User talk:McCormick.Meg/sandbox

Alice Price (Amrprix (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)amrprix): Can you add to the lead so that it more accurately reflects the content that you added? Use Wikipedia's "add citation" and properly format this citation within the body: Reference: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.temple.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=8fd706d9-279e-41a3-8dba-a8b61313b29e%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=102304444&db=a9h

I want to see all the sections on his painting style added. The science section is imbalanced with what he actually did as an artist. Because the original article is so short on this, more is needed.

You need a richer set of references. Here are 3 to try that are available at Temple. Marie-Sofie Lundström (2006) A Romantic in Spain: The Finnish Nineteenth-Century Painter Albert Edelfelt's Andalusian Dream, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 27:3, 331-348, DOI: 10.1080/07256860600779311

Albert Edelfelt (February 1891). "Sketches in Finland: Part II." Harper's Weekly https://harpers-org.libproxy.temple.edu/archive/1891/02/sketches-in-finland/

Tuulikki Kilpinen & Marina Catani (2004) KALEIDOSCOPIC EXUBERANCE AND COLOUR ASCETICISM: EDELFELT’S PORTRAIT OF ACKTÉ, Studies in Conservation, 49:sup2, 129-132, DOI: 10.1179/sic.2004.49.s2.028

Jakob Stroup(stroujak) Peer Edit

Lead evaluation: Your articles lead presents a good basis already. I'd only say change it if you plan on adding something else that does not already fit under the lead sentences.

Content evaluation: Overall all the information you intend on adding is very informative and useful, yet there are some points in which it needs some clarification. When you are talking about Edelfelt's portrait of Pasteur you state how it "brought out a aspects of himself that the public would not see otherwise" and that "This impacted his reputation and success and molded his future". I believe that you are trying to say how it helped him, however you don't clearly state whether or not it helped or hindered Pasteur. So it would be helpful if that was either clarified or left out. Also just wondering why this portrait was more noteworthy for this article then his other portraits. Also I think it would be helpful if you did a quick definition of en plein air to help readers who might not be familiar with it have a better idea what you are talking about, or at least link it to the en plein air wiki page. Other than that I believe that all your additives seem helpful for understanding who Albert Edelfelt and what he has done.

Tone and balance evaluation: Seems pretty neutral in tone overall. Good Job and keep it up!

Sources and references evaluation: The two sources which links I can follow seem like reliable sources, yet I couldn't check out the http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.temple.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=8fd706d9-279e-41a3-8dba-a8b61313b29e%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=102304444&db=a9h link. Other than that I suggest that you either learn how to put the citations in wiki and link them to the different paragraphs/sentences in which the information is from.

Organization evaluation: Overall your writing is easily followed yet it gets a little confusing when it comes to the Painting Style section. Make sure to add dashes or something to divide between "En Plein Air Albert Edelfelt, "Religion Edelfelt", as well as "Illustration and Portraiture Edelfelt". On another hand I find the Contribution to Science heading to be a little misleading since I thought I was about to read about him being a scientist, yet this is just my opinion and thought process. Other than that your writing well done and did not seem to have any grammar or spelling mistake that I noticed, yet always best to get multiple eyes on it.

Images and media evaluation: The article already has a nice amount of art pieces that give a good understanding on his style and art as a whole. Yet you are the one researching him so I definitely recommend If you believe a piece should be added; go for it and make sure it fits in with the information given. Already have a good selection of images though.

Overall impressions: Overall I believe your article already has a strong base and what you are adding helps with the basic understanding of him. Most of the fixes that I suggest are very nitpicky in small details. Definitely would recommend working on making sure everything is a clear statement and that things are organized and separated so that things are easily understood when reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroujak (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

McCormick.Meg (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback I will be continuing to add information and clean up the article in regards to Edelfelt's painting styles and the format of the article in general.