User talk:Alaney123/sandbox

Peer Review by Austin Rusher
In the summary, I don't know how relevant the description of the rabbits is considering its a summary about her. Something that you might want to add is some of the bigger achievements that she has accomplished (like exhibitions or awards). Also, the summary talks about how she is currently living in New York, but she got famous in the 1990s (maybe reorder the two).

The article's order makes sense and seems to be in chronological order. Some of the information in personal life is redundant and been stated before. Ex. Personal life "Brown was born and raised in England before moving to New York City in 1994" and Career "Brown relocated to New York from London in 1995[8] because she felt alienated from her contemporaries". Years do not match either.

Work section is long but important to the artist. Be careful about using opinionated statements. Ex. "While painting, she likes to let the paintings develop and change drastically because she believes the surprise makes her work more interesting". Ex2. "Her tactile technique stands out among contemporaries and links her to the art movement Abstract Expressionism"

The article doesn't feel too biased. Only unnamed groups or organization noticed was the animation studio she worked in mentioned in the early life and education section.

Online sources look reliable. Careful on using hammer.ucla.edu/blog because of its a blog and its most likely biased. Variety of sources look good.

Be careful about having redundant information that says the same thing in multiple sections. Another thing to consider is to stray away from saying things like "she stands out" or "she likes to" because those are your opinions. The best improvement to the article would be to tighten up the summary of the artist hitting some important points from each section. The summary right know is talking about a specific piece and should be a summary of the life/history of the artist.Arusher109 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Taylor Harrison
Lead

At the moment, the lead is still very vague and provides us with very little information about her work as a whole, even though there is a lovely list of influences. Because there is a lack of general information about her work, the detail about the rabbits "frolicking in bacchanalian landscapes" seems oddly specific and out of place. Furthermore, because there is such an extravagant list of influences (it even includes a couple others within the "Work" section), the article might benefit from a section solely dedicated to these influences and how their work has directly, or indirectly affected Brown as an artist.

Structure

To me, the "Personal life" section seems out of place. The article begins by addressing Brown more than her work. The article then moves to the "Work" and "Art market" sections, which heavily address her art. I understand why her personal life is included as more of an after thought, and perhaps a new section could act as a transition between the two sections, but with the information currently included in the article, it might read more smoothly if placed towards the beginning. I also think it might be a difficult transition because the viewer has read through her life and career and is then taken back to her birth and education as an exchange student. If the information included beneath "Personal life" were relocated, changing the overall structure of the article might become unnecessary.

This concerns the information itself more than the overall structure of the article, but the article mentions that, "Brown often interjects fresh humor or irony by titling her paintings after famous musicals and films" in the second paragraph of "Work," repeating the information already stated in the first paragraph. I think this information could be combined and place in whichever paragraph it will be more significant.

Grammer

"Career": "The films themes of sexuality" should be "film's."

"Career": "2011, she has been working..." Since 2011? As of 2011?

"Work": "by engulfing her figures within the paint or to use it..." "To use" should simply be "using" in order to flow with "engulfing."

"Work": "The main characteristics of Brown’s paintings is..." "Is" should be "are."

"Personal life": "Since she was three years old she had always wanted" needs a comma after "old." "Had" should also be "has" in order to match the tense of the rest of the article.

Neutrality

As far as I can tell, the article seems pretty neutral. The only things that stand out to me are under "Work": To me, the wording within the sentence, "The way she handles paint within her work, becomes the subject matter itself" makes the information seem more like a personal opinion than a fact about her work. Also, stating that, "Her tactile technique stands out among contemporaries" seems to praise her work above others'.

Sources

"Brown became known to the art world in the late 1990’s, due to a painting exhibition of rabbits she abstracted. The rabbits in the works are frolicking in bacchanalian landscapes" is not sourced.

Nothing in the last half of the first paragraph of "Work" is cited, including the direct quote from Brown. Is this all from the same source?

"Cecily Brown works using a non-linear approach. Brown experiments with this approach by working with multiple canvases at one time. Working in large groups allows Brown to explore new compositional ideas while continually being spontaneous" under "Work" is not cited.

I know it can be difficult to find sources, but as far as I can tell, there is only one book cited in the article.

Final Thoughts

I am not familiar with Brown's work, but definitely got a good sense of how she paints from the "Work" section of the article. There are lots of good details in that section. I also appreciate the "Art market" section as I think that information is relevant to the culture of contemporary art. I would now like to add a similar section to my article, if I can find the information necessary. Bharrison111 (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Jaycee Sanders
Lead

The lead doesn’t seem to necessarily say why the topic is important and the information about her coming into the art world should go under career while giving more of an overview of the most basic and important things in the lead.

Structure

The article is a little mixed up especially in the Work section. There are many interesting facts and a lot of important information in this section but they are spread out. There are places where the same thing pertaining to her work is mentioned in two separate places when they would flow better if they were lined out in a specific way. Maybe a chronological lay out would work where it starts from information about how she paints to letting the concept come while she paints to starting other canvases and having multiples. Also the headline of “Painting” under “Work” is unnecessary since it is the only section/medium mentioned. In Personal Life there is information that could go under Early Life and Education and the last sentence can go under career. Really the only information that really fits under this category is her spouse and child which I think could go under the lead to eliminate this section entirely unless there is more information that could make it more meaningful to exist there. In the Career section it says that she signed onto the Gagoisan but doesn’t say what exactly she did there. The last two sentences of the Career section are a little confusing and maybe should be switched and reworded. In the Early Life and Education section it says twice that she studied printmaking.

Balance

Overall the balance is good. The most information is under Work. Maybe more information should be under Career as well to make it less equal to the other sections that are the same length. This makes it seem of equal importance to the reader.

Neutrality

Due to some phrases like “she likes to”, “she feels”, and “work on up to”, the article has a voice to it like you can tell that the writer has feelings about the artist. Maybe use phrases like “she does” to make it more definitive.

Sources

The only sources that may be questionable are the Guggenheim website because that is a gallery website so I would just check and make sure that one is okay. The other is the hammer.ucla.edu web sight because it says blog in the URL. I looked at it, but I wasn’t sure if was actually a blog or not because there were tons of articles that look legit. Other than that the sources seem on point.

Wrap Up

So to wrap up, I think that the main issue is just structure and rearranging some of the information to make it more cohesive. Also that neutrality could be cleaned up by just those few phrases that sort of stuck out. Really interesting artist though, I definitely learned some interesting things about her while reviewing and I look forward to reading the article again at the end of the semester!

-Jaycee Jsanders174 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)