed, none of the links seems important to this article. – Editør (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed this section. – Editør (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Editør Apologies for my delayed reply and thanks a lot for improving the article with these edits.  Ppt91    talk   18:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Success with the rest of the review. – Editør (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)