Talk:Sky Above Clouds/GA1

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

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 21:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this using the table below. Comments to follow shortly, in the next day or two. Happy new year!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  21:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the review. Feel free to get crazy with it.  I’m always happy to make radical changes if it genuinely improves the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Viriditas, I have a few initial observations below which I hope make sense. Do let me know if not!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  11:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Some initial observations before I start populating the table:


 * The article is about the series of paintings known as 'Sky Above Clouds', but the infobox only contains information about one of the paintings (Sky Above Clouds IV). I think it would be better if the infobox for this article contained details like how many paintings are included in the series, the names of all the works, and the years in which the series was produced. Perhaps the Infobox Collection template is more suitable here?
 * Great suggestion. This would be off-label use of template unless there is another more appropriate template.  But I really like this idea.  I've gone ahead and added it.  If there is a better template, it might be named "Infobox art series", but I can't find it.  I think it must exist, however. If you can find it, let me know and I'll switch it out. Viriditas (talk)
 * @Viriditas I've had a quick look at the list of infoboxes available and Infobox Collection does look like the most appropriate option. Happy to stick with it!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  11:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * From reading the article and not delving into the sources yet, I am not sure why the seven paintings listed in the article are part of a series. The article focusses maybe a bit too much on four of the paintings which contain a similar motif: in the lead, it states Only four paintings in the series share the same motif.., but does not mention the other three. What aligns the other three paintings to the rest of the series? Similarly in the Series section, the first three paras only describe four of the seven paintings (In the series, a set of four depict a variation on a view looking through clouds from above, as if seen from an airplane.). What defines the other three paintings? Is there a reason why they are all considered part of a series (e.g. because of a collector or common consensus)? Or is it just because they are all paintings of clouds painted during a similar time period? If there is an explanation in one of the sources or elsewhere, it would be really useful to include it in the article.
 * You're right that the lead only mentions the shared motif; I could add more, but my thinking was that by only mentioning in the lead what they had in common, their differences could be discussed later. I will think about what you said.  To answer your question, the other three are minimalist, single cloud banks, and do not have the cloud street design.  The artist had a habit of producing variations and abstractions on a theme; Sky Above Clouds is one of these themes.  I tried to explain this in the background section.  If you think I need to do something else, let me know.  Thinking about it further, I wonder if more could be said about why she had a habit of doing these series focused on a single theme. Viriditas (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas Thanks for the clarification. Definitely think it would be good to have a brief description of the other three pictures in the lead and in the intro to the Series section. And if you are able to find any info about O'Keefe's tendency to produce series that would be great.
 * Hi again @Viriditas, just starting the source check and Messinger 1997 (p.44) has a really good description of what unites the seven pictures in the series: "Each canvas was divided into two registers, with clouds below and atmosphere above". This would help the reader understand why the seven pieces are part of a series (not just the fact they are all clouds, but they have a similar composition). Maybe you could incorporate this into the article?
 * I can do that, but the reason I didn’t, is because I was trying to avoid a tautology. The title of the series is, after all, Sky Above Clouds, but I am happy to explain it in more detail. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas I've been doing more source checks and remain confused as to why the article includes seven paintings in the Sky Above Clouds series. (Looking specifically at citation 16) Pages 499-500 of Robinson 1999 state that the Sky Above Cloud series was completed between 1963 and 1965: "The image remained in her mind, and within a few years she began a series based on it. Done between 1963 and 1965, these "Sky Above Cloud" paintings are enormous, ..." Similarly, p.118 of Hoffman 1984 states that "Also based on O'Keefe's flying experiences, are her sky and cloud paintings, completed in the sixties. Among them is a series of four paintings entitled Sky Above Clouds." This would seem to contradict the statement in the article: "During her last productive period in her career, Georgia O'Keeffe completed a series of cloudscape paintings between 1960 and 1977." I'm not finished the source check yet so there could be an explanation I'm missing, but if you have any clarity to add that would be super helpful! Apologies for my confusion!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  18:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I somewhat addressed this on the talk page, but your confusion is totally normal. Basically, over time, the sources explaining the number of works in the series changed. For example, after 2001, Messinger expanded the range from 1965 to 1977.  There are several reasons for this, one being the uncertain nature of her ouevre at the time of her death.  There are several sources that talk about how her collection was somewhat chaotic just before she died, with attempts made to catalog it as best as possible. Another reason is because three additional works didn't enter the museum collection system until 2006, namely An Island with Clouds, Clouds 5/ Yellow Horizon and Clouds, 1963–1964 and Sky Above Clouds / Yellow Horizon and Clouds. That leaves us with nine current works, with An Island with Clouds as the only one that stands outside of the shared style and motif, so perhaps eight in the total series to date.  So to answer your question, the number of works in the series changed over time, due to the number of recognized paintings in private collections, public collections, and in the overall series.   O'Keeffe died in 1986, but her catalogue raisonné wasn't completed until around 1999, so you can imagine many of the older sources are out of date.  This does not however, resolve your concern.  The core of the series was completed between 1960 and 1965, and perhaps I need to make that more clear.  For example, after 1972, O'Keeffe was basically blind, but still creating artwork.  Any paintings that were part of the Sky Above Clouds series from this time forward were completed with the help of other people.  The sources are sort of wishy-washy in this respect, with attempts to grant her full artistic autonomy during this time, even though she couldn't see.  I think I might be able to clarify this by separating the core of the series from the post-1972 era.  It would be nice if that's where the confusion starts and ends, but it doesn't.  Sky Above the Flat White Cloud II must have been re-evaluated later than some of the older sources, as it's now established that the work began in 1960. And what ever became of Sky Above the Flat White Cloud I?  Obviously, I think there are a lot of questions that aren't going to be answered, so I've tried to work around them the best way I can and will continue to do so moving forward. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for that helpful clarification :) I appreciate your attempts to work through the uncertainties. Could a potential solution be, in this article at least, to detail all of the paintings which have been officially referred to as part of the "Sky Above Clouds" series, then acknowledge that there are other paintings by O'Keefe that are also of similar cloudscapes, even if not clearly part of "Sky Above Clouds"? Would that work? Or, there may be another way to clearly specify why each of the paintings listed in the article are currently considered part of the series. I definitely think there needs to be more general detail about the distinction between the "four paintings with the similar motif" and the other paintings. Let me know what you think :)  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  20:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's a way to meet in the middle for sure, but I will need to figure out the best way. If you look at early versions of page history, I only came to the 1965-1977 date range after contemplating the sources for about a week.  It wasn't a change I made lightly.  I think this current solution (the one in the article) works and is supported by the sources, but as you rightfully observed, makes no sense when you take a wider view.  I think one of the things I came to realize is that the truth is somewhere in between; the wider date range was probably a way for art industry insiders to justify and rationalize additional pieces and to try and fit them into a narrow series.  I've seen the same thing play out in other art articles, but I felt somewhat confident that this would work.  It's good to have an outside opinion like your own because it gives me something other than my own self-reflection to go on.  I will come up with something soon to address the issue. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for considering the issue :) I'll continue with the other elements of the review for now.  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  13:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas Thanks for your patience with this review. I have completed an initial assessment of the criteria and will put the article on hold now  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insightful review. I should have it finished in the next few days.  I will ping you as I go. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm tying up lose ends here and there, but it looks like I'm 90-95% finished. I'll keep at it for the next day or so. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thank you so much for your patience and cooperation throughout this process :)  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see one thing that could be improved at this point, but otherwise I think I’m done. I will try to make a final edit around 10 hours from now. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have identified a few missing things: 1) the sourcing indicating her use of the studio in Abiquiú and at her Ghost Ranch studio isn't as clear as it should be. It is generally assumed by my reading, that all of the paintings in this series were created and completed at her studio in Abiquiú except for Sky Above Clouds IV, which was made at the Ghost Ranch due its size, but I haven't been able to confirm all of this, just a few parts of it.  I seem to recall reading this was true a while back.  If you have any hints as to how to deal with this, let me know.  I think I may be getting lost in the weeds here; 2) I neglected to mention the influence of Arthur Wesley Dow in the background section.  I should probably do that; 3) I didn't mention the influence of Eero Saarinen on the origin of the Sky Above Clouds IV work.  I think that needs to be done.  There is something else that is quite minor, but it escapes my mind at this time. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Viriditas, thanks again for being so comprehensive. I am going to take another look at the criteria and article because I think I’ll be able to pass it. The main aspects of the topic are definitely addressed now and other criteria have been addressed. I hope to get round to this tomorrow. I’ll do a final prose check etc. then I’m quite confident it’ll be able to pass!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  21:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * there's no rush. I'm open to making additional changes if you require them. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas After reading through the article with a fresh pair of eyes and considering against the GA criteria, I think this is ready to be promoted :)
 * The inclusion of a description for all 11 paintings in the article body is great - it brings a cohesion to the article and helps the reader understand the series. Your points 2) and 3) above are nice additions, but don't affect criteria 3 (which has been passed).
 * If you wanted to address point 1), I'd suggest just removing the following line from the lead: "The works were completed at her home and studio in Abiquiú and at her Ghost Ranch studio in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico." If that line is removed, nothing in the article about the location of the paintings is incorrect and you can always amend the lead if you find more info.
 * If you're happy with that, I'll promote to GA :)  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  22:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Messinger 1997:Citation 29 is very closely paraphrased to what is in the source, so I'd suggest adding quotation marks.
 * The term of art is "working sketch". I don't think that's a close paraphrase, so I would prefer to leave that in, but I did rewrite two words that could be considered a close paraphrase.  Let me know if this is ok. Viriditas (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  18:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Just five years later, humans were taking their first walks in space, with Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov on the Voskhod 2 mission in March 1965, followed by astronaut Ed White on Gemini 4 in June. This detail is a bit excessive, it could just be shortened to "Just five years later, humans were taking their first walks in space."
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  18:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * O'Keeffe was extremely active for a woman in her late 70s... Not sure about using "extremely" here without backing it up in some way. Also, presumably it is referring to her work and not exercise!
 * If memory serves, a lot of the source material on this particular point was talking about how in her late 70s she was doing things that were tiring out and exhausting people half her age. Some of the examples have to do with her excursions, such as rafting trips, hiking, and exploration of the southwest.  I didn't say much about this because I didn't want to go too far off-topic, but maybe more needs to be said?  I felt physically tired reading about how active she was. Anyway, I have removed "extremely" due to concerns. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  18:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Infobox image is tagged with fair use rationale. Could do with an alt description.
 * Hi, do you mean the image_caption parameter in Infobox collection or the alt parameter in the image in the infobox? I will go ahead and add both in any case. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like I already have a caption so I added the alt to the image. Let me know if that's ok. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the alt parameter, but thank you for doing both!  Unexpected lydian♯4  talk‽  18:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wrathall 2019: The URL doesn't link to the correct place anymore (might need an archived link?)
 * Done. Let me know if that's ok, or if I need to specify the URL is permanently dead. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The archived link is good, thank you  Unexpected lydian♯4  talk‽  18:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * All of the Georgia O'Keefe Museum sources are cited as "O'Keeffe, Georgia. (year)". This implies that O'Keefe herself wrote the source. The article is actually quoting the Georgia O'Keefe Museum website, so I'd change the bibliography to make that clearer.
 * Not sure about this one. If you could provide an example or two, that would be great.  Some of these sources were written by O'Keeffe; others are using the recommended citation by the museum.  Happy to change this if I can see an example of what you mean. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the three sources cited as "O'Keefe, George (date)" from the Georgia O'Keefe Museum website: https://collections.okeeffemuseum.org/object/44/, https://collections.okeeffemuseum.org/object/1491/#about-this-object-details, https://collections.okeeffemuseum.org/object/1050/#about-this-object-details. If you're citing the website, rather than the painting itself, I'd change the citation to something like:
 * Hope that makes sense!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  18:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think it is cited correctly. See for example: this guide  I'm citing the artwork as a museum object, noting its provenance.  In the example APA Citation Guide, if I was in the gallery instead of online, I would still use this format because the provenance would be listed next to the work on the object or exhibit label.  In addition to these external labels on the wall, the same or similar information appears affixed to the back of the art frame.  You can see this in the images on the collection page. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for explaining! That works  Unexpected lydian♯4  talk‽  15:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for explaining! That works  Unexpected lydian♯4  talk‽  15:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Crawford 1971: Can't find anything on pp.1, 8 regarding the Whitney exhibition, but I'm assuming that's covered by the next citation.
 * I admit it's not ideal, as Crawford was used to support the appearance of SACII at the San Francisco Museum of Art, not the Whitney, but it was implicitly part of the retrospective tour, of which the MOMA was the subsequent stop. I will try to clear this up. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: Cowart et al. is only used to show that the painting resides in a private collection, as well as to give the reader an image of the painting.  It is Bowman et al. that supports the material.  I've now fixed it and added links to both books. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  18:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * early abstract potential could be "early potential as an abstract painter"?
 * Maybe, but that's a tough one, as the source is particularly dense and complex. It is discussing the influence of the abstract photography of clouds by her husband on her own work, particularly on her early work which featured clouds.  Although she does have a collection of abstract work, what we are really discussing is representational art that is partially abstract by design.  I will put this aside and come back to it, but I don't think the source is talking about her "early potential as an abstract painter" here but rather a specific abstract quality she obtained by osmosis from her husband and brought to her own representational work.  This is not easy to paraphrase, so this may be a situation that calls for a direct quote.  Reaching for a relevant analogy got me thinking of a cliche of sorts, Miles Davis and the Kind of Blue session. It appears at first to many listeners to be a form of abstraction, but when you become familiar with it, you see a solid pattern and structure. It's not the least bit coincidental it was recorded a year before O'Keeffe began this series.  There was something in the air, it was the spirit of the time, and she's playing a similar kind of jazz with paint instead of an instrument.  She often said, "I can't sing, so I paint." The more I think about it, the more I see the similarities.  I mean, is there anyone who hasn't listened to Kind of Blue and didn't feel like they were flying high above the clouds? Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A direct quote might be a good solution here :)  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  18:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do. Just to demonstrate the problem with a quote from O'Keeffe: "It is surprising to me to see how many people separate the objective from the abstract. Objective painting is not good painting unless it is good in the abstract sense. A hill or tree cannot make a good painting just because it is a hill or a tree. It is lines and colors put together so that they say something. For me that is the very basis of painting. The abstraction is often the most definite form for the intangible thing in myself that I can only clarify in paint." (O'Keeffe 1976). Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Direct quote added. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Unexpected lydian♯4  talk‽  15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note, I forgot to mention the direct connection with music: Stieglitz, O'Keeffe's husband, applied musical titles to his abstract cloud photography out of respect to Wassily Kandinsky who said "Colour is the keyboard, the eyes are the hammers, the soul is the piano with many strings. The artist is the hand which plays, touching one key or another, to cause vibrations in the soul".  So it all ties back to music. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I understand why there are two citations in the lead. If you wanted to reflect the relevant info in the body of the article, feel free to remove the lead citations.
 * Will do. I won't be able to get to it until tomorrow or the next day. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Partially done. Still working on the sourcing and fleshing it out. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Citation 11: I think this should be for pages 158-160, not just 158. I can't see any reference on these pages to O'Keefe's fear of flying (perhaps copy citation 19 up here), nor a round the world trip in 1959.
 * Yeah, something went wrong here. I will attempt to fix it. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe I have fixed this issue with this edit. I'm kind of out the door at the moment, so if you have further questions about this section, do not hesitate to ask.  I believe Lisle 1997 (originally published 1980) is fairly comprehensive when it comes to her travels. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  15:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Really tiny thing, but Rose states Sky Above Clouds IV is possibly the most original of O'Keefe's outer space paintings.
 * Right, but if you read the larger context, she's not really talking about "outer space" but a modernist style at odds with Renaissance painting, a physical placement of the viewer in what she (and others) call the "illusion of infinite space", which bleeds into other connected elements. Not so easy to just write "the most original of O'Keeffe's outer space paintings" because it involves a lot more context, so I've haven't' included it just yet.  Perhaps I will expand the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought the word "possibly" could be added to the quote in the article so it is more accurately represented - would that work?  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  15:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I completely misunderstood you, and only now finally got what you were trying to say. Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Unexpected lydian♯4  talk‽  11:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I only have a limited preview of the source. With regards to citation (10), could I check whether the book mentions the Wright brothers/O'Keefe's age when airplanes were first invented? I think I've found the bit about the skyscraper.
 * Of course. Just FYI, there are multiple versions.  I have access to two reprints, one from 1987 and the other from 1997, both based on the original 1980 publication. You can find copies online if you wish.  The material in the 1997 paperback version is on page 375.  I will quote in medias res to give you the overall flavor:
 * The decision made, Georgia had taken off on her around-the-world-trip. This was in early 1959, right at the time that jet-airline passenger service was initiated.  The Space Age had dawned: During the previous year, the news of Russian and American man-made satellites orbiting the globe had been flashed across the nation's television screens.  A few short years later, an astronaut would be spinning around the planet in a matter of minutes, and the artist of the floating bones and flowers would remark that her fantasies were coming true.  Born in the horse-and-buggy era, she'd been sixteen when the Wright brothers had made their brief Kitty Hawk flight, and thirty-seven when she moved to the top of a skyscraper.  Now in her seventies, she was anxious during the takeoff of the jet, but her fear vanished once she was airborne and was replaced by fascination at the extraorinday spectacle of the earth from thirty thousand feet.
 * Let me know if you need to look at anything else. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thank you  Unexpected lydian♯4  talk‽  15:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Citation 5: I can't see anything on p.18 about O'Keefe's marriage to Stieglitz. (Citation 8, specifically Seiberling 1968, does back this up, so maybe you could copy the citation next to the statement for more clarity?).
 * It's on page 60, that's why you didn't see it. My mistake with the page numbers. Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  11:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Citation 22: October 1960 is not mentioned on that page - change page number to pp.477-479.
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Might need a citation to back up the fact that Sky with Flat White Cloud is also sometimes referred to as Sky above White Clouds I.
 * Just an explanatory note: This kind of problem is incredibly common. O'Keeffe's painting was known as Sky Above White Clouds I from its inception until her death in 1986. When she died it was bequested to the NGA as part of a batch of ten paintings. What often happens during this process (at least according to all the articles I've worked on in regards to a bequest) is that the title undergoes a change.  I don't know the exact reasons for this, but if I had to make a good guess, the work is reevaluated by experts and a more accurate title is chosen.  On another article I worked on, someone made the point that the titles are often changed for the purposes of advertising and selling in the beginning, so the initial title chosen by the artist might not be the one that ends up being used during its original sale.  One way to verify the two titles refer to the same painting is to look at the original accession number assigned to the initial bequest and compare it to the current title in use.   When we do that, we find the match, 1987.58.8, showing that in this instance, the two different titles refer to the same painting.  Of course, I won't rely on that bit of verification alone, so I'm adding a reference to the 1992 catalog indicating the name change.  It looks like the NGA changed the name back to O'Keeffe's original title but used the date of 1962 instead of 1961.  Done. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Citation 12: I've found this info on p.495 (could just be my edition but I think I have the right one).
 * Well, that's embarrassing. Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sky above White Clouds I was shown at her retrospective exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York in 1971, followed by the Art Institute of Chicago and the San Francisco Museum of Art. I'm not sure I can find this information in the source provided?
 * Yeah, it's definitely the wrong cited source. Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)