Wikipedia

Talk:Mary Beth Edelson/GA1

< Talk:Mary Beth Edelson
Latest comment: 4 years ago by CaroleHenson in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago152 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 17:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Initial comment

edit

I'll take this on as part of the GAN Backlog Drive April–May 2020. I should start the review today or tomorrow. Mujinga (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Excellent! Thanks so much for your review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hiya thanks for the response, I have started the review since I didn't see reasons for an immediate fail although I do think the article will need a bit of restructuring. I'll ping dyou when I'm done (not sure if that will be today), or you are welcome to answer things as I go but I might end up answering my own queries as well :) Mujinga (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hiya! I was a bit confused about how to group the subsections under "Artist". I am happy to do the work if you give me a couple of thoughts of what you recommend or the nature of the problem.
And, yes, please feel free to address any issues directly.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi CaroleHenson your edits so far look great! I think I'd like to carry on my sweep to the end before returning to your replies, but I've read over them and I'm feeling quite confident we can bring this up to GA status. I'll carry on now, I'll try to keep to subsections so you can carry on working on other bits if you like, without edit conflicts. Since I couldn't find a useful specific artist template to follow for overall structure and I'm a bit confused how best to deal with her various married names, I might ask at WP:WIG since they should be able to help, but again I'll do the sweep first. Mujinga (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi Mujinga, I am glad the edits are looking good! Regarding her name. She is predominantly known as "Mary Beth Edelson". I think her maiden name is dealt with in "Mary Beth Edelson was born Mary Elizabeth Johnson in East Chicago, Indiana, in 1933." And, her first married name with: "She married a lawyer, Jerome M. Strauss, on June 5, 1959[12][13] and then lived as Mary Beth Strauss in Indianapolis.[8]" This was her Matisse period.
Her notable work was done as Mary Beth Edelson. I am not sure what more needs to be done regarding her name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes we are getting there! The infobox needed updating, but that's been done. Otherwise maybe just change She married Alfred H. Edelson, the CEO of Rytex Stationery, in late December 1964. to 'She married Alfred H. Edelson, the CEO of Rytex Stationery, in late December 1964 and became Mary Beth Edelson'. It's sort of obvious already but since she was Strauss in the previous paragraph i think it helps Mujinga (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, will do.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done Mujinga (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Review

edit

Copyvio check

edit

Earwig throws up some hits but it's just quotations

Lead

edit
  • I'll do this last - I've done the first sweep and there's a bit of work to be done, so I'll postpone making comments here yet Mujinga (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Comments on lead:
  • per MOS:LEAD there should be 3 or 4 paragraphs, four would work here. i think para1 is already pretty good, although we have a quote "first generation feminist artists." which is not currently referenced in the text, so that could be rephrased
First generation feminist artists is mentioned in the first sentence of the Feminist art movement section. And, it's cited.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
my mistake, i think it's because i keyword searched including the full stop so I didn't find the quote. Mujinga (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • pioneer in the feminist art movement would 'pioneer of' read better?
  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • could add a few examples of where she has taught
  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • the Matisse reference is for me controversial right now, but hopefully can be resolved
I reworded the sentence based upon the change below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • she owned a gallery in Indianapolis checking which gallery this is, after prior discussions
Alfred Edelson bought Talbot Gallery for her. Second paragraph of Relationships and children section. It was changed to she is president of 1444 Gallery. Do you think that Talbot Gallery should be mentioned in the intro?.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • now The Negotiation and Kali Bobbitt have subsections in the text i think they can be added in
  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • something about the goddess could be worked in
I added some explanation about what "goddesses" was about   Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • She was a figure in the feminist art movement in Washington, D.C. right now this seems a bit repetitive compared to the beginning statement pioneer in the feminist art movement, but i am asking for it to be rephrased, not deleted. A mention of A.I.R. and heresies would be good too
  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • marking   Not done simply to keep track
I will finish this up tomorrow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done. It's much better, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
yes it looks good now, i made some edits, feel free to revert Mujinga (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Infobox

edit

Early life and education

edit

Relationships and children

edit
  • then lived in Indianapolis - suggest adding as Mary Beth Strauss
  • By 1961, she owned the 1444 Gallery.[14][15] - did she own it? 14 says she was president and 15 doesn't say anything about it
    • I cannot find it. It seems to me that it was an Indianapolis Star article where she was mentioned as Mrs. with her husband's name, but I cannot find it. I know it took two sources.
    • Since I cannot find the right source, I changed it to "president", removed the #15 citation, and updated the lede. See this.
    •   Done Mujinga (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Her experience is told in Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody - this reads to me like our heroine was the author, so need to add Phyllis Chesler's book
  • Apparently pseudonyms were used in the book for Edelson and her daughter. Experiences of an artist who uses goddesses as a theme in her work (notec) I'm a bit confused here. We would need a citation for the pseudonym claim and the second sentence I don't understand. Maybe you can reformulate or remove?
  • She married Alfred H. Edelson, the CEO of Rytex Stationery,[7][17] soon after December 23, 1964.[15] - this sentence is hard to parse because of the refs in the middle and the soon after with an exact date for a wedding, can you reformulate it?
  • She had four children by 1967,[7] including Eric (born before 1960), Lynn[19] or Lynni (born about 1963), David (born about 1964),[7] and Nick (born about 1967).[9][20] - this sentence also reads quite weirdly, with the references and the born abouts, can you reformulate? (The dates of birth are not crucial here)
    • The dates weren't critical, but it helps explain the fathers, which could be resolved by adding surnames. In any event, I removed dobs and added a range of years in which the children were born. See this diff.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • ah yes i didn't catch the different fathers
  • In 1968, she left Indianapolis for Washington, D.C. with her husband, Alfred H. Edelson.[21] She returned to New York in 1976 with Robert Stackhouse, also an artist. They have lived in Soho in a loft with a living area and two studios, one for each artist.[9] Stackhouse married artist Carol Mickett sometime before 2003.[22] - there's quite a lot that needs unpacking here, if i have it right she moved with A. Edelson and then split up and got together with Stackhouse, who she lived with for decades. Then they split up and Stackhouse married someone else. Is that correct? And does that leave Mary Beth single?
  • Also at this stage it's worth checking does she have a total of 4 kids?
Looks good, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Artist

edit
  • This large section needs restructuring, I would suggest. It's uneven at present because it puts for example her involvement in the feminist art movement alongside one of her works. I think the main headings should be 'Early Career' & 'Feminist art movement' & 'Exhibitions'. I think Collections should either be moved out to its own section or incorporated elsewhere. That leaves us with the rest: Some Living American Women Artists / Last Supper, Story Gathering Boxes and The Negotiation could be gathered under a section titled 'Notable works' or similar. Then 'Goddess metaphor' and 'Nude women's bodies' I'm not sure about, maybe a section called 'Inspiration' or 'Technique'. What do you think?

Early career

edit
  • compared to Henri Matisse - sorry because she is saying people say that about her, I think this claim should be removed unless a reliable secondary source can be found also saying it
    • The new citation is better but it is repeating what Edelson said at a presentation. I still feel that it should be possible to find a reference in an academic or encyclopaedic work which discusses the influence of Matisse on her work, perhaps the two other artists as well. I'm concerned because it's a big claim. Mujinga (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I tried. That would be my preference, too. I tried searching the web, books, and newspapers. If you have another idea, that would be great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
ok, it does concern me slightly that you can't find a reference for a critic saying this, but I've had a careful look again and I don't think it's hugely controversial for an artist to claim an influence. Mujinga (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Over her career, she has lectured at museums and universities across North America - this sentence and ref would be better at the end of the feminist art movement section, since it's not early career

Feminist art movement

edit
  • She began picketing after an - since picket is also in the next line, maybe better 'she began a protest after hearing about an' or similar
  • The gallery reflected her participation in the Heresies Collective - not sure what you mean here, they both sound like amazing projects but I don't know why the gallery would reflect her participation, can you rephrase it?
  • From 1992 and 1994 - i think here is the start of a paragraph, since we are moving chronologically. And the following sentences in the text can be pulled together into a paragraph or two
  • filed a complaint - do we know the result?
There was a ton of press about this in 1997 (leading up to the complaint) and in 1998... and I remember press about the Gorilla Girls about that time... but I am not finding that the museums were denied federal funding, or that the complaint was taken any further. I found a sentence about only 11% of art made by women was added to top museums' permanent collection between 2008 and 2018. I added that as a note to that paragraph. And, a bit of info for clarification. In this diff.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
thanks for checking! Mujinga (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The artist was included in the 2007-2009 "WACK! Art of the Feminist Revolution" traveling exhibition, curated by Connie Butler. - the source indeed says that, but i just stumbled across this in a Frieze article: "in 2007’s large-scale touring show ‘WACK!: Art and the Feminist Revolution’, where earnest engagements with the ‘Goddess’, such as Edelson’s, were quietly excluded" so perhaps there's a bit more to be said there?
I added content here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
thanks for adding, i feel like the article is getting much stronger with the improvements Mujinga (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think so, too. And, I have been on both ends of detailed reviews. It's a lot of work, but there is no question that the article is better for it! Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notable works

edit

Some Living American Women Artists / Last Supper

  • What a shame we don't have a wikicommons image here, but i like how you use the external media box. The artwork is cool, I didn't know of it before!
  • Please wikilink NYT, but not Karen Rosenberg since that goes to a Danish R&B singer!
  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Story Gathering Boxes

  • Presumably this art piece has been exhibited in lots of places, perhaps you can say something about that.
Yes, I will come back to this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I added some more information, such as that it was exhibited into 2014 and who funded the exhibit. It seems that generally it was exhibited in galleries and universities. Nothing particularly noteworthy, as far as I can tell.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
that's great!   Done Mujinga (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Negotiation

  • Betsy Harris writes because Betsy Harris is writing for a local newspaper and isn't a well known art critic I don't think her opinion needs to be quoted, so then that takes us down to one sentence and maybe better it's better to put The Negotiation in other works below
I really liked the description. I removed her name. How does that look?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Looking into another matter I came across Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn who authored the quote. at Wikipedia:Quotations#General_guidelines and The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution. I'm still saying remove it, but obviously it's not a pass/fail issue and if you really want to keep it then I guess you'll need to say something like Betsy Harris, writing in The Indianapolis Star commented:.   Not doneMujinga (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Rather than return her name, I just removed the quote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
ok   Done Mujinga (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Other works

  • We can put any other works under this heading
  • Wikicommons does have this image so I would advise adding it and mentioning the associated art piece called Making eye contact since there seems to be a fair amount of stuff about it online
I responded below that it seems like a trivial work compared to her others, but I am more inclined to add it if you think it doesn't leave a misunderstanding about the nature of her work.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
you have the overview, i would probably add it since i see it as relevant, but i'm fine with you preferring not to Mujinga (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
As I mentioned in the Picture section below, I added it to the Exhibitions section, since it was a certificate of participation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I was going to suggest adding the Bobbitt project, then I see it's mentioned in the exhibitions section. I think it makes more sense to have it here.
  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Inspiration

edit

Goddess metaphor

  • There's some apostrophe mayhem going on here. Works should be italicized, directs quotes with straight marks eg " and other things maybe best with a single apostrophe eg ' - as per MOS:PUNCT
I may have, but I don't remember writing this. The magazine was not italicized... I fixed that and it would look strange to put that in italics, too. I put works in quotes that come from magazines or newspapers. I am a little lost trying to figure out what you want me to look at in MOS:PUNCT. The paragraph has quotes and a name of one work/magazine article. What are you thinking needs to be in single quotes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I could have been clearer. 'Male Grazing: An Open Letter to Thomas McEvilley' seems better with single apostrophes and that's how it is in the source (I've taken the liberty of changing that already). In the second para I don't understand why the works would have quotation marks and not italics.   Not done Mujinga (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks!   Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • This reference Kuspit, Donald (1983). "Mary Beth Edelson: An Introduction". Mary Beth Edelson -- New Work: An Ancient Thirst and A Future Vision. New York: self-published. worried me because it's self-published but actually it seems to be a book published for a solo exhibition in Pittsburgh. So can you update the reference with the publisher? Also are "as a stand-in" and "private rituals" direct quotes here? For me it's not clear.
I updated the citation information. I don't know if those phrases are direct quotes either. I didn't write that because I would have never have typed / added a self-published item.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
ok if you don't know if they are direct quotes, i would advise just taking away the quotation marks away. thanks for updating the ref!   Not done Mujinga (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Okay.   Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nude women's bodies

  • There's two direct quotes here and I'm not sure where they are coming from, the current ref doesn't cover them.
They were both from the cited source "About Mary Beth Edelson". Digital Collections: !Women Art Revolution. Stanford University. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved January 10, 2014." I added a tag after the first quote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done Mujinga (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Collections

edit
  • This section needs a rewrite just to avoid using 'her works' three times.
Made edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
great!   Done Mujinga (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Tate is good to have, since it's a major internationally recognised gallery, but it needs a separate ref
  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Further, it's such a small section I would recommend shifting it either to the very end of the feminist art movement section or exhibitions
I see what you are saying. It looked bigger when it was a list. Hmmm. I really like having a separate section for collections. How much of an issue is this for you? Would it be better to go back to a list, perhaps a two-column list, and I can search for other museums?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
fine as it is Mujinga (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Exhibitions

edit
  • I think this section would work best as a list of 'selected exhibitions'. I think the Bobbitt piece can be moved to 'notable works' which would leave a list which can be made chronological.
LOL! I put all the lists into prose.
I will come back to this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
On this point I'm currently having a GA nomination reviewed as well and the reviewer asked me to turn a list into prose, so to save you some work maybe it's good to discuss further. Mujinga (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I prefer to follow the guideline to use prose rather than lists where possible. In this article, this section though, is the best suited to a list. I am happy to make that change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done.18:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
i agree, looks much better now Mujinga (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Books

edit
  • Again in my opinion, this would work best as a straight list of 'selected publications'. See for example Judy_Chicago#Books_by_Chicago
  • I would take the books mentioned in note d and add them to the list
I have wondered about having this section at all. The most important books/items in this section, to me, are The Art of Mary Beth Edelson and Books as Art. And I think that they should be mentioned in the article. The rest are exhibition books. I think you meant note e. I will come back to this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes currently note f! As I read through the sources it seemed that it was part of Edelson's artistic practice to publish books which were more than exhibition books but obviously you know the sources best. If you would rather incorporate the important books elsewhere that could work better. Mujinga (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
this is looking great as a section, i just feel the note should itself have a reference   Not done Mujinga (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Rather than have a list that isn't complete, I added a citation to World Cat that had 117 items, so someone that wants to research her exhibition books.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

ok that works   Done Mujinga (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Awards

edit
  • This could also be a list but doesn't have to be because it's quite short. A year for the Warhol would be good if possible and maybe a few words explaining what Yaddo is.
I could not find a year for the Warhol grant. It may have provided funding for the 2002 book about her art, but I couldn't find anything definitive.
I did find that she Warhol Foundation provided funding for the Story Gathering Boxes (1972-2014) - and added that comment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I added a bit about Yaddo and added a link to Artist-in-residence and of course, they can click on the links to learn more. Diff for the change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done Mujinga (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pictures

edit
  • Shame we don't have a picture of Mary Beth Edelson herself! It's not a pass/fail issue but the article could benefit from having one.
I added a link to an image of Edelson - it's the best one I have seen of her that isn't from the 1960s. It's located just below the infobox.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
resolved as best we can, thanks! Mujinga (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." I think this means the images for Indianapolis and Soho should go. In any case, the layout right now is cluttered.
I removed the picture about Indianapolis, there's nothing in the photo that is germane to this article. How about if we leave the SoHo photo? It's the art center in Lower Manhattan and where she has lived. Besides, it's so bleak otherwise.
I'm sorry to be the harsh reviewer but rules are rules haha. I'm glad the Indianopolis one is gone, I'd be happy for the Soho pic to stay IF there's a referenced statement saying she lived there. Otherwise, the relevance isn't established. I hope it's possible to find a reference.   Not done Mujinga (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is mentioned in this sentence, "They lived in Soho in a loft with a living area and two studios, one for each artist.[9][c]" in the "Relationships and children" section. It is also mentioned that she still lives in Soho in the "Exhibitions" section. She's lived there since 1976. What more is needed for Soho?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is for me now the one remaining issue. Right now someone reading the article will see she lived in Soho and see a photo of 503-511 Broadway, but there isn't much to really connect the photo to Edelson. You said It's the art center in Lower Manhattan and where she has lived and if you can add something to that effect in the text, I would be absolutely fine with the photo. Mujinga (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Silly me for not thinking of adding a comment to the image. Much better.   Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The 'Art Institute of Chicago' pic is relevant and should stay, the licensing is fine
Cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Please do add the wikicommons image mentioned above if you want to
I looked at that in commons several times. It isn't in anyway representative of her real work. It's a certificate for participating in a lecture / workshop. My thinking is that I would rather have readers click on the links. If you think that it's helpful, I am happy to add it... and I guess find some explanation why it's in the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I found this link about Making Eye Contact.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
 
Making Eye Contact certificate
Added image and caption, in the event you find it helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
for me if you want to add a line or two about the work and then add the picture, i think it's great but as i said above if you don't think it fits, no worries. Mujinga (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Since it's a certification of participation, I added it to the Exhibitions section. See what you think.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Further reading

edit
  • Please check the entries without ISBN and/or author to see if they can be added
  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
edit
  • I'll check this myself but my first thought is that since Mary Beth Edelson isn't in the box, the navbox shouldn't be on the page
Are you are talking about the navigation template: {{Feminist art movement in the United States}}?
Or, the infobox? If it's the infobox, there is a divided opinion among some of the editors of art articles about whether to have them or not. I find them helpful, even when there is not a photo. I put them in all biographies that I work on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I agree infoboxes are helpful. I was talking indeed about the template {{Feminist art movement in the United States}}. Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates says "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional" so it would usually be the case that Edelson should be in the template. I can see though that you could argue the template is highly relevant. Another option would be to expand the template with links to Edelson, Judy Chicago and so on.
There is a list of people that has a link in the template and she is on that list. Perhaps there could be a section within the template for "Notable art feminists" (perhaps looking at the women in the Last Supper) and add a "See also" with the list.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Progress

edit
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Comments

edit
Mujinga, Okay, great! Regarding a photo of her, there are a few out there, but I haven't found anything in the public domain. I could load an image under the fair use rationale is someone could tell me how to do that for an artist that is living-- or, if there is an image I could refer to to document the rationale correctly.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Strike out. Not possible.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well as SusunW said you could email Edelson directly and ask but I agree otherwise it seems difficult. Mujinga (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I could do that. I will see if I can find an email address for her. I also added a External media template with a link to an image of her.
Thanks so much! I needed a bit of a break before diving back in. I will work on it either later today or tomorrow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think I got everything now, Mujinga, but in a couple of places I have a follow-up question.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Great thanks, I'll take another look. By the way I really like the press clipping system, it's quite handy, never saw it before. It's cool to see both the original text and to have an OCR text. Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi i've made some comments, and marked what still needs doing with   Not done tags so they don't get lost. There's six in total (including the lead), all need discussion but I'm confident we are getting there with the review. Mujinga (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Mujinga, I have finished addressing your comments, and I put my replies in a purple font for easy identification. Thanks so much for your thorough review!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the replies, the purple font is a good idea. I've just made some tweaks on the article, feel free to revert. The only remaining issue for me is the photo, as discussed above. Mujinga (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Excellent! Thanks so much, Mujinga, for your review and polishing. I added 2 sentences to the caption for SoHo.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
We are nearly there, but I still would like the reference linking Edelson to this arts center. Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Mujinga, I added three citations - 2 for living in SoHo and 1 for it being a place with art galleries.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

CaroleHenson Ah OK, I was getting a bit confused since when you said It's the art center in Lower Manhattan and where she has lived I thought you meant this specific building in SoHo, but you meant the area. I've edited the caption to hopefully resolve that confusion, feel free to change it. Great, that's the last point resolved then. It was a pleasure to work with you and congratulations on the good article. PS I also made an edit to put The Negotiation and the other works into a new subsection, this reads better to me but again feel free to change, that's a minor thing. Mujinga (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mujinga, Thanks so much for all your help! The article is much better. You have been great to work with, too!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Beth_Edelson/GA1&oldid=950397436"