Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Thankful Poor/archive1

The Thankful Poor

 * Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1894 painting The Thankful Poor by Henry Ossawa Tanner. GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Image review—pass, see talk for details (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, now there is another issue: the current version has introduced a lot of sandwiching of images contrary to MOS:IMAGELOC in the Description and Background sections. That needs to be fixed before the article is promoted. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * By sandwiching images, I assumed images on both sides of text? I just aligned all the images to the right, and moved the detail crops to Interpretations. The current layout seems to work in my opinion. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
On 1a-e and 3. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
Thank you for the proposal of an unusual topic! I'll look at the lead last.

Background
 * "photographed models which Tanner shot" sounds a bit violent ;)
 * I didn't realize that until now! The wording has been changed. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis
 * We talked (in the peer review) about the average reader perhaps not being familiar with Annunciation, - what do you think of creating short articles on those two paintings? It would help understanding without blowing up this article.
 * I feel like that writing up articles for the two shouldn't be that hard, especially since there are images of both paintings on WikiMedia Commons. I'll see what I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I see a certain contradiction in "ritual experience" here and "ordinary moment" there, for the same scene. Perhaps I misunderstand "ordinary" - English is not my first language.
 * Ritual means that it is a religious ceremony done in a "prescribed order" according to Google. I believe praying a table would satisfy being both "ritual" for its religiosity and rigidity as well as "ordinary" for its frequency. However, I do agree that using "ordinary" does undermine the specialness of the moment (I even use a quote in the next sentence describing the scene as "extraordinary", so definitely a contradiction!). I replaced "ordinary moment" with "African-American religious custom" since I feel its more descriptive that way. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Consider to move the Banjo lesson from the gallery to above, where it's mentioned, - it gets a bit lost next to the large lighter one.
 * I think that's a good idea. Done GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I could imagine his parents' beliefs and school founding in the background section, - and if in Analysis, then perhaps sooner?
 * Reading it over again, I have to agree with the rather awkward structuring of the article there. I rearranged some of the content concerning Tanner's upbringing. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Next round: Thank you for moving passages, and creating a new article! I shuffled the images a bit, to context, and we should not "sandwich" text between images. One thing wanted for featured articles - and actually all articles - is that we provide an "alt" parameter for each image, describing what's to be seen for someone who can't see it, - imagine someone blind. Not too detailed! Perhaps compare FAs about images. Otherwise, I'm pleased, but will wait with a support because when others will comment, things may change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, I finished adding alt texts. How do they look? I hope I got them right the first time. GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, they look good, but I'd expand the very first one because it's the subject, - "opposite", "African American" and the modesty of the food should be mentioned, I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt are you ready to support now? Coords say the nom may be archived soon without support. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. I looked again. While I am happy with the second half, I'd prefer to see Background more in chronological order: first his parents, upbringing, and beliefs, then the rather specific Banjo. If I am the only one with such a concern I can support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current organization of background, except that I think the last paragraph should be moved up. Also, I still think that the background length is too long compared to the article and I would be looking for ways to trim nonessential info. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and, I made changes to the Background section as best I could. Please let me know what you think. GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the new order much better. I'll look again tomorrow, please check the section once more. First we hear religious - which could be any religion, later specifically which Methodist. Not every sentence there needs to connect to the painting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The current first sentence (!) reads: "The Christian religious education observed in the The Thankful Poor's depiction of a young boy imitating his elder praying can be traced to the educational values of Tanner's parents, who both graduated from Avery College and went on to found schools."
 * I think it's too complicated, whatever the content.
 * "Christian" is still very broad, and a link distracting.
 * The "the The" is to be avoided.
 * I am not sure "educational values" is a good expression, - it could have too many meanings.
 * "can be traced" sounds like something hardly visible (traces) while I think it's the core thing.
 * How about trying to not even mention the painting in the first (!) sentence. We know already that the artivcle is about that painting. This section is Background: parents, education, values, when and where painted, how old was he, in which situation, - that's what I'd like to know in the section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for the detailed comments! I made changes as best I could; let me know what you think. GeneralPoxter (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it much better. Two little things: In "the denomination encouraged education among African Americans and founded colleges." I think it needs at least a comma after Americans, ot that would still be "among", no? Also, in the sentence about Tanner and the bishop, can we avoid the repetition of Tanner in that they agree? I trust that you will find solutions and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and suggestions. I'm not sure which sentence you refer to "about Tanner and the bishop", but I assumed it was referring to the one in Background about race and Bishop Tanner's lectures and sermons? GeneralPoxter (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my memory ... - no, "Tanner was also influenced by family friend and educator Booker T. Washington, with whom Tanner shared the belief that skills should be communicated from one generation to another". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Buidhe

 * Background section has grown quite long, it seems some of this info is not directly related to the painting. For instance, I think much of the material in the paragraph starting "Tanner's first major work of this sort was the The Banjo Lesson" belongs in The Banjo Lesson article but not this one. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello buidhe, yes I would have to say the Background section is getting quite bloated. I cut one irrelevant detail and moved another to a footnote, but I'm not sure if I should go any further. I want to keep the stereotyped criticism there because it sets the social context for The Thankful Poor. Scholars like Professor Woods argue that such comments may have contributed to Tanner's departure from African American subjects following The Thankful Poor, and this idea is alluded to in the History section. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would still say that the background section is longer than ideal, but I'll defer to you as to what is essential information. Whenever writing (esp. background sections), consider "Does this help the reader understand the topic (The Thankful Poor in this case)? If it does not, axe it. With Wikipedia articles, sometimes "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Naurice Frank Woods believes..." Whenever you introduce an attributed statement like this, always explain (very briefly) what the credentials are and why the reader should care. For example, "Art historian Naurice Frank Woods..." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All right I added Woods' credentials. I believe Woods is the only source I mentioned by name without including credentials—unless I'm mistaken. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , will you be willing to support? GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the *partial* support! However, I'm having trouble trimming and restructuring the Background section down any further. I was wondering whether you could offer any suggestions on which particular sentences could be considered for deletion or rearrangement? GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
 * Source for dimensions?
 * Etinde-Crompton appears to be a children's book - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * Missing publisher for Wilson
 * White House Historical Association is a publisher, not a work. Ditto Smithsonian American Art Museum, check others
 * The Princeton University 'Commons' site appears to host student work - who is the author of the specific source cited?
 * How does Baker meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! I added a ref for the dimensions; cut Etinde-Crompton, Princeton, and Baker from the sources and replaced them with pre-existing sources along with a biography on Tanner for one quote; and I had the website parameters changed to publisher whenever applicable (i.e. every time I used it). Let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ARTNews and International Review are both work titles so should still use website (the latter can split out Hampton as publisher). The detail added for Wilson is a website, not a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I made the appropriate changes for ArtNews and International Review, but on the pdf for Wilson, it says "Published by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 1992" in the lower left. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You already cut it by a good amount. If that's all that can give it's ok. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have a final verdict on the source review? Also I think the above comment may be misplaced. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing some inconsistency still regarding publisher display: why for example is it included for Black Enterprise but not American Heritage? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, I added publisher information for American Heritage. Is there anything else that needs attending to? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How are you deciding which refs include publisher, location, or neither? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I realized I missed publisher for the ArtNews source and added that in. Though all of the references now have publisher information, I also only added location information for sources where that information is readily available. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * University of California Press for example has a readily available location. To be clear, it's absolutely fine if you don't add both of these details to every source - we just need consistency, and at the moment I'm having trouble identifying when they should be there and when they shouldn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not too sure either over what should be the standard for location vs. no location. For now, I just removed all the location parameters. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder
 * Have been following the expansion over the last several weeks. Comments to follow. Ceoil  (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * following up... (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also wondering whether could take a look if they have time (Theramin referred me to them)? The review process sort of slowed down this last week. GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We're getting to decision time here I think, can I just get an indication from and  if they'll be commenting soon, or at all?  Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a rough estimate on how much time we have left? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no hard-and-fast rule for a nom's timing, but after six weeks you expect consensus to have formed and there to be no outstanding concerns. It's looking positive right now, but I'd like another comprehensive review before considering promotion, and I'm prepared to wait a few more days at least for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some loose ends could still be tidied up, but we seem to have the review + support from Ceoil now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not picking it sooner but this would be your first FAC, GeneralPoxter? If so I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One of the present reviewers might be able to undertake that, or you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, made a request for a spot check there. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * buidhe has completed spotcheck and plagiarism check. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
This is nearly three weeks in with no indications of support for promotion. Unless this changes in the next two or three days, the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado
I have started looking at this. Apart from a copyedit, it is looking good so far. --15:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time I have been able to review an article at FAC without any substantial comments. This is how FAC is supposed to be. I review in particular for quality of prose and flow, lack of inconsistencies and lack of sentences that raise more questions than they answer. If only to prove I did in fact read through the article I have a couple of minor comments: --Mirokado (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As a purely stylistic matter, I think lower-case alpha notes are clearer in the callout superscripts than upper-case alpha: that is the author's choice though.
 * In note D, British idiom would say that a price established in the past "was" rather than "is". Not sure about American idiom which would clearly be more appropriate in this case.
 * Thanks for your suggestions ! I'm not sure if American idiom has rules on this, but it makes logical sense for the verb to be in the past tense. However, I didn't change the notelist letter casing since it seems many of the featured art articles also use upper case (then again, those articles all seem to have been nominated and/or written by the same editor). GeneralPoxter (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)h
 * Thank you for the response. Support. --Mirokado (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil
Apologies for being so late with this. Overall very good, leaning support with some quibbles:
 * Can we say in the lead who, what and where is Art Bridges. Also give physical location in the infobox. A stub for Art Bridges would be lovely, but no pressure :)
 * I will consider adding an article soon and I did add further details about Art Bridges in the lead, but I'm not sure about the "where" detail. Even their LinkedIn does not include a location, and there doesn't seem to be a headquarters. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure they own it? I see a "request to borrow"!! link at the top of their collection page on the website, but am lost to who or what they actually are Ceoil  (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to their credit line under "Provenance" in the catalog. I assume the "request to borrow" is part of the foundation's purpose of loaning artwork to exhibitions. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I owned a fancy painting like this, wouldn't be advertising it for loan on the internet of all places. Do any of the other sources mention them? Ceoil  (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but that's also because all of them were written prior to the acquisition in 2020. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't find anything strange about a nonprofit offering to loan artwork, especially one founded by a notable art philanthropist. I also wouldn't really call this advertising since it's on their own website. (clicking on the request to borrow button does actually lead to a form for a loan inquiry) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'd be cautious here. Who handled the acquisition. Ceoil  (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Art Bridges, the purchase was made via the M. Hanks Gallery in Fullerton, CA. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * beliefs on education and race - "views on..." (or convictions), especially as the next sentence starts with "These beliefs were in turn".
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The Thankful Poor has been described as a milestone in African-American art, notably for its subject treatment that counters racial stereotypes. - "notably for its countering of racial stereotypes".
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Despite its critical support, The Thankful Poor would prove to be - "critical success"; "would prove to be" -> was
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * After being considered lost for years - considered lost is not quite right; why not just lost
 * Even the use of "lost" is kind of misleading in this case, so I reworded the entire sentence to better match the cited source. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  before entering the private collection of Camille and Bill Cosby in 1981 maybe just purchased by...for their private collection
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * would split the lead into 3 paragraphs: Intro (as is), themes, provenance (ie split the current para from "After being considered".
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * a study of the painting by Tanner is held by... - "a preparatory study is held by"?
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Tanner's parents valued education, and their views went on to shape Tanner's art - Which views...only on education?
 * Not necessarily only their views on education, but in the context of this sentence, yes. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Both graduated from Avery College, ran schools - "ran" schools?
 * By "ran", I meant that they both managed/headed schools. Wording has been changed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  Furthermore, Tanner's father 
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * skills should be communicated from one generation to another - "passed" from. but which skills?
 * In the source, it seems these skills regard any that help one support a living, so I added that in. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Tanner was also influenced by family friend and educator Booker T. Washington, with whom he shared the belief that skills should be communicated from one generation to another.[5] Race was another factor that impacted Tanner. Is that all he really took from Booker T. It reads odd that the next sentence says that otherwise, seemingly apart from Booker T., be became racically aware
 * The source from which I got this information (Taylor) does not make further connections between Tanner and Washington as far as I know. Though it does say Washington's own beliefs on race were influenced by Tanner, it does not say so explicitly vice versa. It does however, draw a mutual connection with respect to African-American education, but the passage (page 30) doesn't hint at any racial awareness in Tanner evoked by Washington. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * which incorporated a sense of racial injustice - "incorporated a sense" is not right here..."highlighted" or "drew attention to racial injustice and inequality."
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * photographed models which Tanner made in that period - same people Tanner had photographed
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * after Tanner returned temporarily to the United States - as we say shortly that he then returned to Paris
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Particularly moved by the increasing number of lynchings against African Americans,  - surely more outraged or distressed, rather than "moved".
 * The wording on page 72 of Woods 2017 uses "particularly moved Tanner". I agree that the response surely would have been more impassioned than just "moved", but no other content in the source suggests so as far as I know. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Following the appearance of The Banjo Lesson, many... - "Following the showing of..." Paintings don't just "appear", they are displayed...
 * Fact. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Tanner turned away from painting African Americans  - Moved away from would be better, as "turned" implies disapproval or something
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Have more to say but it might be later in the week if that's fine with Ian re keeping open; I do expect to end up supporting. Ceoil  (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize for the lateness, and thank you for these detailed comments. I have applied them as best I could to the article. Please let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, General. Largely happy with the replies.
 * The construct "Thankful Poor" appears 40 times in the text, and makes for somewhat repetitive reading. Can you vary please.
 * Usage of "The Thankful Poor" reduced to 24 in the prose. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * African American or African-American...you use both.
 * This was addressed on the peer review incorrectly. Per User:Buidhe and MOS:HYPHEN on compound modifiers, when used as an adjective, this article hyphenates. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Repetition:  Rather, the genre painting depicts a daily ritual for lower-class African Americans. In The Thankful Poor, Tanner chose to capture the hardships of African-American life through a realistic scene. - suggest you chose one phrasing and cut the number of words in half - maybe "...daily ritual for lower-class African Americans through a realistic scene" and "then" explain of what of
 * Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The reduced image in the infobox doesn't give justice to his painterly skills and technique. Maybe some crops later on? Ceoil  (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "crops". When comparing the Wikimedia image to the catalog entry on ArtBridges, the painting does not appear to be cropped. However, the resolution is quite low, so I increased the scaling to 1.75 in the infobox. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I mean can you add a few crops/details at higher res in sections were you discuss the paintings style. Like here.  Ceoil  (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Problem is, high-resolution versions of The Thankful Poor are hard to come by online. I guess the existing image is suitable enough for cropping, but I'd rather wait until someone finds a better resolution version of the painting. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that likely though? Even having larger views of sections would be helpful in showing the detail and skill not apparent in the infobox img. Not a deal breaker though. Ceoil  (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Do you think cropped sections of the elder and the boy's faces would be sufficient? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what was thinking too. Would put both in portrait format, while including the boys hand. Ceoil  (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All right I added them to the article. This is my first time adding cropped details of paintings, so any feedback is appreciated. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they look great! Ceoil  (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I pinged one of the coordinators, and hopefully Nikkimaria is satisfied with my removal of the location parameters, so hopefully this nomination is ready to go now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. But with these image additions, I wonder if the two paras from that beginning with "Tanner's stylistic choice for...." would be better in "description" rather than "analysis" (a section I would anyway retitle as "interpretation"). This is a choice for you to make...does not effect the support below. Ceoil  (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm I'm not sure about the paragraph beginning with "Tanner's stylistic choice", since it seems to go deeper than a surface-level observation of the composition, especially with Woods' quote at the end. However, I did move the comparisons with Nourse and Steen to Description and retitled the Analysis section. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better again. Ceoil  (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyways, am happy to Support at this stage, as mentioned above this is an excellent survey of the painting. Ceoil  (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Johnbod

 * Support (on a quickish read-through, I admit). Nothing much to say - I don't suppose we know the latest price?  Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This somewhat relates to the lack of Art Bridges information that Ceoil and I were discussing above. So far, the most up-to-date source I could find on the painting's credit line is from Art Bridges themselves, and they don't specify how much they purchased it for. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It recently came from Bill Cosby's private collection, which I imagine somewhat taints it, so knock down I'm supposing, which fits in with its new owners lack of transparency. I'm guessing "Art Bridges" is a foundation for a private collection that wishes to remain anonymous, but haven't really looked. Ceoil  (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it says on Art Bridge's website as well as in the Greenberger source that it is a nonprofit that loans artwork it has collected to travel shows, exhibitions, etc. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine. You might have mentioned the Greenberger source earlier here, when I specifically asked for non Art Bridge back-up, rather than leaving us wondering. Ceoil  (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, I thought when you asked "Do any of the other sources mention them?", you meant whether they mentioned the acquisition in particular. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get it now, thanks. Interesting stuff. Ceoil  (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Walton (Walmart) money, & foundations/owners with no public display facility of their own are often readier to loan for various periods. Some charge these days, I think, but the Waltons hardly need the money, & loans can enhance the value of a work (which is one reason the National Gallery has so many). Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. Art bridges so could be linked to here. Ceoil  (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe wait for the actual article, since that section of Walton's article does not even mention Art Bridges. Also wondering if Art Bridges satisfies notability to be an article? Apart from the ArtNews article, I was not able to find any significant mentions of the foundation in media. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * any mention could be just confined to the section in her bio. Ceoil  (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Aza24
I don't think I'll get around to doing a proper review but two comments:
 * "The work is based on photographs which Tanner himself took and is influenced by Tanner's views on education and race. These beliefs were influenced by Tanner's father and the African Methodist Episcopal Church." reads awkwardly and a bit choppy. Try avoid using "influence" twice in a row and I almost wonder if these sentences could be combined, say "Based on photographs which Tanner himself took, the work is influenced by his views on education and race, which are intern derived from those of his father and the African Methodist Episcopal Church" or something
 * Sounds good. Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The ordering of sections perplexes me. I would think that the history section should follow the background, to keep chronology. Additionally, the "interpretations" sections feels like it should be the last section, as its other commentators giving their views on Tanner's work. I also wonder if the description section could be first, as the work is first and foremost a painting, so it might make sense to describe the painting itself to the reader, before delving into its history and such. Maybe Description > Background > History > Interpretations? Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All right I reordered the sections as specified above, and the flow seems to have improved. I did have to reorder some of the pictures around to minimize white space and bleeding into other sections, so maybe take a look to check if the new layout looks fine? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * you have quite a bit of text squash and white space now between and around the images. Ceoil  (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, I've always seemed to struggle at image formatting. Honestly, I'm not sure if the new arrangement is better than the old one, but I think at least the gallery should be moved into Descriptions in this new content ordering. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, in the end. For the images, some are discussed in detail in the interpretation section, perhaps moving one or two of these there would help lighten up the description section. Aza24 (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm satisfied with the current arrangement tweaked by Ceoil, so I guess we'll just keep it like that for now. Problem is, the Interpretation section isn't that big either, so moving some images down there may cause them to bleed into the Footnotes and References. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Source checks
Will do on talk soon. Pass, no issues found (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt review. Did this review include a plagiarism check, or is plagiarism a separate review? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism check
I ran a plagiarism check on this article using Earwig's copyvio tool, and the only major "violation" appears to be a page clearly lifted from the Wikipedia article. Does the plagiarism check necessarily have to be done by a third party, especially if the tools being used are the same? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's good to check the offline sources as well, but I did check some and found no plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a place like source check request to request a full plagiarism review? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need one as I would consider the checks I did to be sufficient. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll ping the coordinator again to tell them we're finished. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For clarity I agree the Earwig check is clean. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)