Talk:Patricia Preece

Lead wording
In the second lead paragraph there is quite an abrupt transition between different stories: ''[...] suffering a heart attack and dying. She soon adopted the name Patricia [...]'' The drowning seems to have nothing to do with her engagement? --Pgallert (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this comment: I tried to smooth out the writing. The facts, however, show a rather abrupt transition: Gilbert died on May 29, 1911, when Ruby Preece was 17.  She then moved away, changed her first name and was sent to a finishing school.  Were these changes related to her ordeal of witnessing Gilbert's death?  Only the SF Gate article speculates that this was so, and it's written so breezily that I hesitate to rely on it regarding this point.  It may simply be that her formal education was complete, and she would have done exactly the same whether she had witnessed G's death or not.  What do you suggest?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, if there is a possible connection between the two events it could be presented in this way, although it is quite unusual for WP to have the writing style suggest that relation, and not the statement itself. So it could stay that way (slightly stretching a few policies for better style) or it could be made explicit with a restriction like "X suggests that..." or "this event has been speculated to be the reason for...". Depends a bit on how likely it would be that new supporting or opposing evidence might pop up in the future. --Pgallert (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * From all the bios and sources I have read (mostly bios of Spencer that mention Preece), I think it is doubtful that there was a connection. If someone finds a source that provides better evidence of a connection, we can always add it then.  I'd rather err on the conservative side and not give it any ink at present.  But if it still reads as too abrupt to you, we could try to smooth out the prose more.  Any thoughts about that?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

[left]No, that transition is fine. As I said, it could have been kept to make the readers draw their own conclusions. The new abrupt transition I feel was that of her father's profession and her boarding school. I reworded it right in the article; do you think this is acceptable? --Pgallert (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that's good, but we should mention somewhere that she was "the daughter of an Army officer", per the requirement of WP:LEAD that intro sections give an overview of the whole article. I can't figure out where to put it, though.  Thanks for the help!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether this is necessary. Who her father was does not seem to have had much of an influence on her life. I wondered if there is a better expression of her connection to Gilbert's death: she was not merely present but "caused" it in some way... --Pgallert (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried "involvement in". Would you prefer "connection with"?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dunno. I'm looking for something a bit weaker than "role in" ;) --Pgallert (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Model for Spencer" not referenced
Apparently an issue came up at DYK short before the hook was taken to the preparation area: That her modeling for Spencer is only mentioned in the lead, and not referenced there. Additionally, the Jiminez, Jill Berk and Joanna Banham reference (currently#11) has a url linking that I find a bit misleading: The "Preece" title is linked to a Google Books page where her name does not appear.

Due to limited bandwidth I cannot really browse through the T:TDYK history to find Tony's original concern, but it would be great if this could be fixed before the article is scheduled to appear on Main Page tomorrow 07:00. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added more information about the nude portraits in the body of the article, with a cite. Look again at cite 11.  It mentions Preece numerous times, and I have changed the link to clarify this.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ssilvers, the concern with the link in ref 11 is this: If I see a linked title like this: "Preece" I would expect the url to lead to the chapter / entry for Preece, but this is not the case. The page it gets me to is the Google Books entry page for the book and that page does not mention Preece. I do not contest that she is covered in the book, just not at this url. That's what I meant with "misleading". --Pgallert (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pgallert. I'm still not understanding you.  The link does indeed get us to the chapter of the book that discusses Preece.  Perhaps the link is not working the same for you as for me, somehow?  Can you suggest how you would fix it?  This is a very important ref in the article and contains much information about Preece, so I would like to figure out what you are talking about.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could it be that you are automatically logged in at Google Books? Because I definitely get the overview page (the one that appears when you only have a hit for the book, not for anything inside it), both from my work PC (Linux behind a strict company firewall) and from my home laptop (Windows with no restrictions whatsoever). --Pgallert (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is actually worse: A search for "Dictionary of artists' models" plus "Preece" returns only the Wikipedia article as result, suggesting she is not covered in this book. Are you sure this is the right book? --Pgallert (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I think I figured out the problem: You can't see the referenced Google Books pages from where you are located. In the US, we get more public access to Google Books than in the UK and many other countries, due, apparently to local copyright issues. The referenced pages in the book contain a very substantial biographical profile of Preece under the heading "Patricia Preece". We could, of course, take out the url to the Google Book altogether, and simply leave in the bibliographic reference to the hard-copy book, but it seems to me better to leave in the link for those who can access the material online. Feel free to revert to the earlier url if that is better for you. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! I just looked this book up on Amazon.com, and it is very expensive!: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=1579582338  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is well-nigh possible. Assuming that at other locations the link leads to the same page I'm getting, I would suggest to link only the book, not the chapter, and give a page number instead. This way it would be an offline reference with a link to Google Books, which should be perfectly ok. --Pgallert (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. The footnote does state the exact page numbers: pp. 436–38.  The link is also a link to the exact page numbers, if you can access the google books preview, which all US readers can.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead
The lead section seemed too long. Proposed some changes and added context. Don't need all the juicy details up front, just broad outline of life. Also seemed to paint Preece in too negative light, perhaps deserved, but events don't read so harshly in the main article with more context. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Another editor and I reverted some of these changes. For example, Spencer did not stay with his first wife after his marriage to Preece.  He wrote to her obsessively, but she refused to return to him to be his mistress, when she had been his wife.  Also, it is crucial to mention in the Lead that Preece modelled for Spencer - his portraits and nudes of her were some of his most important paintings.  In addition, it should be clear in the lead that she was very cruel to Spencer.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you kept some of the changes, but I think it's still too focused on the negative aspects and reads like whoever wrote it doesn't have much sympathy for Preece, it rings NPOV. Also there's no reason for all the details of the swimming accident in the lead, just say it was an accident in a single sentence and fill in the details in the body, per WP:LEAD. Same with other stuff, just too much detail in the lead, and it has a NPOV slant due to negative inclusions and positive (or neutral) exclusions. That's all, I won't edit anymore, good luck. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, though I appreciate your thoughtful comments. The swimming incident is what she is best known for among the musical theatre/operetta crowd. So I think it is worth including this brief sentence (we are not repeating all the details) to note, up front, that it was Preece herself who called out to Gilbert, and that he died trying to save her. I tried to streamline what I could in the Lead, but I think everything in it is essential to an overview of the article. It is true that it highlights the horrible things that Preece did, but she did them. The SF Gate article, and some other sources I have seen, imply that Preece had an even more sinister role in Gilbert's death, which I do not accept as fact; and some sources imply that she took advantage of her lover, Hepworth, which I also do not dwell on. But all sources agree that her behavior towards Spencer and his first wife were as reprehensible as can be - I think that that any omissions about it in the Lead would be whitewashing. If you can think of a way to create a more neutral tone, without leaving out this info, I would be happy to try to accommodate that. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to torpedo your efforts, Ssilvers, but Cardamom has a point here. Four paragraphs lede for a rather short article is overkill, at the least it violates WP:MOS. I could imagine the drowning incident to be mentioned only with one sentence in the lead, and the rather pointless third paragraph cut to two sentences, one supporting the second, and one supporting the fourth paragraph. --Pgallert (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Ssilvers makes some quite reasonable points here. The drowning incident with WSG is what Preece is best remembered for in musical circles, and this needs to be mentioned fairly fully in the lead. Like wise with her modelling for Spencer, which is what she is best known for in artistic circles. As for any negativity/lack of sympathy for or about Preece, I contributed in a small way to this article, and elsewhere, about Preece, and I could find no redeeming features in the woman's personality. I think Ssilvers has maintained a balance here that I couldn't have achieved. I think the article is fine as it is. Jack1956 (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

When someone has a negative reputation, it's easy (and fun) retell juicy stories. I recently wrote an article about someone who has a similar negative reputation for certain actions he took. At first the article emphasized the scandalous juicy stuff people like to hear about. Then I looked into it further, and found he was a little more complicated, he also did positive things that few know about. So I wrote a section about his modern reputation and contradictions.

Has anyone anywhere had anything to say about Peerce's reputation in the last 20 years or so? What about her will (if she had much money), did she leave it to charity, or do any charitable work in her lifetime? Are there any other positive aspects about her life that are usually ignored because of the scandals that surround her which have made saying anything positive about her difficult? Jack1956 mentions she has a reputation in certain "circles" - that's notable context, can those circles be mentioned in the article, or perhaps quotes from people about her? Green Cardamom (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)