Talk:White Mountain art/GA1

GA Review
This article was listed on the GA nominations page. I signed up to review it and noticed multiple problems with WP:MOS, WP:OR and WP:POV. After writing a preliminary review, I came here to post it and place the article on hold for seven days. Then I saw the above section stating that it was reinstated as GA. I do not believe this article qualifies as a Good Article under the criteria. Moreover, any discussion about how to address problems after it was de-listed was not done on this article's talk page, which keeps future editors from reading discussion about what previous problems there were and if they were addressed.

Another editor has suggested I link to my preliminary review, but I'm going to post it here for the reason I just stated. The confusion associated with this article is being discussed by GA members here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I read the article and found it quite interesting, especially as an artist myself. I'm placing the article on hold for seven days due to problematic issues. The majority of these issues are with style and other problems that should be easily fixed with a copy edit. But there are some claims that either need to be removed or better cited. I have enumerated the problems below:


 * 1) It is well written [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15 px]] Please address the following issues:
 * The lead:
 * White Mountain Art in bold, as the title of the article, should go in the first sentence. In fact, the first sentence should describe White Mountain Art as a movement, or its characteristics right off.
 * "of course" should not be in your prose to avoid issues with WP:OR and WP:POV.
 * Any terms in quotations should be cited. Your use of quotations for "attraction" indicates you're using a term that's generally understood. Nothing should be generally understood. Spell everything out, or cite it. The same with artists in residence (which you can link to artist in residence or artist residency)
 * Is Grand Hotels a proper noun in plural? If not, I suggest using "luxurious hotels" or something similar (without the quotes, of course) :).
 * The Willey tragedy
 * Unless they're part of a proper title, remove A, An, or The from subheadings.
 * This seems very arbitrary. In New Hampshire, it's The Willey tradegy.  JJ (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It reads better, and supports the reason more effectively to remove the paranthetical statement of paintings (see Crawford Notch, the site of the Willey tragedy before the slide[2]) and change it to paintings such as Crawford Notch by Thomas Hill.
 * Can you state either a claim by an art historian or a quote from one of the artists during this period that directly ties their interest in the White Mountains to the tragedy? Such as, "Art historian John Q. Pretentious said of the Willey Tragedy..." or "Artist Bob McRoss wrote in a letter in 1842 about the Willey family...."
 * Please see my notes and changes to this section based on your suggestions. JJ (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Early artists
 * Good Articles can not include external citations such as the one with A View of the Pass Called the Notch of the White Mountains. Please use inline citations.
 * Statements like these: is perhaps the best known and finest example of early 19th-century White Mountain art need someone who has stated this, someone with authority. You can include the quote, but do it so that John Q. Pretentious has noted this work of art as the best known and finest example...
 * Please see the footnote with a quotation from Catherine Campbell's reference on White Mountain art. OK? JJ (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Added quote to the article. This provides substantiation. JJ (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whose quote is this? "sought to define America and what it was to be an American. Artists of that time saw themselves as scientists making documents that expressed Christian truths and democratic ideals."
 * Footnote now has author, the art historian Donald D. Keyes. JJ (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please link Mount Washington (New Hampshire) and Boston.
 * Please place the citation for Benjamin Champney at the end of the sentence. Unless you have two citations for two parts of a sentence, place the citation at the end.
 * I have removed all mid-sentence citations to the end of their respective sentences. JJ (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Travel to the region
 * Link Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railroad (which appears to be the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad).
 * Please fix the citation in the middle of the sentence at 1851, and Glen House external citation per the above requests.
 * Footnote moved to end of sentence. I do not see how the external reference, to a wonderful (IMO) painting depicting the Glen House, can be anything but helpful to a reader who might be curious to see what the grand hotel was like.  JJ (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed external link to a painting of the Glen House. JJ (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Benjamin Champney and the allure of North Conway
 * Please fix the citation in the middle of the sentence at native.
 * Done, as mentioned above. JJ (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please join the 2nd paragraph to the first in this section.


 * Done (although arbitrary to me, and should not affect GA). JJ (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote that begins with "My studio..." - is this Champney's? It seems like a dumb question, but it's not stated whose quote it is. Introduce it, saying, Champney wrote/said in 1900?... and you can use the function here, although it's not good form to sandwich text between two images such as it is in this section. And a blockquote would make it look busier. I suggest moving one of the images, probably the painting below Champney's portrait, and blockquoting his statement.
 * Added a "Champney wrote" lead-in. JJ (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And, per third review, shortened quote to be more to the point. JJ (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remove quotations from en plein air and artist colony.
 * Whose quote is this? " … the pet valley of our landscape painters. There are always a dozen or more here during the sketching season, and you can hardly glance over the meadows, in any direction, without seeing one of their white umbrellas shining in the sun."
 * Artists who contributed to The Crayon often used pseudonyms. I expanded the footnote to mention that it was in a letter to The Crayon under the pseudonym "Flake White." JJ (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (I think using the name "Flake White" is hilarious.) --Moni3 (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Later artists
 * Please fix external citation at White Mountain Art & Artists.
 * The first sentence of this section would be excellent in the lead.
 * Done. And, thanks again for this suggestion.  JJ (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remove (at the beginning of this article). I know, I had to do it too in one of my articles that referred to an image at the top.
 * Done. I did add a clause for "illustrated in this article."  Is this OK?  JJ (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Grand Resort Hotels
 * Watch the punctuation at the end of your second sentence. You have period, citation, period.
 * Remove quotes from artists in residence and attraction.
 * Well-known should receive a hyphen.
 * Working in North Conway, Franconia, and points north
 * Citations should appear after punctuation.
 * Done, I believe. JJ (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remove quotations from notches.
 * Please cite these opinions: Each faction believed that their location had the most beautiful view of the mountains. Those who preferred Franconia felt that North Conway, as early as 1857, had been despoiled by tourists! and remove the exclamation point.
 * Added multiple quotes. JJ (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Crayon should be italicized. ??
 * The cider statement is rather odd. Is there a stronger statement to support the above opinions about whose valley is more beautiful?
 * Added a quote re Franconia from the artist Daniel Huntington. JJ (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll admit The Old Man of the Mountain is iconic, but I can't accept it's a favorite of everyone in New Hampshire and that would be a difficult claim to cite. Please remove favorite.
 * Changed "favorite" to "well-known." JJ (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed back again, as I added a footnote regarding the voting during a NH Historical Society exhibition on New Hampshire's Favorite Icons. JJ (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Cite this, or remove, please: but equally beautiful,
 * Done. JJ (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Characteristics of the artists
 * This section has many issues. The first paragraph has no citations. The second paragraph makes multiple claims that should be cited. Actually, the end of every sentence where you discuss what makes the characteristics of each artist unique should be cited.
 * The gallery should stand alone without introduction below all prose. Please move it below the section titled End of an era.
 * I feel strongly that the gallery that illustrates the characteristics described belongs right where I've placed it. Can we get a third opinion?  JJ (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The end of an era (per above point, should be changed to End of an era)
 * This claim must be cited: The scenes these artists painted became American icons, certainly to the people of New England.
 * Please apply the rules I cited above to this section, including citing statements where opinions are included, removing external citations, including the names of who is quoted, and including statements from art historians who back up the claims of the paragraphs.
 * All done, I believe. JJ (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage. [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15 px]]
 * Seems to cover the topic well.
 * 1) It is neutral [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15 px]]
 * This statement: Looking out across the Intervale, it is easy to imagine why the artists found this view so picturesque. is all Original research and WP:POV. If someone important thinks it's picturesque, state who thinks so and quote it. There are, by the way, no citations for this paragraph.
 * This claim is problematic: As an example of how literal these depictions were, see the composite image where a painting by George Albert Frost (1843-1907) of Franconia Notch painted in 1883 is compared to a photograph of the scene in 2004. This is almost textbook Original research. I find it interesting, but it is not encyclopedic unless you are a renowned art historian. If that is the case, quote yourself from a reliable secondary source. If you are not an art historian, use claims from the photo comparisons at your citation site. Unfortunately, this means you will have to remove your comparison photo, because it is also OR.
 * I believe I have substantiated all my claims. If not, let me know.  JJ (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also noticed the principal author of the article is using his own website to cite claims in the article. This is also problematic. I can't be sure this isn't a link to spam, or a roundabout way of WP:OR. In order to avoid this conflict of interest, I suggest removing all citations to this website and using another source.
 * 1) It is stable [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg |15 px]]
 * No edit wars or reverts.
 * 1) It is illustrated, where possible, by images [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15 px]]
 * I don't actually know if there is an MOS rule on captions, but it seems more logical to me to put the name of the work of art first, then the artist's name.
 * Please consult any text about art to see that it's artist followed by title, much as a reference is author followed by title. The artists get credit first for his work.  JJ (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remove the image Franconia Notch (left); Franconia Notch today (right) per the above point.
 * It's still in, since I have an art historian verify my claim about the "realistic" depictions. Is this now OK?  JJ (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this article can be a Good Article with these changes. Please comment here or on my talk page if you need clarification on anything. I'll watch the article for the next 7 days. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Moni3: Thanks for the extra time.  At the moment, I'm done.  Would you please re-review and comment under this heading?  I'm interested in your comments, since (once I got over the piling on), I think the article is improved.  Should others be invited to pipe in?  JJ (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a Re-review sub-section for new and revised comments. I hope this is OK, and I suggest you respond under that sub-heading.  Thanks.  JJ (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review: evaluation and responses
The recent effort to reevaluate the GA status of this article, which has been temporarily suspended, resulted in a list of objections and recommendations submitted by a WP editor who asserts that their adoption or implementation will permit the reinstatement of GA status. A detailed evaluation of that editor’s GA review, however, suggests that it contains numerous errors and interpretations regarding WP’s style and content guidelines, including those actually bearing on GA status. For that reason, it would be useful to discuss these new recommendations, and their applicability or merit in improving the GA status of the article. An analysis of the recent GA review reveals numerous helpful recommendations, and these are highlighted as “Recommended” for implementation. Other suggestions in the recent GA review, however, appear to be misinterpretations of WP guidelines, or their overly narrow application, and in some cases attempts at over-zealous enforcement of WP’s often flexible guidelines. These apparently faulty suggestions are here labeled “Disputed” or “Disregard,” as appropriate, based on their conflict with cited WP guidelines. To facilitate convenient follow-up comments by other WP editors, each of the comments regarding the suggestions contained in the recent GA review are numbered.


 * 1) It is well written [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15 px]] Please address the following issues:

Recommended.
 * The lead:
 * White Mountain Art in bold, as the title of the article, should go in the first sentence. In fact, the first sentence should describe White Mountain Art as a movement, or its characteristics right off.
 * Done. See the article.  JJ (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. The attempt to enforce an imaginary “should not be” rule violates existing WP style guidelines that say, “There is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article…Occasionally "of course" or "clearly" can be useful in a step of an explanation if it is really easy to understand, yet, for clarity, useful not to skip.” We would agree that WP readers would easily understand, for example, “The sun, of course, rises and sets each day,” and there would be no valid reason for removing “of course.”  It is easily assumed that most WP readers would probably conclude that the same can be said of its inclusion here.''
 * "of course" should not be in your prose to avoid issues with WP:OR and WP:POV.
 * I won't go the mat on this, but I used "of course" to emphasize that we're talking about White Mountain art and the Willey tradegy attracted, among others, more artists. If you insist on a POV standard, I'll eliminate.  JJ (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. “Nothing should be generally understood” appears to be another attempt to impose a nonexisting rule. If nothing should be generally understood by WP readers, then WP would consist of footnote citations for every declarative sentence. As expected, such is not the case. WP’s actual common-sense approach is this one:  “Not every statement in an article needs a citation, but if in doubt, provide one.”  WP guidelines add that there are several cases when citations are not needed here.''
 * Any terms in quotations should be cited. Your use of quotations for "attraction" indicates you're using a term that's generally understood. Nothing should be generally understood. Spell everything out, or cite it.

The same with artists in residence (which you can link to artist in residence or artist residency) Recommended.


 * I eliminated the quotes, but I won't wiki-link. The wiki article is about 20th century definition of "artist in residence" and does not at all capture the 19th century concept of "artist in residence."  If someone (like me, someday) adds information to this (IMO flawed article), then I'll add the wiki-link.  JJ (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

''Recommended, with reservations. Drop the capitalization but keep the term as is, since it is a recognizable one for this area of NH and for the period under discussion.''
 * Is Grand Hotels a proper noun in plural? If not, I suggest using "luxurious hotels" or something similar (without the quotes, of course) :).


 * There are books written on the Grand Resort Hotels. At first, I changed the case.  I would not change "grand" to "luxurious," since, in NH, they were known as "grand."  Then, I noticed I had called my subheading "The Grand Resort Hotels."  This is a very specific term.  For example, people in NH know that the Mount Washington Hotel is one of the last Grand Resort Hotels.  Also, the Crawford House.  Also, the Profile House.  So, I look to Jack to help me on this.  Do you agree that Grand Resort Hotels refers to a very specific group of NH hotels from the 19th century?  I'm looking for more guidance here.  JJ (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I consulted some references, and I have implemented the suggestion to change "Grand Resort Hotels" to "grand resort hotels." JJ (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. Appears to another attempt at rule-making. Nothing in WP guidelines could be found to support this extremely narrow generalization. Instead, one recommended WP link The Use and Non-Use of Articles suggests that such articles be used “when a noun refers to something unique.” It appears that “The Willey Tragedy” fits this definition, just as we commonly refer to events such as “The Kennedy Assassination,” or “The Depression.”''
 * The Willey tragedy
 * Unless they're part of a proper title, remove A, An, or The from subheadings.


 * In New Hampshire, it's The Willey tragedy. This event is a big deal, and there have been books written on the subject (see Purchase).  Jack's comments are appropriate.  Again, I won't go to the mat.  Other opinions?  JJ (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. The citation refers to illustrations of Crawford Notch before and after the slide. While it’s true that Hill painted both scenes, only one appears in the cited text. Therefore, the suggested change would not improve the present text, but the author could make his point a little clearer.''
 * It reads better, and supports the reason more effectively to remove the paranthetical statement of paintings (see Crawford Notch, the site of the Willey tragedy before the slide[2]) and change it to paintings such as Crawford Notch by Thomas Hill.


 * I eliminated the parenthetical. I added a second sentence to describe this one painting example.  I am open to suggestions for better wording.  JJ (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

''Recommended. This point is made by Wes Balla in Consuming Views, p. 11, so a footnote here could easily be added.''
 * Can you state either a claim by an art historian or a quote from one of the artists during this period that directly ties their interest in the White Mountains to the tragedy? Such as, "Art historian John Q. Pretentious said of the Willey Tragedy..." or "Artist Bob McRoss wrote in a letter in 1842 about the Willey family...."


 * I will add a reference(s) when I return to NH late next week. Stay tuned.  JJ (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. WP guidelines clearly state that inline citations are not mandatory for GA status: “Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which are mandated by the featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. WP guidelines on embedded citations say that while they are not the best solution, they are an option for citing sources: “Embedded citations provide an option for citing sources on Wikipedia. This approach is to place a numbered external link in the text of the article….”''
 * Early artists
 * Good Articles can not include external citations such as the one with A View of the Pass Called the Notch of the White Mountains. Please use inline citations.


 * There are dozens of references to this painting in the literature. But, I have two comments.  First, how can anything be more helpful to the reader than an actual image?  Second, an earlier reviewer said I had "too many images" (like too many notes in a Mozart opera).  So, to me, this link seems like the mamma bear's porridge -- just the right compromise.  Again, Moni3 and Jack, help me here.  JJ (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. The WP author of this passage clearly says “perhaps the best-known,” and obviously did not intend to claim “the best-known.” Since no claim of superiority is made, there is no need to find someone to attribute such a claim.''
 * Statements like these: is perhaps the best known and finest example of early 19th-century White Mountain art need someone who has stated this, someone with authority. You can include the quote, but do it so that John Q. Pretentious has noted this work of art as the best known and finest example…


 * This is the best known White Mountain painting of the second half of the 19th century. But, I did say "perhaps."  No one knowledgable about this subject could possibly dispute my statement as presented.  If pressed, I'll add multiple footnotes.  But, this is not something that will, IMO, improve this article.  JJ (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Recommended. A footnote accompanying this passage clearly ascribes these words to a published work presently lacking an author’s name.''
 * Whose quote is this? "sought to define America and what it was to be an American. Artists of that time saw themselves as scientists making documents that expressed Christian truths and democratic ideals."


 * Added the author's name - a well-known art historian, Donald Keyes. JJ (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended.
 * Please link Mount Washington (New Hampshire) and Boston.


 * Done. JJ (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. Appears to be a further attempt to enforce a nonexisting rule, WP guidelines offer no such hard and fast rule regarding citation placement: “Some material must be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph.” Since the footnote here applies only to material appearing in mid-sentence, there is no reason for narrowly interpreting what WP intends as a flexible guideline.''
 * Please place the citation for Benjamin Champney at the end of the sentence. Unless you have two citations for two parts of a sentence, place the citation at the end.


 * To me, the note belongs where it is, since the rest of the sentence changes the subject from Champney to other artists. JJ (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended.
 * Travel to the region
 * Link Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railroad (which appears to be the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad).


 * Done. JJ (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. Appears to be a further attempt to enforce a non-existing rule, WP guidelines offer no such hard and fast rule regarding citation placement: “Some material must be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph.” Since the footnote here applies only to material appearing in mid-sentence, there is no reason for narrowly interpreting what WP intends as a flexible guideline.''
 * Please fix the citation in the middle of the sentence at 1851, and Glen House external citation per the above requests.


 * Gosh. You're reading along and see a reference to the Glen House.  What can be more helpful (if you're interested) than a link to a wonderful painting that depicts the Glen House?  I admit that I have not read the guidelines, but, to me, this link is good and just plain common sense.  Please convince me that eliminating this link will be a service to readers.  JJ (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Regarding the external citation, WP guidelines clearly state that inline citations are not mandatory for GA status: “Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which are mandated by the featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. Inline citations are references within the text that provide source information for specific statements. They are appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations.” WP says here that embedded citations, while not the best solution, are an option for citing sources: “Embedded citations provide an option for citing sources on Wikipedia. This approach is to place a numbered external link in the text of the article….”''

''Disputed. WP guidelines offer no such hard and fast rule regarding citation placement: “Some material must be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph.” Since the footnote here applies only to material appearing in mid-sentence, there is no reason for narrowly interpreting what WP intends as a flexible guideline.''
 * Benjamin Champney and the allure of North Conway
 * Please fix the citation in the middle of the sentence at native.


 * What better place for a footnote that after the phrase "a New Hampshire native" if one is interested in where he was born. Why wait until the end of the sentence?  Again, I'm just a novice when it comes to guidelines, but, please ...  I'll change it if it's felt to detract from the article.  JJ (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. This suggestion appears to be one editor’s personal preference regarding style rather than content; as such, it does not merit consideration as a substantive matter affecting GA status.''
 * Please join the 2nd paragraph to the first in this section.


 * Agree with Jack, but I combined the two. JJ (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. The quote is clearly attributed to Champney himself (see footnote #15), and the context provides plenty of evidence that Champney is the spokesman, since the entire paragraph is clearly about him.''
 * The quote that begins with "My studio..." - is this Champney's? It seems like a dumb question, but it's not stated whose quote it is. Introduce it, saying, Champney wrote/said in 1900?... and you can use the function here, although it's not good form to sandwich text between two images such as it is in this section. And a blockquote would make it look busier. I suggest moving one of the images, probably the painting below Champney's portrait, and blockquoting his statement.


 * Agree with Jack. If it's not clear from the context, the footnote makes it perfectly clear.  JJ (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remove quotations from en plein air and artist colony. Recommended.


 * Done. JJ (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Recommended. If the quote has an author, use his name in the citation, which now mentions only The Crayon as the source.''
 * Whose quote is this? " … the pet valley of our landscape painters. There are always a dozen or more here during the sketching season, and you can hardly glance over the meadows, in any direction, without seeing one of their white umbrellas shining in the sun."


 * Will do when I return to NH. JJ (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. The external link seems perfectly appropriate here, as a source of further information on this topic. What would WP readers gain by “fixing” it?''
 * Later artists
 * Please fix external citation at White Mountain Art & Artists.


 * Of all the suggestions, this is the most disturbing. So, what would WP readers gain?  The external reference is to a place where readers can greatly expand their knowledge of the subject.  I've worked hard on this article to inform others of the subject and lead them (if they're interested) to more information.  Yes, I'm the author of both.  So what?  Am I selling posters?  I really need help to understand this suggestion.  JJ (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended.
 * The first sentence of this section would be excellent in the lead.


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I hope my lead paragraph is now OK.  JJ (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. The present wording seems to offer consideration to WP readers who might want to easily find the painting mentioned. Removing the parenthetical tip pinpointing location could do these readers a disservice, and actually impede their search for information.''
 * Please remove (at the beginning of this article). I know, I had to do it too in one of my articles that referred to an image at the top.


 * Agree with Jack. How can helping readers find an image not be helpful?  JJ (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended.
 * The Grand Resort Hotels
 * Watch the punctuation at the end of your second sentence. You have period, citation, period.


 * Fixed. Thanks.  JJ (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended.
 * Remove quotes from artists in residence and attraction.


 * Done.  JJ (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended.
 * Well-known should receive a hyphen.


 * Absolutely. Thanks.  JJ (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Working in North Conway, Franconia, and points north

''Disregard. WP guidelines: do not support such a narrow “rule.” Instead, they say, “Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are normally placed immediately after the punctuation…. Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it.”''
 * Citations should appear after punctuation.


 * The footnote is very specific to Mount Chocorua. Why should it be at the end of the sentence?  Note that it's just a period (.) away, but I intentionally put it where it is.  Please help me understand.  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. The “notches” of NH appears to be a colloquial term referring to the distinctive features of the NH landscape, as evidenced by the numerous NH “notches” cited. As an example of regional terminology, this term is allowable under WP guidelines: “Scare quotes is a general term for quotation marks used for purposes other than to identify a direct quotation. For example, authors might use quotation marks to highlight special terminology….”''
 * Please remove quotations from notches.


 * To me, this is New Hampshire special terminology. If pressed, I'll remove.  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended.
 * Please cite these opinions: Each faction believed that their location had the most beautiful view of the mountains. Those who preferred Franconia felt that North Conway, as early as 1857, had been despoiled by tourists! and remove the exclamation point.


 * It was easy to remove the !. I'll add more notes on this subject when I return from traveling.  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Added quote from 1855 by the artist Daniel Huntington re the Franconia area. Sourced The Crayon. JJ (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended.
 * The Crayon should be italicized.


 * Done and thanks. JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Recommended. If the earlier claim about scenic superiority is properly cited, as recommended here, then the cider statement would be fine to remain as is, especially since it has no real bearing on GA status.''
 * The cider statement is rather odd. Is there a stronger statement to support the above opinions about whose valley is more beautiful?


 * Again, I'll work on this. Thanks.  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. No change in wording is necessary, since the reviewing editor apparently did not read the sentence correctly. The author makes no such claim. Instead, he says, “New Hampshire's favorite icon,” not “a favorite of everyone.” It would be hard to argue that the “Old Man” is not the favorite icon of a plurality of NH residents, thereby making a citation unnecessary.''
 * I'll admit The Old Man of the Mountain is iconic, but I can't accept it's a favorite of everyone in New Hampshire and that would be a difficult claim to cite. Please remove favorite.


 * The New Hampshire Historical Society (where I served on the Board for nine years), did a survey within the past few years. It was, far and away, the #1 symbol for NH residents.  I guess, if necessary, I can get the survey results.  Should I?  Is this really important?  Remember, I did not say "of everyone."  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. The claim “equally beautiful” seems harmless enough. If one adds “perhaps” to “equally beautiful,” then there should be no logical need to cite anyone’s opinion.''
 * Cite this, or remove, please: but equally beautiful,


 * Added "perhaps." OK?  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. WP guidelines state the following: “Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.” As a summary of the information dealt with in more detail in subsequent sections of the article, the lead paragraph here would be overburdened by citations for every factual statement made in it. Overuse of citations is not recommended by WP writing guidelines, especially when the information is covered in more detail later in the article, as it is here.''
 * Characteristics of the artists
 * This section has many issues. The first paragraph has no citations.

The second paragraph makes multiple claims that should be cited.


 * Provided footnotes for each assertion. JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. WP guidelines state the following: “Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.” As a summary of the information dealt with in more detail in subsequent sections of the article, the second paragraph here would be overburdened by citations for every factual statement made in it. Overuse of citations is not recommended by WP writing guidelines, especially when the information is covered in more detail later in the article, as it is here.''

Actually, the end of every sentence where you discuss what makes the characteristics of each artist unique should be cited. ''Recommended. The source for all these descriptions of artists’ styles is given as Incomparable Scenery. The only addition that could or should be made here is to identify which page refers to which artist.'


 * Done. Open to further improvements.  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. WP guidelines state that “Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in.” The illustrations here are clearly accompaniments to the section titled “Characteristics of the artists” and add visual reinforcement of each artist’s style mentioned. Moving the illustrations to a “gallery” at the bottom of the text is not required by WP guidelines and would also be counterproductive to achieving GA quality in this case.''
 * The gallery should stand alone without introduction below all prose. Please move it below the section titled End of an era.


 * Disagree strongly to Omni3. The gallery belongs where it is.  Convince me.  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended.
 * The end of an era (per above point, should be changed to End of an era)


 * Done. JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended, and hardly a difficult citation to find, given the popularity of NH scenery among collectors, writers, and scholars of New England art.
 * This claim must be cited: The scenes these artists painted became American icons, certainly to the people of New England.


 * Will add a reference when I return to NH. JJ (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Added a footnote. Please review and give me feedback.  JJ (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. This general suggestion is redundant and has been treated in all its particulars before, so will not be dealt with again in detail here.''
 * Please apply the rules I cited above to this section, including citing statements where opinions are included, removing external citations, including the names of who is quoted, and including statements from art historians who back up the claims of the paragraphs.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage. [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15 px]]
 * Seems to cover the topic well.

''Disputed. The WP author of this statement illustrates it with Champney’s view of the Intervale scene. Anyone looking at Champney’s painting want to challenge the claim that the view is beautiful, or that others would easily think it’s beautiful as well? Do WP readers need an expert to tell them this a beautiful view? If an article in WP says, “Hawaiian sunsets are beautiful,” or that “It’s easy to imagine why artists found Hawaiian sunsets so beautiful,” would anyone require a source for that claim?''
 * 1) It is neutral [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15 px]]
 * This statement: Looking out across the Intervale, it is easy to imagine why the artists found this view so picturesque. is all Original research and WP:POV. If someone important thinks it's picturesque, state who thinks so and quote it. There are, by the way, no citations for this paragraph.


 * Agree with Jack. It doesn't require an art historian to substantiate this claim.  Thank goodness that academics are not required to write these articles.  Frankly, they don't know much about this subject (IMO).  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disputed. Does it take a “renowned art historian” to compare two landscape images and see that they are quite similar? If the WP author had simply added an external link to the recent photo for comparison’s sake, would the linked photo be useful to WP readers interested in learning of such similarities? If an external link is OK, why not a side-by-side presentation, as done here? Which approach is more helpful to WP readers?''
 * This claim is problematic: As an example of how literal these depictions were, see the composite image where a painting by George Albert Frost (1843-1907) of Franconia Notch painted in 1883 is compared to a photograph of the scene in 2004. This is almost textbook Original research. I find it interesting, but it is not encyclopedic unless you are a renowned art historian. If that is the case, quote yourself from a reliable secondary source. If you are not an art historian, use claims from the photo comparisons at your citation site. Unfortunately, this means you will have to remove your comparison photo, because it is also OR.


 * Taking out this image, to me, would be a great disservice to readers of the article. It visually helps to substantiate the claim.  Not much is written about the difference between the idealized views of the early 19th century (God's landscape) and the literal views of the mid-19th century (photographic landscape).  But, I've seen hundreds of paintings, and the later ones were exact to the crag and crevice.  Reminds me of an expression.  Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. Since the author is a prominent expert on White Mountain art, and has mounted an exhibition of WM art for a NH museum, and written scholarly articles and catalogs on WM art, and maintains an educational (not for profit) website illustrating and explaining WM art, what exactly would be gained by un-linking his site from easy access by WP readers? A better suggestion would be to keep all the present links and actually help WP readers find out more about WM art.''
 * I also noticed the principal author of the article is using his own website to cite claims in the article. This is also problematic. I can't be sure this isn't a link to spam, or a roundabout way of WP:OR. In order to avoid this conflict of interest, I suggest removing all citations to this website and using another source.


 * See my comment above. This really frosts me.  I have spent ten years on a Website that is for educational purposes.  Should we help others to learn more?  If you want a resume, I'll provide one.  But, eliminating a link to a site to which I admit I'm the author (why would I deny it?  Again, am I selling posters?) is completely wrong.  The site is strictly non-commercial.  Even the credits only have links to 501(c)(s)'s.  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is stable [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg |15 px]]
 * No edit wars or reverts.


 * 1) It is illustrated, where possible, by images [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15 px]]

''Disregard. This suggestion appears to be nothing more than personal preference, so therefore it has nothing to do with evaluating an article for GA status. The present format listing artist first, then title, is actually very common in museum cataloging, for example, as well as in scholarly writing about art.''
 * I don't actually know if there is an MOS rule on captions, but it seems more logical to me to put the name of the work of art first, then the artist's name.
 * Strongly disagree with Moni3. The standard for the scholarly writing about art is Artist Name (Birth-Death) followed by Title.  JJ (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comment above. Consult any reference on art.  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

''Disregard. This comment is another redundancy and has been dealt with before.''
 * Please remove the image Franconia Notch (left); Franconia Notch today (right) per the above point.

Conclusion: The editor contributing the recent GA review has made a valuable contribution and has identified numerous areas for making minor improvements to this article. Not all of the suggestions are validly based on WP guidelines, however, and many more are debatable and should be reevaluated in light of the considerations raised here. Further comments by other WP editors are invited. Jack Bethune (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've asked other GA reviewers to visit this discussion. Aside from the suggestions I've made, my experience with GA and FA have shown that the first few articles on which I worked very long and researched well, I took offense at some of the things other editors were asking me to do, and I tended to dispute their recommendations. However, after I saw the improvement of quality my articles exhibited after I made the changes, and the intimidating quality of writing, research, and prose of the articles mine were seeking to join, I began to seek out the most difficult reviewers I could find to rip my articles to shreds. I still get a little defensive, but my articles are much better because of it. I did not make these suggestions to keep your article from getting to GA. I made these suggestions because of the experience I've had that have led me to develop higher standards, to go beyond merely what is suggested by guidelines. I'm fond of saying that those who write and bring articles to GA or FA are honoring their subjects. I think you've described your topic well, but I also think there is room to honor it more. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This long deconstruction of the reviewer's comments is unhelpful. In almost all GA reviews, some of the reviewer's comments will not be strictly necessary to meet the GA requirements. This is a matter for discussion between the reviewer and regular editors of the article. I suggest that regular editors improve the article in the light of the review and then discuss areas where they feel the reviewer's suggestions would not improve the article and are not necessary for GA status. If the reviewer and other editors are unable to reach agreement then WP:GAR is available to resolve the dispute, but I would hope that will not be necessary, as the editors involved all seem to have the best interests of the article as their top priority. Geometry guy 21:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This primary editor is pretty much at a loss. Further, I'm traveling and without my reference materials.  Can I have more than seven days to digest all this?  Also, I'd like to discuss certain suggestions myself in light of obvious disputes.  And, I do cite myself as an expert, and can provide a list of contributions I've made on this subject, including two exhibitions as guest curator, and writing for publications including American Art Review.   Should my primary contact by Moni3?  Please provide guidance. JJ (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How long will you be away? It can be put on hold for 2 weeks, but if you'll be away longer it might be best to take it off the nomination list and restore it when you get back and you're ready to address the points above. I admit this is confusing - I'm already confused about this article's nomination, but I know my points are valid. For now, use me as a primary contact. When you return and are ready to make changes we can discuss how to do what you need to do. I'm willing to bring in other experienced GA reviewers as well to give advice. --Moni3 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Moni3 is the primary contact and reviewer. I'm just trying to help resolve any confusion, but am probably adding to it :-) Geometry guy 13:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See my detailed comments above. I'm open to a discussion.  I will provide more footnotes when I return to New Hampshire.  JJ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On Verifiability and Original research
Some of what I've noted in my GA review has been addressed. I notice that User:Jack Bethune disputes what I pointed our are issues of Original research and Verifiability. We've already had a confusing process, so I would like to clarify.


 * Anything that states an opinion must be back up by a citation, and a mention of who said it. If the person is not notable (doesn't have an article), they must be quantified by a title. Winslow Homer has his own article, so he doesn't necessarily need a quantifier - though it might help for folks who are unfamiliar with his work. Catherine Campbell, an author of one of your sources, does not have her own article (unless she's a cricket player from New Zealand?), so if she's quoted or one of her opinions is in the article, it should read as "Author/Historian/Art critic/Art appraiser Catherine Campbell wrote..."


 * User:JohnJHenderson is using his own website as a source for some of the claims. Per Attribution, this appears to be a self-published source per the contact page. I will accept that JohnJHenderson may be an expert in this field, but the self-published website is not an acceptable source. If Mr. Henderson has published in a journal or written a paper that was published somewhere, that could be used, but the website falls under questionable and self-published. I wrote an article on an author of pulp fiction novels in the 1950s, and she knows about the article - in fact, we have a regular correspondence now. I've met her several times and spoken with her about some topics that have previously not been printed. This does not mean that based on my conversations with her I can alter her article to reflect what she's told me. Based on everything I've read and my discussions with her, I probably am an expert on her books, but outside of Wikipedia, I've never published anything about them. If I decided to get a paper published in a journal, magazine, or newspaper, I could use that material in her article, but not until that secondary source is available can I do that.


 * There are a few examples of words that editorialize and peacock terms in the article: of course, perhaps equally as beautiful, is perhaps the best known and finest example of early 19th-century White Mountain art, etc.


 * Per CITE, references should be at the end of sentences after punctuation.

We'll check off the rest after you come back from vacation. Enjoy yourself and don't stress out over this. --Moni3 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not stressed, but I'm still confused. For example, I scanned the stuff about footnotes and did not find any mention of putting them at the end of a sentence.  And, Jack Bethune cited guidelines that are at variance to what you state.  What do you propose for rereading the article and giving me feedback?  You are right that the process has certainly been confusing.  Here's a question for you.  I really don't know why I should waste my time on this article while two people who are strangers to me, Jack and Moni3, seem to dispute the "guidelines."  I stated in my comments (that are extensive), that some of this seems just common sense, e.g. where to put a footnote.  I'm certain that I can find many art publications that put footnotes next to the phrase or concept that they're related to, not at the end of a sentence.  And, how can my placements affect the GA rating?  I don't mean to sound petulant, but I'm not sure I want to waste my time on this.  Please clarify who's going to make final decisions - you, Jack, Geometry guy, and/or other strangers?  I know many art historians, but, trust me, they are novices on this subject, e.g. the characteristics of these artists.  I'm beginning to question the value of wasting my time on wikipedia.  Comments?  JJ (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You certainly bring up good points. My first few articles I ushered through GA, and then FA - I found the processes were completely baffling. It's not uncommon in an FAC to find editors demanding to do completely contradictory things. I found my second and third FA nominations exhausting and very frustrating. I also questioned the wisdom of bringing articles I had worked on for months to strangers to have them tell me to do things to my prose and my research that I didn't see the point in doing, but I was told by someone I respect (the subject of my first FA, the one I've met, etc) that the same processes happen in academic peer review; an author may submit a text to have 27 opinions given, and several of them contradict each other. There's no rule that says you have to submit an article for GA - you can just keep it the way it is. However, after 5 FAs and 6 GAs, I notice a difference in the quality of my own articles, and the process seems to get easier each time I go through it. I may be a crackpot for all you know, but visit the talk page of the GA nominations and watch the editors who review the most articles. Ask them for their opinions on the article. Then, I suppose, it's up to you to decide if it's worth it to go through the confusion of the GA nominations. I think your article won't take much to get there. --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have given me hope to break this logjam. How do I get other editors involved?  And, how are disputes (where, it seems, my view is irrelevant) resolved? And, PPS, please give me a link to one of these GA debates so I can read review comments and talk to the author about all this.   JJ (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. This is the discussion I started right after I did my initial review. Maybe two or three items down from that is the GA May Newsletter. Once a month the GA team picks the top reviewers of the month based on quality and quantity. I asked the top five or six names on that list to visit this page, by contacting them on their talk pages. I'm not sure how familiar you are with stuff, so let me know what you need to know (like where the GA nominations talk page is). I still feel hopelessly lost sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify: the final arbiter for good articles is Good article reassessment. If you are really stuck, list the article there. However, it seems to me that the main sticking point is the White Mountain Art website, and I think this can be unblocked by asking a simple question. Moni3, could you point to statements in the article which rely on this website as a source? Thanks, Geometry guy 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations #20 and #21 refer back to User:JohnJHenderson's website. #20 is not problematic so much, as it only refers to a list of artists from the time period. #21, however, cites several examples of artwork vs. photography of the region to prove that the artists were embellishing nature for artistic license. What is being identified is a trend, en masse, by artists. Similarly, could one claim, based on one's own website, which painters in France were impressionists and which were not? If you have a different view, Geomery guy, let me know. I'm open. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My view is that these footnotes are okay as long as they are not supporting statements which need to be attributed to a reliable secondary source (RSS), and that is why #20 is okay. In a sense, #21 is okay too, since it just provides the reader with a link to further photo comparisons. However, you are absolutely right that the en masse trend needs to be attributed to an RSS. In my view, it is the first sentence of this paragraph that needs such a citation, and then the rest is probably okay. I've added a citation needed tag to pinpoint it. Do you agree? Geometry guy 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with that. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that J.J. Henderson has moved the three mid-sentence cites to the end of the sentence in accordance with Moni3's recommendations. I have no problem with that, and generally support moving cites to the end of the sentence. However, in these cases, I just want to note that I don't believe that such a change is necessary, as these cites were mid-sentence for a specific reason: to highlight the part of the sentence that the source is supporting. If editor and reviewer agree that the article is better with a mid-sentence cite, then there is no reason in criteria or policies not to have mid-sentence citations. Geometry guy 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is where I'm confused. You seem to support my position for mid-sentence footnotes.  I did it to satisfy Moni3, but I had good reasons for their original position.  So, again, how do I go about having a dialogue with Moni3?  I posted a guidelines question on her talk page that remains unanswered.  It's hard to have a dialogue when it's only a monologue.  Geometry guy, can you help?  JJ (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) See the above thread on footnotes 20 and 21: Moni3 is an entirely reasonable editor, open to compromise. If you have a good case that citing mid-sentence is more helpful to the reader, then she will recognise it. I suggest just waiting for her response to these last three posts. Geometry guy 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A dull club helps me pay attention sometimes.... Actually I'm waiting for two reasons. I don't know if you're back from vacation yet, and I was kind of waiting for all the changes to be made. And I have to admit that I'm weighing the discussions and trying to be wise instead of quick to judge and defend my position. Trying to be open-minded. So - are you back from vacation? Have you made all the changes you wanted to make, or would you rather do this in increments? --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When I'm not playing golf, I'm editing this article. So, fine, I see you're listening.  I am making my comments to the text of your original review.  I will "talk" to you when I'm done to discuss any points of disagreement.  Thanks.  JJ (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Please, for the sake of future archiving, please keep all comments regarding one GA review within one main section on a talk page. Subsections by multiple reviewers are fine. But it's going to help us out tremendously if all reviews are within one main section only. Thanks.

Regarding this particular review, please keep in mind that article stability is one of the criterion at WIAGA. While this primarily refers to edit warring in the article itself, I also interpret this to include disputes regarding the article on talk pages themselves. A major dispute by several reviewers involved in a GA review also certainly is included here, so all issues brought up above must be addressed, and consensus must be reached by all reviewers involved before this article can be listed at WP:GA. Furthermore, several of these issues are WP:NPOV-related, which is also a GA criterion. These certainly need to be addressed as NPOV is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia philosophy. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it was unfortunate that the review got split up into separate sections: we can probably drop the level of a section heading to combine it with the review.
 * Apart from that Derek, much as I respect you as a reviewer, I can't find anything helpful in this post. You may interpret stability to include talk page discussions, but I doubt many others would. Talk page discussions can reflect article instability, but they are also a mechanism to avoid it. And no, there isn't a major dispute going on here, just a large amount of text to wade through. And no, all issues do not need to be addressed: the only thing that matters is whether the article meets the criteria or not. The last two sentences don't make a great deal of sense to me: this is not Homeopathy or Opus Dei; the NPOV-related issues are mostly trivial. Finally the bolding suggests irritation or a lack of perspective or argument from authority.
 * If you see User talk:JohnJHenderson, you will find confidence in the ability of intelligent editors to compromise. So it seems that the main disagreement is between the meta-reviewers, not the reviewers themselves :-). Geometry guy 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

3rd Opinion
Moni3 asked me to jump in an provide an extra opinion on the article and it's GA-readiness, since there seems to some conflicting suggestions and recommendations that are making things increasingly confusing. I'm by no means judge and jury here, but hopefully a third opinion will help give some perspective to the disagreements. Also, please keep in mind that I did not read all of the previous arguments: this is purely my opinion without regards to who said what. I did my best to provide some concrete examples of things that need to be worked on, so apologies if it comes across as if I'm pilling it on. Also, I only reviewed the first couple sections, again to avoid pilling on criticisms.
 * Overall the language is flowery and unecyclopedic. This is definitely the article's weakest point.  Remember, just stick to the facts.  And, if you're going to describe something in any other way, make sure it's sourced and attributed to who said it.  That way, you're not peddling opinion as fact.  A few examples:
 * "buried in a mass of earth, stones, and trees"
 * "their home miraculously survived"
 * See rewording of the above two statements. Is this better?  JJ (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely better, but is the list of stuff they were buried under all that necessary? The important stuff is that they all died in the avalanche and that their house survived.  If someone died in a mudslide, wouldn't it seem redundant to include an additional sentence that says they were buried in mud?  I'd say the same applies here. Drewcifer (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Willey disaster started a new awareness of the American landscape and the raw wilderness of the White Mountains."
 * "This allure — tragedy and untamed nature — was a powerful draw for the early artists who painted in the White Mountains of New Hampshire."
 * "The works of these early artists, depicting dramatic landscapes and man’s insignificance to nature, helped to promote the region at a time when, to most Americans, the White Mountains were a vast, unknown wilderness."
 * "a monumental canvas"
 * "began the trek"
 * "a mere fifty miles" and "a mere eight miles" (it's a "mere" 50/8 miles to us, but I'm sure it wasn't to them)
 * "Early coach travel to the White Mountains was long, dusty, and uncomfortable."
 * You asked me to stick to the facts. These are the facts.  Please suggest a rewording that would make this description encyclopedic.  JJ (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to simply remove the sentence altogether. It doesn't really add much to our understanding of the specific topic at hand, White Mountain Art.  I think the second sentence "Before the advent of rail travel..." is sufficient in setting up the difficulty/length of the trip (by sticking to the fact of how long it took rather than by describing what the journey felt like), which then sets up the advancements in travel which seems to have helped the area gain popularity. Drewcifer (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Looking out across the Intervale, it is easy to imagine why the artists found this view so picturesque."
 * Dates should be in the American style, since it is an American topic. ie Month DD, YYYY.
 * This sentence is confusing: "One such example is Crawford Notch, the site of the Willey tragedy before the slide." What is Crawford Notch?  A book?  A site?  Not really sure.
 * I wiki-linked Crawford Notch. Is this sufficient?  JJ (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what the problem is now. A) I was too lazy to look to the right and see the picture of the painting called Crawford Notch, and B) the sentence doesn't specify that it's the painting being referred to which has the same name as the location being depicted.  I think an easy fix would be to reword it into something like "One such example is Thomas Hill's depiction of Crawford Notch, the site of the Willey tragedy before the slide." Drewcifer (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dashes used between years should be the medium dash (–) not the small dash (-).
 * I'm assuming you mean ndash (–)? How can this be a GA show-stopper?  JJ (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one. Minor stuff, I know, but still worth mentioning (and fixing), regardless of if it's a "GA show-stopper". Drewcifer (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a bunch of unattributed opinions here.
 * "best known and finest example"
 * Please see footnote 5. This is not my opinion, but that of art historian Catherine Campbell.  Isn't this sufficient justification for the statement?  JJ (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A-ha, I didn't notice that. In that case, the problem seems to be "is perhaps".  Anything could "perhaps" by anything.  I also think the problem is that the opinion being presented is buried in the footnotes section, when it should be in the text.  So, my suggestion would be to reword the sentence to include the quote itself as well as the name of the person who said it. Drewcifer (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I would agree with some of the reviewers in saying that the article is not yet up to GA standards, the language-issues mentioned above being the main problems. However, there is alot of good stuff here. The article is illustrated very well (I suppose because it's an article about art). The breadth of the article is also very well done, and I can't imagine any way to improve it. The quality of sources looks pretty solid as well.
 * "one of the best known examples of White Mountain art" (also if it's a little redundant to say it's one of the "best known examples", since something can't be a best example if it's unknown, right?)
 * "which for many years became the premier venue to view these White Mountain scenes." (also weird tense with "these".)
 * "This artist would change the course of landscape painting throughout the region"
 * "By the mid 1850s, North Conway had arguably become the first artist colony in the United States."
 * The quote from Thompson is good, but I think it goes on a little too long. What does the anecdote about the loud party have to do with White Mountain art?
 * "The house still stands; the yard where Champney painted the scene is now the location of the Red Jacket Inn in North Conway." This seems like trivial information that has nothing to do with White Mountain art.

Hopefully this additional review has helped. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Drewcifer (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what you can do to help. Please review the entire article.  I don't mind (and appreciate) the criticism if it helps make the article better.JJ (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that the issues I mentioned above (flowery language and unattributed opinion) run through the rest of the article. I was just trying to avoid pointing out every single example, both to avoid looking like a jerk but also to avoid spending a ton of time reviewing it.  However, I'd be happy to take another more complete look once you feel at least some of the issues have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine. But, I will respond to various comments to get further clarification.  Is that OK with you?  JJ (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Drewcifer (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-review
Let me suggest that all re-review comments be put here. There is a lot of earlier material to digest (that I believe that I have, but others need not [unless they prefer]). But, for the future, why rehash issues that I've addressed? So, please add comments and/or disagreements here with further subheadings as suggested. JJ (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * JJ, I believe the article is well-written. You have taken care of the style problems and inline/external citation issues. I continue to have a problem with this statement, however: Looking out across the Intervale, it is easy to imagine why the artists found this view so picturesque. Up to that point, the article reads so well and flows so nicely, and that statement pops out and my mind screeches to a halt. Who thinks it's easy? Who is imagining? Who's looking out across the Intervale? I can't see it.
 * I reworked the Champney and North Conway sections. I eliminated the offending sentence.  I quoted the artist Asher Durand re North Conway.  All in all, I'm pleased that, IMO, both sections are now much better.  Your comments?  JJ (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it looks much better.


 * Your citations are strong and sufficient for GA until #35 and #38. A redirect to a Wikipedia article is not sufficient as a citation - articles should be independent from one another (if that article uses a source, and you confirm the information is accurate, you can also use the source in this one). For #38, reliable sources must be published somewhere. How did you discover the information by Douglas Copely? In a conversation? On a website? In print? If it's either of the latter, it must be included in the citation. If in a conversation, it is not a sufficient source. In the Working in North Conway section, I suggest moving some of the sentences and paragraphs around to make sure at least one reliable source is embedded in a paragraph.
 * Added a reference to the Legend of Chocorua. Deleted the link to the wiki article on Mount Chocorua.
 * I visited the exhibition on NH icons in 2000. I wrote an e-mail to Doug Copeley to confirm my recollection on the voting of The Old Man.  This information is contained in an e-mail that he sent back to me yesterday.  Can I source an e-mail?  If yes, how.  If not, do I need a letter from him?  Please advise.  JJ (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS an email isn't sufficient: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can he point you to an official site that says the same? Is there a state agency (state park) or federal agency (national park) that says the same? If not, you may just have to bit the bullet and drop it.
 * For the moment, I've dropped to assertion. It's back to "well-known."  I will find a reliable source, since The Old Man is far-and-away New Hampshire's (now gone) favorite icon.  72.224.186.142 (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone who has contributed to articles that are widely read, I take a lot of pride in the fact that although Wikipedia gets a bad rap for mistakes and misquotes, vandalism and other problems, the articles I work on are well-cited, and they help dispel the reputation that Wikipedia is an anarchic source of misinformation. I think Wikipedia is a great lesson for people to question where and how they get their information - one that should be applied to many other facets of their lives: politicians, medicine, science, etc. I found hunting citations to be tedious and silly when I first started. Now I seriously semi-stalk people when I want a quote and the citation is less than stellar. I don't know if you know that on average 80 people a day read this article. As the quality improves, so will the readership.
 * I still think the gallery and the End of an era section should be switched. That is more of a personal aesthetic preference. The End of an era seems an afterthought when the gallery is first.
 * I moved it after End of an era. I gave the gallery the title "Characteristics of the artists gallery," and referred to it in the prose section on Characteristics.  I'm not altogether pleased, and I'm not sure why.  Can you suggest a better way to integrate the section with the gallery.  JJ (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still looking for suggestions. 72.224.186.142 (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As for using your own website, for GA, I'm inclined to allow the two citations used, but with many reservations. You may not know that there's an almost Sharks v. Jets relationship between the GA and FA projects. One of the primary complaints from the FA folks is that GA does not prepare articles or editors enough for the intense scrutiny of sources and citations during the FA nomination process. If you plan to take this to FA, I know that those two citations from your website will not be sufficient. People will oppose the entire article on that alone. Some editors see GA as a hoop to jump through prior to getting an FA. I see GA as another opportunity for editors to comment on my article before I have to overhaul it once more for FA. I even have 3 articles at GA right now waiting for someone to review them. I know this has been a contentious and frustrating process for you. I never intended to kill anyone's spirit with this, but as someone who is involved with some FA reviews, I can get FA editors questioning my competence at passing articles with multiple problems. I think this is a very good article with a lot of potential, and I would like to be proud of the end result.
 * I have spent 10 years (!) on this Website, and, IMO, it's the definitive reference on White Mountain art on the Web. Type "White Mountain art" into any search engine and see what comes out on top.  And, I never did a thing to promote the site.  So, if we're talking about artists or we're talking about the literal nature of these painted images, how do I point others to this very important (IMO) source of information?  I would like to go for FA, and I really need help on the issue you raise, i.e. my own Website.  JJ (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Guidance here?


 * So, in short, I will pass the article for GA if you fix the statement about looking across the Intervale, and you rearrange the North Conway section so that a reliable source is embedded in each paragraph (should go without saying that quotes automatically get a citation). If you plan someday to take the article to FAC, let me know and I will help you prepare it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed your latest concerns. Please comment on my questions above, however.  And, please pass the article as GA.  Next, I do want to take the article for FAC, so I would like your help.  Where do I begin?  JJ (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Commented on the Old Man on the Mountain issue, above. Help for FA below.
 * Thanks for help re FA. And, can the article pass GA?  72.224.186.142 (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Comments above by 72.224.186.142 are me, JJ.  JJ (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moni3's crash course on how to get an FA:
 * Be obsessed with your topic. That helps. Obsessed, but patient. The obsession helps with dedication and the time you'll put into it. The patience helps with not throwing your computer out the window.
 * Read Tony1's guide on how to satisfy the well-written part. Seriously the dude is a stickler for good prose and his guide is what many FA reviewers follow. I do. I read mine out loud to people. I print them out and read them and they are kind of different on paper. I can't explain it.
 * Put the Featured Article Candidate page on watch. Read through all of them at least once a week and read what people oppose and what people support, and how to win over opposers. I point you to the talk pages of three articles I put up for FA: Birmingham campaign, Everglades National Park, and To Kill a Mockingbird. These were particularly difficult for me. In the "Article history" at the top, you'll find the FAC processes for all of them, even if they failed. My first FAC for To Kill a Mockingbird I withdrew from so much opposition. Complete train wreck. But 4 months later it passed very nicely.
 * Read A fool's guide to writing a featured article. It's pretty funny because much of it is true.
 * Contact User:Ealdgyth about your sources. She's the first editor to comment on FAC's and it's usually, "What makes you think this is a good source?" Contact User:Maralia to gently suggest the way you should present them. I spent 4 hours fixing the punctuation in my sources for my first FA.
 * Put your article up for Peer review and take a break from it. Let some other folks read it and comment on it. When you've kind of forgotten what you've written, then come back to it and edit it some more.
 * Go to FA Art, architecture, and archaeology articles and read a few of those. Pay attention to their galleries and how they present their images.
 * After all this, come back and find me. I'll give you suggestions and help you when you think you're ready to nominate it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the GA pass! It has been a slightly complex process but I think the article has benefitted enormously from the input. Good luck taking it towards FA. Geometry guy 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)