Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Upton Brumback

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Louise Upton Brumback

(

)

Bathers Along the Shore, 1910

~~... that one of the best-known American artists in the early 20th century was also a successful activist on behalf of young artists, particularly women?~~

ALT1: ~~... that one of the best-known American artists in the early 20th century participated in many public exhibitions but rarely showed her work in private galleries?~~

Created by Delabrede (talk). Self-nominated at 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC).

The proposed hook needs to include a link to the article. Often, the name of the article is used in the hook. For example: ALT1 could be rewritten as follows:
ALT2: ~~... that artist Louise Upton Brumback participated in many public exhibitions but rarely showed her work in private galleries?~~
ALT3: ~~... that artist Louise Upton Brumback believed that juried exhibitions unfairly prevented good art from being seen?~~
ALT4: ~~... that artist Louise Upton Brumback was said to be part of "the left wing of New York's feminine talent"?~~ Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article; it is new enough, long enough, and extensively cited. No obvious copyvios, (does use appropriate quotations, which are fine). I've suggested use of an image, since public domain images of many of her paintings are included in the article. The initial hooks did not include links to the article, and I would question identifying her as "one of the best-known American artists in the early twentieth century" (which is not stated anywhere in the article). The closest article text seems to be "credited with being one of the best women painters of the time". I've proposed alternative hooks, which I believe will pass muster, but someone else will have to sign off. Thanks for the new article! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

New reviewer to check hooks and complete this review. — Maile (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to help promote this, but was struck by the excessive length and detail of the article, which is just under 80,000 characters. I appreciate all the work the author put into this, but undue weight is being placed on the subject's personal and family history. Father, mother, and twin sister should not be under their own headers. If there is so much to say about her father, he should have his own article. I think the Personal Life section should be significantly condensed. The list of exhibitions could also be converted to prose and shortened, as multiple exhibitions occurred in the same year. Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Yoninah. I've condensed the "Personal life" section, eliminated some subheadings, condensed the "Exhibitions" section, and converted "Exhibitions" and "Memberships" sections to prose. The article is tighter now, but probably could use further review. Delabrede (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you did a great job! The weight is very well balanced now. Here is a new review: New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Image is pd. No QPQ necessary for nominator with less than 5 DYKs.
Regarding the hooks, I agree with Mary Mark Ockerbloom about removing the phrase "one of the best-known American artists", since that fact is only cited to a gallery write-up. It would be better to cite it to a more authoritative and neutral source like an encyclopedia or biographical dictionary. So I've struck ALT0 and ALT1.
ALT2 is AGF and cited inline, but the hook fact is contradicted later, in the first sentence under Exhibitions. ALT3 is AGF and cited inline. I think ALT4 is the best; it too is AGF and cited inline.
I'd like to know what you want to do about the image. It is a beautiful picture, but the words (painting pictured) or something similar would have to be inserted into the hook. Personally, I think ALT4 works better without a (pictured). Please let me know. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Yoninah.

The critic who used the phrase "left wing of New York's feminine talent" was referring to a group of painters. Brumback was included in the group but the critic did not single her out. In inserting the phrase in the article I worried that it might be misleading and almost added a note explaining context. I thought about saying as much when Mary Mark Ockerbloom suggested the hook; maybe I should have. Looking back at the hooks that have been suggested, I favor some version of the first. In researching Brumback's life, I was impressed by her generosity to young painters who were finding it difficult to show their work. That said, I have little experience with DYK and will happily defer to you (both) who have a lot.
Identifying the painting as such in the hook is a good idea.
Regarding ALT2 and private galleries: The hook is weak because it's difficult to explain. Brumback exhibited in commercial galleries, but not as much as other professional painters. She didn't need the money that sales would provide and (apparently) was not that interested in the prestige that would come from news reports of big-money sales. I suppose this could explained in the Exhibitions section, but the fact that she was less interested in selling works than than other painters were doesn't seem very interesting to me.

- Delabrede (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I agree with going with the first hook, but replacing the "best-known" part with her name, as Mary Mark Ockerbloom did in the alt hooks. Then it would read:
ALT5: ~~... that the early 20th century American artist Louise Upton Brumback (work pictured) was also a successful activist on behalf of young artists, particularly women?~~
However, the main thing to know about DYK is that the hook fact must be cited and sourced in the article. The ALT5 fact is mentioned in the lead without a source. Under the Art Activist section, the second line cites her being an activist for "artists", not "young artists", and the only thing mentioning women is that she was a founding member of the New York Society of Women Artists. There is nothing about her being "successful". Do you have a citation for the ALT5 hook fact? Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah:

I've included in the article a statement referring to the youth of the artists she aimed to help. (A critic writing in 1923 said she worked to advance the careers of "young men and women.")
The reference to women is based on implicit, not explicit evidence. I've removed it from the article.
Evidence of the success of her efforts is also implicit. The reform-oriented association of which she was president survived and seems to have thrived for some years (judging from a few mentions in the press), but I can't find a source that says outright that it was a success.
Conclusion: ALT5 isn't very compelling. Maybe there isn't a good DYK in this article.
- Delabrede (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We can ALWAYS find a hook, especially in an article of this length. How about:
ALT6: ... that American artist Louise Upton Brumback (painting pictured) said of artists as teachers that "the great ones won't teach their secrets, and the little ones have none to teach"?
ALT7: ... that artist Louise Upton Brumback (painting pictured) decorated her Kansas City, Missouri home with murals depicting scenes of Gloucester, Massachusetts, where she spent her summers? Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the only outstanding issue has been the hook; I would support the use of ALT7 which I have confirmed against the source cited. (I prefer it to ALT6 because the ALT6 information appears only in the note, not in the main body.)Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I noted while checking links that the URL for ref name="1900USCensus" was in fact a duplicate from an earlier ref (1875, I believe). I've taken out the bad URL, but you may want to replace it with an accurate link. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of approval, @Mary Mark Ockerbloom:, but we're still waiting for @Delabrede: to tell us his feelings on this new hook, or perhaps suggest another one. Yoninah (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, both! I like ALT6 and ALT7 equally well. I altered Early life to allow for ALT6. Here is the text of my source (so you can judge whether I've captured its meaning):

"Being advised to study, she sought the Summer classes of William M. Chase at Shinnecock, L.I., then considered the best in the country, and here she remained until she had mastered the art principles of painting and drawing. But, true to her character, she soon began to do her own thinking, and she decided that no master, however able, can teach individuality and self-expression in his pupils after they have absorbed all of the technicalities necessary upon which to rely for proportion, light and shade, values and color harmonies. So, presently she broke away to fathom the depths of art on her own responsibility, for she learned that to paint like the great ones would not come from schools. 'The great ones,' she says, 'won't teach their secrets, and the little ones have none to teach.'"

Thank you, @Delabrede:, that fits well into the Early Life section, and also has no close paraphrasing. I also prefer ALT6 for a lead slot with the image. Ready for final approval of ALT6 or ALT7. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Both ALT6 and ALT7 are cited in the article (though the source for ALT6 is apparently not available online). Both are short enough at just over 150 characters. However, I find ALT6 much more interesting than ALT7, so I recommend going with that one. And with that I believe this nomination is good to go! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)