Talk:Eleanore Mikus

Article structure

I took a tiny first step toward creating a lead section; of course it needs to be revised, and fleshed out to properly describe and categorize her work, and sum up what's in the article. Also looked at some other artist bios and made a crude attempt to section the article, anyone with another idea feel free to hack away at sections and titles. Article is still in need of rearrangement, a tough-love copyedit, and more online references, especially to reviews. --CliffC (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Extraneous names

One logical step before doing much of the above would seem to be to strip out extraneous names and places, that is, those that don't 'advance the plot'. --CliffC (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tags

When an article has 'citation needed' or 'clarification needed' tags, the problem noted needs to be corrected before the tag is removed. For example, where the article says "They were unlike anything being done at the time^{[citation needed]}, someone needs to provide a citation to a reliable source making that statement, within a reasonable time frame (usually a month), or the tagged statement may be removed by any editor.

The statement "Mikus' work was gaining in recognition and it was at this time that Dorothy Miller, the curator from the Museum of Modern Art, chose a white tablet painting for MoMA as a gift of Louise Nevelson" is confusing, and calls for clarification – who gave what to who? I am further confused because I don't see any works by Mikus listed in the MoMA catalog. Am I overlooking something?

I've restored the tags. --CliffC (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources and photo

(Section moved here from User talk:CliffC)

Appreciate your time. Have a question on why a new reference is needed for ....They were unlike anything being done at the time. Her work....innovative [1] The reference source covers the two sentences.

Can you tell me how to cite the Hobbs book on the sources for Eleanore Mikus article? According to the Hobbs book on page 71, (Tablet 84), Louise Nevelson did donate a work to MoMA. Also have been informed that by the end of March, the work will be listed in the MoMa catalog.

Finally, I do have a photo of some of Mikus' art work -- not sure how I can post it? I took it when the artist had a recent show. Thank you for your help. Mikusart (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Mikusart

I left "They were unlike anything being done at the time" tagged because it sounds, at least to my ears, promotional and perhaps not entirely factual considering the media she works in. Perhaps it would be better to reword the statement using an exact quote, quote marks and all, direct from the source. If those are the exact words used, make it clear this is someone's personal opinion by saying something like "according to Robert Hobbs, ...". Right now it sounds like brochure-speak, similar to the Marlborough claim here for her 2008 show, "...much of the new work in this show will be unlike anything seen previously", and not like an encyclopedic statement.

The Hobbs citations are fine except each lacks a specific a page number. The Nevelson sentence needs expansion and explanation; it would also help to give readers an idea of approximately what year "at this time" was.

As to uploading your photo, maybe someone else can chime in here with advice, you might look at WP:UPLOAD for starters, but images come with lots of copyright considerations. A photo of at least one representative Mikus work would be a big plus for the article. --CliffC (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph needs attention

"Eleanore Mikus (born July 25, 1927 in Detroit, Michigan) is an American artist who crafted the Humanist Minimalism style of art and also the Neo-expressionism. She also uniquely developed paperfolds by folding and creasing paper from 1961 to the present."

I'll be glad to take a shot at the grammar, but I think first someone needs to spell out exactly what "the Humanist Minimalism style of art" is; right now it's jargon at best and jargon requires explanation. An online citation would also be helpful. Also, using "crafted" makes her sound like a craftsman rather than an artist, is that what you want? --CliffC (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting references

Short question, reworked the references, but what am I missing to get the text like the rest of the page? I appreciate your time...worked and read on this section ...thank you for the help. --Mikusart-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that some references appear in a box in a fixed font because in editing they've been indented from the margin – just a Wikipedia "feature" that comes out to bite people every now and then. The longer answer, that will be more helpful, is that references don't need to be repeated if they are formatted 'to rule' within the <ref> ... </ref> tags. Reference formatting is one of the pickier and more frustrating areas of editing Wikipedia. I'll try to clean up the references later on today or tomorrow; conveniently I have discovered an {{rp}} template that makes it unnecessary to repeat an entire reference just to show a different page number. The article looks very good today, congratulations. --CliffC (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)