Talk:Susan Aaron-Taylor/Archive 1

NPOV
Hi. The article definitely requires some work on neutrality. See WP:NPOV. The sentences like As complex as her ideas are for her sculptures, her multifarious technical process is equally as complicated will get you stuck in WP:PROMO, WP:ADVERT jail. And even get some eyebrows raised for WP:AUTO or WP:COI. Even this reads like something someone would say when introducing themself: She is a sculptor, a teacher, and a student of Jungian psychology. Try and dial down on things she's said about herself and write about things others have said about her. That's AFC 101. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 21:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks. Thank you for reminding me to not include that type of language!!LorriBrown (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure! I have some experience with getting my articles speedy deleted, although I don't ever go through AfC. Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 05:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for the ping. I am going to take this as a license to say all I have to say about it. I am going to be very frank here. Because, if I mince my words now, and the article gets declined, how's that gonna help you?
 * First of all, an article doesn't have to look pretty (and professional looking like those of famous celebrities) to get accepted. The fact that an article has a lot of sections means that there was a lot of content and the best way to help readers was to organise it in sections. It doesn't necessarily mean that a mark of a good article is that it has a lot of sections. I don't have a specific suggestion in this regard. Just keep that in mind.
 * The first requirement for an article for submission is proof of notability. You have to show that the subject is notable. If you had 20 papers written on the subject, 5 books and 100 newspaper articles to go with, notability would be so obvious that even if you failed to show it in your article, it wouldn't matter. But, in this case, it does, very much. That means you have to show why she's an important artist. You had best make a strong case for it with a sentence or two in the lead itself. For example being an American artist who creates mixed-media sculptures doesn't make a person inherently notable. However, being an artist who is known for creating bizarre sculptors based on dream interpretation using Jungian psychological theories, using random crap from the street just might. (I think you can see I am the last person that should be writing about art-related subjects, so definitely don't use my words in your article, it was just an example) But do not take this as a license to add a thousand words of praise about her (as you know, Hitler is very notable, but not because a lot of people have written good things about him). Praise makes advert, not an encyclopedia. Notice that the first paragraph of Hitler's page doesn't say that he was an evil man, a devil incarnate, the worst kind of scum on earth. Similarly, don't write, Susan is a wonderful artist, who brings into life the most magnificent kind of artistry out of the most unlikely materials using her unparalleled intellect and genius, or anything like that. "Known for: Her art works which are deeply rooted in traditions of alchemy/creative fantasy" could be one such praiseful wording (or maybe simply unhelpful as it doesn't give any real insight into what kind of work she produces). As I said, perhaps she's known for creating sculptors which are unique because she creates them using dream interpretation, or maybe she is known for creating sculptors rooted in fantasy which have been exhibited in such and such famous galleries and museums. And so on.
 * The "significant works" and "archives and collections" sections seem to be standard topics under artists, so it's fine, I think. But, if there's too many listed, it could be seen as an attempt to mask the lack of notability (WP:MASK), especially if there is little information about the rest of the subject and the listed things are of minor reputation.
 * Now, as the most substantial section, the style and technique section is also the most potentially problematic. It seems the first paragraph is a direct quote. I don't know how important the person that the quote belongs to is. If it's in the same league as, say, Lincoln talking about Grant or Grant talk about Sun Tzu, it may be fine. If the person who said it isn't a notable art critic, it might be considered puffery. See MOS:PUFF. At any rate, such positive wording is only suitable in "Critical reception" section, but barely, even then. As it is trying to describe her style and methods, I recommend a neutrally worded paraphrasing, preferably one that a casual reader not familiar with the artistic expressions can also understand. For me, that would be something like, She draws a concept image (in paper or in mind?) from a vision during meditation or her dreams, which she then brings to life as a sculpture, using materials like felt that she processes herself, bones, sticks, fur and so on (and so forth). The sculptures thus created assume a "dream-like quality" themselves. Her artwork consists of sculptural objects that depict re-imagined fantasy-like animals recalled from her dreams, including dogs, cats and other small creatures. The distortions from the anatomical correctness of the objects results from a practice of using tree roots, affixing felt in multiple colors for the basis of the core figure's form. Her works are influenced by her education in Jungian psychology. Then, you can write a paragraph of prose about what her significant works are, where they were displayed and when. What people had to say about any of them? Are any of them put on permanent display at any public venue? Did some one rich buy any for their private collection for a significant price? etc.
 * There are some instances where the quote that you asked about might be acceptable. It depends on what the rest of content surrounding it, is. In this case, I think it would be excessive, especially since it's a direct quote from an advert-like listing, and not a quote to, say, a prominent art magazine that wanted to write a feature about her or put her on their front page. The priority has to be to shape the content so as to get the article published. Your opinion on how the page should appear and what contents are a must-include, can be implemented after it is accepted. As such, I recommend only using what you are certain adheres strongly to NPOV, with attention to WP:DUE. And of course, there's WP:BLP, the one thing that Wikipedia values above all else.
 * I found some interesting categories in my brief perusal, like Category:21st-century American women artists and Category:American sculptor stubs. You can find more relevant categories if you look at the very bottom of related pages. You can take guidance from these articles. I believe the stub category can be particularly helpful, but make sure the article you want to take guidance from is a reviewed and curated one. You can also go through the history of some of them and you might find an editor who creates a lot of articles on American artists and they might know exactly how much of artist related pretentious wording that comes with the territory is allowed. For example, I found that User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao works on a lot of artist related pages, even creating some. But they seem to be one of the most active wikipedians of all time, so they might work on everything and may or may not have the time to respond. It's worth pinging a few editors with experience on the topic, that you can find. There is no need to be shy to ask for help from anybody. That is what this community is about. Similarly, do not be disheartened or take offence if someone declines to help either. We are all volunteers here. Good luck! Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 09:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your generosity! ... I seem to be pretty Okay with the researching aspect for article creation (at least I'd like to think that to be so) but when it comes to distilling the essence of what others have written into something coherent I truly struggle.  Obviously, I've been in trouble on more than one occasion for not adequately filtering the language. You've spelled it out quite nicely and thank you for taking the time to do that.  What you've written makes really good sense.  I still cannot help the fact that I'm not really a very good writer - at least not as of yet anyway.  Might you consider collaborating/adding any of your impressions/interpretations into her article? I'll try to reach out to others as well but that can lead to its own challenges.  Just that one important sections could really use a rewrite although I would like to leave the quote by David notMD.  Thanks again!LorriBrown (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I would point out that being a critic is not the same as being a player, or artist. I was educated in one of the most backward countries in the world under a tin hut. So, I would not consider myself qualified to contribute with prose or have an opinion on art-related subjects for that matter. Having said that, I am not declining. If you really think my input could help, I'd be happy to try as it can always be undone. But, the AfC would need to be resolved first. It's not a good idea to have a page unstable when it's under review. In any case, I'd need to peruse through the sources and their reputation as well as content before I can even try to get directly involved. I am not really sure about the sources or the subject, that's why I'd suggest asking someone who knows the US, Michigan, art or US art scene. !David is the one really in a position to judge whether the sources you've collected are enough. And !he is experienced enough to know whether the article is good enough as well. Time to ask !him to take a stand on what !his honest opinion is, I'd say. Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 20:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I reordered the Style and technique section, and removed the critic's quote. For LB, this is not autobiography or COI. I asked her to undertake creating the article because I know Susan Aaron-Taylor (hence my not creating the article and my User page statement of COI). LB does not know SAT, nor communicated with her. SAT is a regionally known sculptor who has had solo gallery shows dating back decades. Her works sell for thousands of dollars. In my opinion there is enough content and citations in the draft for it to go to AfC. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello again, I am aware of the facts, at least those that are available on-wiki, although for some reason, LB deletes some of them. So, I know LB's situation and yours. I was only cautioning how it might look to the reviewer because of select words in the article. My comment about the sources she's collected was in reference to the fact that she might be unfamiliar with what sources from Michigan are RS's. I still think the lead needs to say what she's notable/known for and not merely who she is, since neither professors nor artists are inherently notable. Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 11:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am comfortable letting it go to AfC and seeing the reviewer's decision. Lorrie Brown has successfully created ten articles and currently is working on three drafts, so not as if she is not experienced as an article creator. David notMD (talk)
 * Good luck to us all! Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 15:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * and I am coming into this conversation late and apologize for deleting some of my comments.  I rather should leave them so replies don't appear out of context.... get worried sometimes.  I am sorry I've been doing that!
 * Without disrupting the AfC process too much ... could we consider puting the 'known for' information from the 'info box' into the the first line of the article to read something like. i.e.,
 * 'SAT is an American artist who creates mixed-media sculptures and is known for her art works which are deeply rooted in traditions of alchemy/creative fantasy.' Perhaps it is more subtle in the 'info box' and would be more impactful right of the start in the article as I think Usedtobecool suggested.
 * ... and leave or remove the For forty years.... as it is repeated below in the Career section? There is something kind of similar in the Brenda Longfellow article.  Thank you both for your contributions and consideration! :-) LorriBrown (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to ask about the 'Cranbrook Academy of Art Museum, Permanent Collection, Bloomfield Hills, MI' that was deleted from the collection section. I had also searched the CAAM website but thought there must be a reason why the artist noted it.  Can it be included even though a search renders no confirmation?LorriBrown (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion putting that content into the lede increases the risk of the article being declined. I do feel the lede should include the mention of teaching career. Content in the lede is SUPPOSED to be repeated with additional information in the body of the article. Stating that she had a long career teaching at the college level does not contribute to notability in and of itself, but it does contribute to image of SAT as a person with a career in the arts versus a sculptor at the hobby level. Given the Cranbrook Academy Museum website does not list SAT as an artist with work at the museum, I strongly recommend not having such a claim. What the artist says about herself on her website is not considered a reliable source. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I will leave it be then. Thanks! LorriBrown (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)