Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constance Stokes/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC).

Constance Stokes

 * Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because Constance Stokes is a victim of double neglect: the favouring of Sydney artists over Melbourne ones in Twentieth century Australian art criticism, in addition to the pervasive neglect of female artists as against male. Ironically, her critical reception in her own lifetime was excellent, being selected for exhibition alongside others who, in contrast to Stokes, are today household names in Australian art, like Arthur Boyd. Her contemporary neglect is reflected in limited sources, but hopefully what is here is sufficiently comprehensive. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on comprehensiveness and prose - I reviewed this for GA nomination and it looks better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Images
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Fixed.


 * File:Girl_in_Red_Tights_(c.1948).jpg: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The illustrated pages were unnumbered.
 * Thanks for that Nikki. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I found the article interesting, and it's certainly the sort of thing that I'd enjoy encountering as a featured article. Is the article well-written? On balance, probably yes. Does it show us at our best? Yes: it appears to be informed and comprehensive. However, I do think we need to be careful not to use featured article status, or "candidate for featured article" status, just to correct a perceived "neglect", either social or critical. This isn't our job. The eventual choice of featured articles should certainly reflect a good diversity of topics, ideally without excessive bias (whether gender, regional, or whatever), but here we're not selecting which articles actually will be featured; we're simply providing candidates from which a choice can be made. We're not in the business of editorialising here, but simply identifying articles that show Wikipedia at its best. RomanSpa (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry i'm not sure what your point is regarding the article? I couldn't link your remarks to an issue in the text. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Minor quibbles mostly, the article is of pretty high quality: Thanks for your high quality contributions to Wikipedia, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments by Cirt
 * 1) Please respond below the entirety of these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
 * 2) Redlink: Benalla Art Gallery, not necessary to create, but would be nice and useful as at least a short sourced stub.
 * 3) Redlink: Mornington Peninsula Regional Gallery, not necessary to create, but would be nice and useful as at least a short sourced stub.
 * 4) Redlink: Swan Hill Regional Gallery, not necessary to create, but would be nice and useful as at least a short sourced stub.
 * 5) Lede: Could possibly break up the 2nd paragraph in two.
 * 6) Life and training: This might be an easier read as two paragraphs.
 * 7) Legacy: First paragraph of this could be broken up into two paragraphs.
 * 8) References: No need to have this in small font, please use normal size.
 * 9) Please respond below the entirety of these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Responses: Thanks for your review. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK
 * 1) Done
 * 2) Done
 * 3) Done
 * 4) Done, and also added a sentence covering critics
 * 5) Done
 * 6) Done
 * 7) I haven't specified font size - it's just the product of the heading templates etc
 * Support, thanks for being so responsive to my comments, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from WWB Too

Hello, I've also got an article at FAC presently, so in the interests of contributing to the process, I've put together my own review of the draft. I have a number of suggestions, so I'll use bullet points to make them easier to read:


 * Introduction
 * This seems like a very prominent location to use a quotation, perhaps too early. Who said it? I would find it more appropriate to summarize the basic facts of her career and save specific praise or comments about her for later in the article.
 * The quote is attributed in the body text, but i have now revised the lead to eliminate it.
 * The second paragraph contains some information which seems too detailed for a top-level overview of the article. I would advise keeping the introduction to the very general information, i.e. the years she was active, the style and medium of her work, the galleries where her work is displayed and perhaps her inclusion in Anne Summers' 2009 book. Critics' views seem less salient here.
 * We may have to agree to disagree and see if other reviewers have a view. I think critical reception is absolutely central to an artist biography, including determining to a significant degree their notability and subsequent understanding of their work. (I was also wryly amused, as the commonest complaint with my GAs and FAs is that the lede is too short :-)) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Life and training—The source that supports the following sentence does not confirm that George Bell influenced her career, though I see that the Fred Williams book (currently #12) does mention this. I would advise adding this reference to this sentence as well, so this information is properly supported:
 * The competition was judged by artist George Bell, who would have a continuing influence over her artistic career.[5]
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Art—Several suggestions here:
 * Perhaps this is a difference between Australian and American English, but I feel like the following sentence:
 * Stokes had returned from honeymoon in 1934,
 * should be
 * Stokes returned from her honeymoon in 1934,
 * Revised.
 * The following is unsupported. Is there a source for this information?
 * Years later, the work was acquired by the National Gallery of Victoria.
 * Clarified and cited. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevance to Stokes is unclear in first part of the second paragraph of the Art section. This information seems to focus on Bell as well as Australian art movements in general. The motives for Bell forming the group are important details for his article, but in relation to Stokes what is really important is that she became a member of the group. I would suggest condensing this down to something like the following:
 * In 194X, Stokes became a member of the Melbourne Contemporary Artists exhibition group, which was founded by a mentor of Stokes', the artist George Bell, to... [Promote a certain art style? How best to summarize the purpose of the group succinctly?]
 * I have been pondering this for a couple of weeks. My reluctance to change it arises from three things. First, i tend to prefer more context in my article than less; second, a more concise version could lose sight of why there was a modernist group with whom Stokes chose to associate; third, based on my reading of sources, it was very difficult to create a "succinct" statement of the purpose of the group and this text was the best I could come up with. The sources tended to deal with it in a complicated and evasive kind of way. Believe it or not, this was the short version. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the fourth paragraph the statement is made that Girl Drying Her Hair and Woman Drying Her Hair are probably the same work. Is this supported by the Summers 2009 source or is this an assumption? Also, the tone of final sentence of this paragraph reads like magazine profile, not an encyclopedia entry, and should be removed per WP:NOTNEWS.
 * OK, I think i have finally sorted out the correct way to explain the dual names of the one painting. As to that last sentence, I remain happy with its narrative purpose, which is to engage the reader in the story of that painting. Unless other reviewers object, my preference is to leave it. I don't think anything at WP:NOTNEWS indicates this would be stylistically inconsistent with WP, and my emphasis would be on the FA criteria that "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first three sentences of the fifth paragraph appear to be unsupported. Which source confirms this information? Also, the details about where the artists came from is probably unnecessary. I'd stick to just mentioning that Stokes' work was selected for inclusion in this exhibition.
 * When i bring articles to FAC, i sometimes have reviewers complain about the density of my footnotes. This was probably an overreaction to that concern. All the facts are based on two sources cited in sentences four and five, but i have put a reference to the two at the end of sentence 3, and hopefully that should improve it. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest subsections in the Art section if you can think of a way to logically break this section down. I think this would help with the readability of the information. The seven long paragraphs are a little overwhelming to the reader.
 * Yes i agree it would be preferable, but i am yet to come up with any ideas other than a 'later career' heading, which would make the structure unbalanced as it refers only to the last of seven paras. I'll keep thinking though... hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have split it into two, around the 1953 travelling exhibition. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * National Library of Australia as publisher—I see that you've listed the National Library of Australia as the publisher in the template for 9 of your sources, though isn't this really the archive location, not the publisher? Obviously I'm new to this article, so let me know if this was something that was discussed and decided upon at GA.
 * The NLA has an automatic citation format generator for wikipedia use, and these are the results of this. I think probably the reason is that the National Library is effectively (and legally) re-publishing the material, and as such is indeed a publisher. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bibliography—I'm a little confused as to why the following source is included in the Bibliography subsection of your References section:


 * Summers, Anne (17 November 2009). "An Artist Lost: Rediscovering Constance Stokes". Speech delivered at National Gallery of Australia. Archived from the original on 7 August 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2012.


 * The other sources listed in the Bibliography section are books, whereas this source is a speech. I understand you've used three separate pages from that source, but is it common practice to put reference items that are not books in the Bibliography section?
 * My experience is that it is standard practice to place in the bibliography any work for which a Harvard citation is used and for which different page numbers are cited, regardless of the work's form, including papers, book chapters and journal artices.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * NPOV language—In general I'm a little concerned about some of the phrases used in this article that don't appear to be clearly supported and are likely to be interpreted as statements of opinion. Can these comments be attributed to specific sources? If not, I feel that they should be removed. For example:
 * Stokes' artistry endured in a way that of some of her modernist colleagues did not.
 * This is an introductory statement to the remainder of the paragraph, which shows this.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * and
 * In contrast to many of her modernist colleagues, her works continued to be well-regarded by critics for many years after the group's formation.
 * This is a summary in the lede of what i hope is demonstrated in the cited sources in the body text. I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem with a lede summary like this? Did you feel that the body text did not contain cited information that critics continued to regard her work well in the years after the group's formation, but did not feel the same about other members? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * and
 * Despite these prominent painters being selected for inclusion, when the exhibition appeared in London, Stokes' painting Girl in Red Tights drew critical attention and acclaim.
 * This is supported by the citation at the end of the following sentence. As elsewhere, I was avoiding over-citation by not referring to the same item and page number twice in consecutive sentences. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is all I have time for now. I can probably take another look after you've had a chance to respond to these issues. I hope these comments are helpful, let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fabulous review. There are a couple of suggestions I probably don't agree with, but will consider for a while - it may take a couple of days to work through some things. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you've implemented or explained most things. I could certainly change my mind on some of the disagreements as well, so happy to discuss further if you like. Ping me on my user Talk when you'd like me to look again. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hamiltonstone, I see that you've made a few more changes based on my suggestions and I'm OK agreeing to disagree on the other issues. I will Support this article's promotion to FA status. Good work. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments – a well-written and well-sourced article, it is a pleasure to read. I've just got a few comments:
 * "University of Melbourne" and "National Library of Victoria" are linked twice.
 * Fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the lead does not mention that Stokes was married, perhaps you could tweak the very first sentence so that it reads "Constance Stokes (née Parkin, 1906–1991)".
 * The lede does mention the death of her husband, but i've no objection to "nee". hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's peculiar that I have been able to detect all the other issues, yet missed the reference to her husband in the lead. Anyway, it is not clear to the reader that the name change was due to her marriage, so please add "nee". Having two bolded instances of "Contance" within four words of each other doesn't look good either. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * True. Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A link to modernist would be good.
 * Added. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Canada, the United Kingdom and Venice in the early" – two countries and a city are listed; you should perhaps replace "Venice" with Italy.
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "her to continuing continue her"
 * Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Stokes returned from her honeymoon in 1934" -- do we know where the two spent their honeymoon?
 * Yes, Europe. Added. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Despite the Collins Street apartment becoming a full-time studio for Stokes" → "Although the Collins Street apartment had become a full-time studio for Stokes" – removes noun + –ing construction.
 * Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * When was the inaugural exhibition of the Contemporary Art Society? If it took place after 1946, perhaps you could move the sentence to the very end of the paragraph to combine the two mentions of the Gallery ie "In 1946, Stokes presented the work to the National Gallery of Victoria, where it would later be hung in the inaugural exhibition of the Contemporary Art Society."
 * No, it was in or about 1939. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Caps for "Cold War".
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "being included in the" → "having been included"
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article uses "Melbourne" and "Melbourne, Vic." as locations.
 * Fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for those suggestions and catches. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Capitalise "A quiet revolution: the rise of Australian art 1946–1968".
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You could insert "|format=exhibition catalogue" into FN 30.
 * I didn't know that existed. thanks, inserted. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I can still spot four instances of "Melbourne, Vic." in the article.
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My comments have been fixed. I'm happy to support. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Support: I can find very little wrong with this. I cannot really comment on comprehensiveness (my only knowledge of Australian art comes from Hamiltonstone's other work!), but the prose is top-quality and there is little obviously missing. Just a few minor points, which do not affect my support for this excellent article. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The description of her seems shoe-horned into the "life and training" section. Do we really need to include it? And if so, is this the best place for it? It just seems to have been stuck there.
 * Sigh, it is indeed shoehorned. The problem relates to your point below. In most biographies, some description of the person is common (see, for example, Fred Williams' biography of George Bell, one of the citations for this article). And I do not have a photograph of Stokes, so I felt I should tell the reader something about her appearance or temperament, but there is little available other than what I included. And so it does indeed read in an isolated way. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "a strong secondary market for her works": Not too sure what this means.
 * Reworded, but also found a wikilink. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Judging by Summers' comments, Bell is not a figure well-regarded by modern critics. Given the excellent depth and context given earlier in the article, could this be explained somewhere? It would give a bit of backing to her comment.
 * Have rewritten to give an account of Bell's issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are there any other images of her or her paintings which could be included? Or even a fair-use picture of her? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Argh. No free use images at all. Fair use - there are some copyrighted images online, but none of her major works. The one I prepared was the only one i thought would survive fair use scrutiny because this particular picture is much-discussed. Not sure what your experience is with non-free use, but mine is that it is a very high bar, so direct referencing of the content of the image has to be very clear. I haven't found another image i would be confident of putting forward.

Thank you for the useful points.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Source for place of death?
 * McCulloch - edited body text so that is now specified.


 * FN5 and similar: those disambiguators aren't part of the original titles of the works. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm loath to mess with a referencing format determined by Australia's primary bibliographic institution and designed specifically for Wikipedia. I can't imagine doing anything that would be better than what the NLA's professionals came up with.

Thanks for the check. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments  -- I decided to recuse myself from delegate/coord duties on this one...
 * I think you tell her story well but some of the wording jarred a bit for me, so I copyedited and you can let me know if I misunderstood anything; outstanding points:
 * Although she painted few works in the 1930s, her paintings and drawings were exhibited from the 1940s onwards -- the first clause seems a bit of a non-sequitur to one unacquainted with her work; do I care that she painted little in the '30s if I don't know when she started painting? Perhaps if you could add something to that effect immediately before, it would work better...
 * Tweaked to indicate that her main studies concluded 1929, hopefully making the context clearer. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The family settled in Collins Street, Melbourne, and Stokes had three children between 1937 and 1942 -- I notice there's a hidden comment asking where she had her children and it does pique my curiosity as well; are we to assume they were born while she was living in Collins St?
 * Yes I saw the hidden comment too. I deliberately haven't clarified it, because the sources don't. Specifically, i do not have a date for the move between Collins Street and their later house in Kew. Though I suspect that it may post-date the children, it is possibly not the case. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Stokes' artistry endured in a way that of some of her modernist colleagues did not -- not quite grammatically correct, I fear; what we mean is that her modernist colleagues' artistry didn't endure, so technically I think you should have an apostrophe after "colleagues" (if it looks too odd then you may want to recast the sentence).
 * Indeed. Recasting. I think the non-possessive plural is now OK, because it refers to the "that" (as originally cast, it would have needed to read "that that" to be correct, which would have looked and sounded poor). Tell me if you still think it is wrong. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Content-wise the detail looks adequate, referencing seems good, and I'll rely on Nikki for the image and source checks.
 * Structurally I suppose my only niggle is that the heading Life and training makes it sound like you're giving us a full account of her private life in that section, whereas it's primarily her early life, while bits from her later life (e.g. death of her husband and herself) are interspersed in the Art section. I wonder if we shouldn't call the first section Early life and training and the second Artistic career to better reflect the content as it is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed per your suggestions. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think my comments have been satisfactorily addressed, happy to support. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian your review and tweaks are much appreciated. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.