User talk:Oldbackpack/sandbox

Hello friend the instructions say to introduce ourselves to someone using their talk page so this is me doing that thing -mf --Miskfortune (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review of Manon Cleary Article
Everything looks great--you've done an incredible job of fleshing this out! I would suggest removing adjectives or adverbs that might imply a bias, like "incredibly" and "unique" in the lead, or phrases like "unlike any other" in the style subsection. Here, I would focus on Cleary's use of photo-realism instead. I would also suggest running through the article again and combing it for adjectives like this, just in case. Also, "it has been said" or "was considered by many," and similar phrases are peppered throughout, like in the topic sentence in the first paragraph under Style. As much as possible, I would try to find who said this, exactly, and name them in the article to add clarity. If a specific source isn't available, I would consider removing sentences like these, just to add clarity.

A couple other SUPER minor suggestions: If you have time/patience, I would consider listing her exhibitions and things in reverse chronological order. Also, a lot of sentences start with "Cleary," and might consider using phrases like "The artist" or even just "she." I'm not actually sure how kosher this is though, so if you don't want to worry about that, totally fine!

Solid article, friend! You've done an excellent job! Miskfortune (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review of Manon Cleary Article
This is a fantastic article! Comprehensive, neutral, and you can see how much work you put into it. The leader is especially strong; it gives you a concise snapshot of Cleary's life and work, focusing on the most important facts. One thing I would change is the sentence about Cleary's style. You say its "incredibly realistic" and then have a clause within parentheses. I think this sentence could be reworded both to sound a little more neutral and be less clunky.

The section about her work is especially strong, and I like how you broke it up into style and themes. I'm going to pinch this structure for my article, because it explains art without being analytic.

I agree with the previous reviewer about removing phrases like "was considered by many," as they take the tone of an academic paper and not an encyclopedic work. You can simply state what you think, and as long as you have sources to back it up your good! Micjoyrob (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Micjoyrob

Article Feedback
Wow, oldbackpck! You really developed this article; kudos. The inclusion of solo and group exhibitions is tremendous on its own, but you also single-handedly wrote sections on Cleary's biography and work. Good job on using newspapers to source info about her. Also, I see that you added Clearly to the entry on Photorealism. This is a very important addition!

There are a few issues that need correcting however, and these issues have been flagged via top-level article banners. They were also pointed out in your peer review. The article needs additional citations for verification and the tone or style is not quite encyclopedic. I think the citation issue is easy to correct--just insert more references after your sentences instead of waiting until the end of a paragraph. Ideally every sentence in Wikipedia has a citation source. Here are some sentences that need citations:

'''Cleary and her twin were very similar growing up and Cleary stated in an interview that they were even dressed alike by their mother until adulthood.'

Cleary took to drawing highly erotic images; the images gave her confidence and left her professors struggling to critique.

Cleary taught at the University of the District of Columbia for 30 years. She was beloved by her students and by many of the local artists in Washington, D.C.'' [and the rest of this paragraph].

In terms of style it sounds like you may have paraphrased too closely in some places. Some sentences are too colloquial, such as "she got into the habit," or "The experience there was not one to remember, so she moved to Washington, D.C. in 1970,"

Avoid subjective judgments, such as:

Cleary was drawn to the glow that only graphite can provide.

The rats were often drawn in pastels, and Cleary had truly mastered their likeness.

Without the harsh pencil lines, her drawings had a softness and ethereal quality.

While her work is considered photo-realism, it stands out from other artists of the time

Cleary's open exploration of sexuality creates a distraction for the viewer.

Cleary also went through some notable phases with her subject matter, but her figures are what set her apart from other artists.

It was the epicenter of art in the 70's for Washington, D.C. and Cleary was the star.

The best way to avoid subjective language is to find evidence to support an idea and then cite the evidence. For example: "Cleary was drawn to the glow that only graphite can provide." could be changed to "Cleary favored using graphite for its luminous appearance." (provide citation)

Overall I think these are good problems to have and I'm glad there's now more content on Cleary for others to work with. If you have time and inclination please do keep working on this article and fixing little things. Also, I do hope we can get Manon's work from the Chazen up on Wikipedia--even "Love for Sale", which I haven't seen exhibited yet.

Note that I did deduct points for a lack of response to your peer reviews. If I missed something let me know. Zipperbrown (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)