Talk:Ruth Matilda Anderson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Parts of this article were translated from the page Ruth Matilda Anderson in the Spanish Wikipedia, version of 2022-09-12.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Ruth M. Anderson recorded a "timeless" Spain in her photographs of the 1920s? Source: The Women of the Hispanic Society [1]

Created by Munfarid1 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Munfarid1, this looks like an engaging article, and I am always pleased to see a new biography of a woman. Sourcing issues disqualify it from DYK for the time being, however. A couple of paragraphs lack citations, and a random check of citation #5 found that the cited source does not, in fact, verify the information which it is supposed to verify. Once this is all sorted out, I will continue with the review. Surtsicna (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Surtsicna, thanks for pointing this out. I have checked and added all sources and made some minor changes to the text accordingly.Munfarid1 (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello again Surtsicna, haven't seen you here for a while. Do you still intend to continue the review? Thanks, Munfarid1 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; the response eluded me despite the ping! The article qualifies as new, long enough, and neutral. Though some paragraphs cite only one source, I do not see any close paraphrasing. There are still some sourcing problems: namely the birth and death dates and places require citations. Also I believe the death should be mentioned in the prose. The hooks are all fine except possibly the "interesting to a broad audience" part. I think something hookier can be produced from such an interesting biography, possibly by shuffling or emphasizing some of the facts, like how she trekked across Spain on horseback, ferry, and foot, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added sources and a sentence on her birth and death in the text. Also, I have tried to improve hooks ALT1 and ALT2. But actually, I like ALT3 best for DYK.
ALT3 looks like it has the most potential to me too, but currently it is somewhat underwhelming. Perhaps we could play with it a bit:
  • ALT4:... that because noble gentlemen did not reveal their inner garments, Ruth M. Anderson turned to executioners, flagellators, and soldiers?
    Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT4a:... that because noble gentlemen did not reveal their underwear, Ruth M. Anderson turned to pictures of executioners, flagellators, and soldiers?
    Munfarid1 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT4 looks great, thank you and let's go ahead. Munfarid1 (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am signing off on the article but I believe another reviewer is needed to approve ALT4. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gerda_Arendt, as you are experienced in DYK reviews and probably don't mind reading about Ruth Matilda Anderson, you could probably help to answer the question by Surtsicna and help to get the DYK nomination on the right track. Thanks in advance, Munfarid1 (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation. Sorry, I am no fan of the catchy ALT4. Not knowing that she is a photographer and illustrator, I'd see her turning to people who are executioners etc. - Isn't "underware" more common than "inner garments"? I believe all three other hooks are less misleading, and approved. I am open for a rewording of ALT4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked closer at the article, I'd also like a rewording of ALT3, clarifying that for Spanish costumes, she could take underware not from nobility. - She didn't "illustrated the Renaissance costumes of Spanish nobility", unless I missed something. I believe ALT1 has no such problems and works fine for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt comments, Gerda_Arendt. Actually, she did illustrate the nobility's costumes by adding cropped details of illustrations showing underwear of people of the lower social strata. - I have used the word "underwear" now in ALT4a, but given the fact that she is most notable for her photographic work, I now prefer ALT1 too. Do you want to decide, so we can finish this review Surtsicna?
Thanks for the explanation. Nothing needs to be done right now, all hooks except ALT4 got a green tick by Surtsicna. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Munfarid1 and Gerda Arendt: I was going to promote ALT3, but I'm concerned about its sourcing to Anderson's own book. Is there a secondary source that demonstrates due weight for all that article text, and this hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello theleekycauldron, yes, there is a review as a secondary source, and I just added it to the hook. As @Gerda Arendt: said, I still prefer ALT1. Munfarid1 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Munfarid1: I'm pretty set on taking ALT3, as I consider it the hookiest and most informative. If you'd like to retract it, you're welcome to do so. Otherwise, could you please add the secondary cite into the article, at the end of the relevant sentence? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone experiences things and writes about them, how will there normally be anybody who was just an independent observer? - If we don't trust that what she wrote in a published book is fact, can we say that she wrote in a book that this was so? - Today - as often - the Main page is unbalanced because DYK hooks are short, so length should be no problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I'm not sure what you mean, TFA+DYK is longer than ITN+OTD in what you've linked. And the average hook measures over 100 characters. I notice that your own hook stands at 180. re: If we don't trust that what she wrote in a published book is fact, can we say that she wrote in a book that this was so? The issue is that I'm not inclined to simply publish someone's statements without any inkling from an RS that these statements are due weight, justified for inclusion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the subject, and making sure we talk about ALT1: she walked and travelled on horeseback, possibly alone. Which other independent source could we have? Do we need some observer from the time long ago who certifies that or can't we just trust her? The fact that she took these images has several independent sources. - Reply to the Main page: I talk about how it looks on e device with TFA and DYK left, ITN and OTD right, and on my device and with my setup, DYK and OTD begin at almost the same level, but OTD is longer in the example, with the three anniversaries already left of whitespace. --I argue for making this particular hook a bit longer if needed to say that she wrote that she walked and travelled on horseback. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that this secondary source attributes to her writing in making the claim; what i need is attention from a secondary source, so that we can say that RSes say that this an important detail worth covering in an encyclopedia article. This isn't about WP:V, it's about WP:DUE; we don't let subjects of a biography control what makes it into their article and what doesn't. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Theleekycauldron: I don't really understand your comment "we don't let subjects of a biography control what makes it into their article and what doesn't." After all, it's not the subject of a biography, but the editor who makes such choices, respecting WP:DUE of course. I was not aware that hooks have to correspond in detail to information given in RS, and this seems to be rather rare in view of our expectations for catchy hooks. - Anyway, is there any guidance on WP how I can summarize the contents of a book, if I can't find an adequate synopsis in a RS? Thanks for your advice on this. Munfarid1 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Munfarid1: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's not the subject of a biography, but the editor who makes such choices, respecting WP:DUE of course. that's what I'm saying! :)
I was not aware that hooks have to correspond in detail to information given in RS, They don't, but articles do. I'm wondering why several substantial paragraphs are sourced to her own work, covering themselves – if they were shrunk in accordance with WP:DUE, using only primary sourcing, I doubt the hook was make the cut.
Anyway, is there any guidance on WP how I can summarize the contents of a book, if I can't find an adequate synopsis in a RS? WP:PRIMARY, I suppose? It depends on whether there's a dearth of substantial coverage re: the contents or the work. If there are reviews, but they don't provide good recaps, maybe you could get away with sourcing the synopsis to the work itself as a kind of faux-MOS:PLOTSOURCE, while also including reception/analysis secondarily. If there's no substantial coverage of the work... why does it get a paragraph? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about ALT1, preferred by nominator and reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:, responding to your remark about the necessary quote from the secondary source about ALT3, I have to retract it and have just striked it out. - As to my preference for ALT1, there is a source that I hope meets all requirements. Munfarid1 (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Munfarid1: Okay, someone'll take a look when they promote the hook. If someone wants to promote the article with the primarily-sourced paragraphs, they're welcome to. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:, why can't we use ALT1? It has been reviewed, accepted and there is a secondary, not a primary source. Munfarid1 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Munfarid1: I never said ALT1 wasn't viable :) when I was talking about the primarily-sourced paragraphs, I meant that in the context of an article policy issue. WP:PRIMARY says that an article can't largely be based on such sources, but that's open to interpretation. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I don't understand why you say that this article may be interpreted as being "largely based on primary sources". Out of 29 sources, there are only three primary ones, which I needed as I was quoting directly from them. All the other ones IMO are reliable secondary sources, covering at least 90% of the article, and every paragraph has a footnote for them. - Possibly, you got the wrong impression, because the exhibition catalog with the introductory text by Lenaghan, ref. 29, (and other catalogs in the Literature list) names Ruth M. Anderson as co-author? But actually, her name only refers to the photographs in the catalog, not to any text by her. - Maybe these explanations may clear up any misunderstanding, and you might be ready to promote this nomination to DYK? Munfarid1 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating this article. I just looked through some of your other creations. Very impressive work! Nice meeting you here..

Netherzone (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netherzone, and thanks for your help and appreciation. I just added a note at the end of the paragraph you signalled for CN. Footnote 7 now reads: See her own publications below and those of others in the list of literature. - Is this sufficient? - My pleasure meeting you here, too, and always happy about your interest and improvements on my text. Munfarid1 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! That seems sufficient to me, but you might want a second opinion. I noticed above that is is nominated for DYK - it will be great to see this on the Main Page. I'm wondering if you might want to ask one of the DYK regulars - what I do know is that every paragraph must have a citation. I'm not sure if they expect a secondary source for something like that. I'm so pleased to learn of your work here especially the articles on Sudanese artists, photographers and visual arts in general. See you around! Netherzone (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, another editor promised to review my DYK nomination, and I will be happy to share the article there. - Your interest and comments regarding this and some of my other articles is greatly appreciated. Looking forward to seeing you around, too. Munfarid1 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruth_Matilda_Anderson&oldid=1204847888"