Talk:Agnes Weinrich

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agnes Weinrich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113000241/http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/9aa/9aa612.htm to http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/9aa/9aa612.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Agnes Weinrich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 20:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hello, I'll begin reviewing this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Good spelling and grammar. Some clarity and conciseness issues:

   • Agnes studied at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago under John Vanderpoel, Nellie Walker, and others – The source also lists Frederick W. Freer and Ralph Elmer Clarkson. Is there any reason for the selection of names here?
   • This drawing is shown here (see Image No. 1). – This format interrupts the flow of the text. Instead of numbering the images, perhaps it would be better to write out their full titles in the text. With a few exceptions, articles shouldn’t reference themselves by saying things like "here". This applies to all 12 such labels.
   • Weinrich was somewhat in advance of Knaths in adopting a modernist style. – This could probably be reworded.
   • This critic characterized the artists as "radicals" – This is a redundancy as the word "radicals" was already used in the previous quote.
   • Critics were not always pleased with what they saw, but occasionally balanced their critiques with praise. – This could be said of just about any artist, and I don’t think this sentence adds anything to the article.
   • she received one unqualified rave review – Is this a technical term?
   • News sources report three solo exhibitions – Avoid attributing to vague "news sources". It might read better if it said "She held multiple solo exhibitions, including..." or something to that effect.
   • Its main source is Louise Noun's article on Weinrich in Woman's Art Journal – This list doesn’t need attribution, particularly if some of the attributed sources don’t have corresponding inline citations. It would probably be better to remove this sentence and apply inline citations where appropriate.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead:

   • The first sentence should include dates of birth, nationality, and occupation. It should begin: Agnes Weinrich (July 16, 1873 – April 17, 1946) was an American visual artist...
   • The lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD. It should touch on each major stage of her career, her style, and general reception to her work. The rule of thumb is that if there's a section about it in the article, it should at least be mentioned in the lead.
   • The quote in the lead is unnecessary. The lead should only be a summary. It needs to be either moved to the relevant section or removed entirely.

   Layout:

   • Is there any significance to how the sections are divided into early years, mid-career, and last years? Usually you'll want to divide up sections into distinct periods of the subject's life. Why does her mid-career begin in 1920? At the same time, early years is very long. I suggest redoing the headings (and adding subheadings if necessary).
   • Currently, most of the information about her art is incorporated into her biography. To a certain extent, this makes sense. But as the biography gets too unwieldy, it might be worth considering moving more of the criticism into the critical reception section and moving more detailed information about her general style or her works into their own sections, leaving the biography sections to be just about what she was doing and how her career changed over time.
   • There are many line breaks. It might be worth looking through to see if there are any smaller paragraphs that can be combined into full size paragraphs.

   No significant words to watch, fiction, or list concerns.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   • The references list itself is acceptable. However, there is currently an empty "Notes" section and an "Other sources" section that appears to be a WP:GENREF section. Do the other sources serve a purpose? If they do, they need to be added as inline citations so it's clear what they're supporting. If they're not, they should be removed.
   • Weinrich's principal biographer, Louise Noun. – According to whom is Noun her principal biographer? This shouldn't be claimed unless it's stated as a biographical fact in its own right with a citation.
   • Broken reference tags in Last years (Her output continued to vary in subject matter and treatment.) and Critical reception (an environment where men attracted more critical attention and sold more works of art.)
   • It appears that the Provincetown Arts source has the information split between two pages. It’s a minor issue, but since this is citing an exact quote, it’s important that the information be cited correctly.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Sources appear to be reliable; most are newspapers or art institutions. All quotes and opinions have inline citations.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Information in article accurately reflects the sources that I examined.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Passed WP:EARWIG test. This article is heavily dependent on direct quotations, but none of them are significant enough to represent a plagiarism issue.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   • I get a good sense of what her artwork looked like based on the pictures, but I couldn't tell you the significance of it after reading the article. Is there more information on her style and its impact on modernist art? Did her significance extend beyond Provincetown and New York?
   • The lead also mentions other things such as lithographs and etchings that get very little attention in the body. The article doesn't need to list every work she ever produced, but it should provide a thorough description of her work as a whole.
   • Regarding her biography, is there more that she did in the 1920s? Her early life has lots of information about her activities, but starting in the mid-career section, it slows down and just describes some of her works, telling me very little about where she was or what she was doing. The last years section does this even more so, giving only a few sentences that cover the entirety of the 1930s and 1940s. It says that she was still working during this time and implies that there's more to be told, but it provides no further information.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No unnecessary detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No neutrality issues. Art criticism is presented neutrally.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Article is stable.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   • Most images are good. As an artist biography, heavy image use is to be expected. Image of artist is justified with fair use tag. Night City provided a fair use justification that there is no alternative for works of that part of her life.
   • Old Houses, however, seems to have a tenuous fair use argument, and I suspect that it could be removed or replaced by a public domain work.
   • Image alignment won't affect the GA review, but I would suggest watching out for MOS:SANDWICH issues, and I wonder if a proper WP:GALLERY format would work better for the four images in a row.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are of the artist, her work, or works that directly inspired hers. All images have detailed captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm putting this review on hold for seven days. Much of the content and information is very good and meets the GA criteria, but there are still issues that need to be addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Thebiguglyalien. I have tried to correct the problems you identified without adding new ones. In one or two instances — details of later life for example — I was hampered by lack of information, and noted this fact. My numbering of images was a somewhat awkward attempt to help readers using small screens to relate images to text. I followed your suggestion but am not sure the result is better than the awkwardness and self-referencing of the numbering approach. -- Delabrede (talk)

Great work on the improvements! I have a few notes, though the last one is really the only essential one:

• It looks like you've solved all of the prose concerns, and I don't see that any new ones were introduced. The lead also looks good.
• The references have mostly been cleaned up. It would be helpful if more of the sources had links to where they're available online, but that's just a suggestion for the future. I would also consider looking at Note 2 and replacing them proper inline citations, whether in the note or attached to the items in the list.
• The images are good. If anything, I would suggest adding a few more (though again, this is just a suggestion and won't be considered for the review). Critical reception has room for an image, perhaps one that was the subject of a notable art critic's writing or demonstrates one of the key aspects that critics noted. Exhibitions could also use an image if there's a source saying that she showed the given work in one of the exhibitions. And if it were me personally, I would center the galleries on the page so that they look nicer on desktop, but that's just a style preference.
• Available sources give little information about the latter stages of her career. – While it may be true, this seems to be original research and probably shouldn't be included without a source explicitly saying that this information is unknown.
• Is there any information on what happened in her final years or how she died?
• The main concern at this point is the artistic style section. It tacks on the subject to the end of the career section, making it appear that she only developed a style at the end of her career. It should probably be its own section. And on this subject, I feel that more can still be said. Style is a critical aspect of any article about an artist and should be covered in a reasonable level of detail. It covers her cubism well enough, but does she incorporate modernist or abstract art concepts in any other ways? It also does an adequate job of discussing her influences/inspirations, but this would be a good section to go into detail on that should it be necessary. I also think it could go more in depth on subject matter. Note 1 basically tells the reader to go find out more about subject matter on their own, but that information should probably be included in the article.

Essentially, once information on her style is sufficiently covered and organized, this should meet the GA criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've done another upgrade. Hard to read it with anything like fresh eyes anymore, but it scans ok. -- Delabrede (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Great work! I'll go ahead and pass the review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Agnes Weinrich was on the jury that selected the artworks for the first modernist exhibition? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20150113000241/http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/9aa/9aa612.htm
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tropical Storm Hermine (2022)

Improved to Good Article status by Delabrede (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC).

Expansive work on an interesting life, GA on plenty of good sources, subscription and offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The hook is a bit too concise for my taste, - could you offer the location, firstly because the German-sounding name might suggest Austria, and secondly because I doubt it was the first worldwide. For the article - not for DYK but for FA perhaps: the galleries are too rich, drop some or split it more with more commentary. The juxtaposition of her work to that of others gets lost if not pointed out, and the fence thing is just too small to work within a gallery. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know exactly where the modernist exhibtion talks about so I'm going to ping @Delabrede: to see if they know. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Onegreatjoke: In 1927 the Provincetown Art Association complied with a demand made by the artist Ross Moffett and others to hold two separate art exhibitions each year, one for artists considered to be conservative and the other for artists considered to be modernist. The 2011 essay by James R. Bakker, cited in the Weinrich article, says that Weinrich was one of the jurors for that exhibition. Moffett wrote in his memoir, Art in Narrow Streets: "The first Modernistic Exhibition, as it was called in the catalog, opened July 2, 1927 and closed July 25. The committee in charge of this exhibition, in reality a jury and hanging committee, consisted of [there follows the names of eleven artists plus Weinrich]." (Kendall Print Company, 1964, p. 48). -- Delabrede (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. I am still not convinced that this exhibition was the first one would call "modernist" in the world - as the hook suggests. Certainly in Provincetown, perhaps in the U.S., but for worldwide, I'd suppose in France, uless we argue that it would be called "moderne" or whatever French and not "modernist". - We could just say when and where instead of this "first", placing it early in art history. We don't need a detour to ERRORS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The 1927 exhibition in Provincetown could never be considered the first modern show in the US (much less the world). The generally accepted view is that the famous Armory Show of 1913 was the first (with the necessary qualifications "of its size" and "given its lasting significance"). The terms "modern" and "modernist" are unprecise. In late 19th c. America, the term was generally applied to the American artists who rejected the academic style in favor of Impressionism. In the early 20th c. it was used to describe the group around Robert Henri. Only later was is commonly used in the US to describe works that were influenced by the European trend toward abstraction (another unprecise term, in this case meaning the works of Cézanne, the Cubists, and their like). If the 1927 exhibition in Provincetown has any special significance, it probably lies in its use of the word "modernistic" in its title. Not that it proves anything but put the word in the Google Books Ngram Viewer to see how infrequently it was used before then. The exhibition is described in some detail in this source: The Beginnings of the Provincetown Art Association and Museum (an exhibition catalog, published in 1990 by the museum, and available online from the Provincetown History Project. -- Delabrede (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

English isn't my native language. For me, the hook as written implies "the first ever". Therefore, if the first in her hometown, or whatever, that should be added to not mislead. "could never be considered" - what do we know about the background of our readers? If - as I read in the comment - it's an early occurrence of the word "modernist" in an exhibition title, I suggest say so. And if that is too complicated, how about saying something else about her? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Suggesting closure of this nomination as there has been no engagement for over two months. The only supplied hook is not workable for reasons outlined in the discussion above, and no progress has been made towards finding an alternative hook. 97198 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)