Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Thomson/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2018 [1].

Tom Thomson

edit
Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Tom Thomson, the Canadian artist inextricably linked with the Group of Seven. Tkbrett (✉) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • There are a lot of images in this article - somewhat understandable given the topic, but I think we're stretching the bounds of WP:GALLERY
You can take or leave this but if image count become a further issue, and it might;
  • File:Thomson, View from the Windows of Grip Ltd.jpg could go as rather uninformative
  • Sandbank with Logs, Fall 1916 & The Drive, Winter 1916–17 are similar enough that one only could represent the style
  • The "Nocturnes" section doesn't have enough text to justify six image Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • I'm not sure about this - with art articles like this the danger is repetition or original research. Or at least I would be sparing; the painting titles are pretty descriptive anyway for the most part. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details provided in captions don't appear to be sourced anywhere, such as his spending habits
  • Images hosted on Commons should have tags reflecting status in both country of origin and the US - some (eg File:TomThomson23.jpg) do not
  • File:Young_Tom_Thomson.jpg: Thomson is the subject, not the creator
  • If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? When/where was this first published? Same with File:TomThomson23.jpg, File:Profile_of_the_painter_Tom_Thomson_wearing_a_hat.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found instances of the photos being published early enough to qualify for C:Template:PD-old-auto-1996. They meet the criteria of (1) they were first published outside of the U.S., (2) they were published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and (3) they were public domain on the URAA date. I updated the copyright info on the Commons. Here are the publications:
File:TomThomson23.jpg, LAC, published in Silcox & Town (1977)
File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)
File:Profile of the painter Tom Thomson wearing a hat.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)
File:Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)
File:Tom Thomson with fish.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)
File:Tom Thomson, standing on a rock fishing in moving water.jpg, LAC, published in Reid (1975) Tkbrett (✉) 19:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

edit

Extensive, knowledgeable and wonderfully written article on an artist whom I had previously only known from a few isolated paintings. One quibble, the measurements debacle at the Go-Home cottage doesn't seem like the most inspiring way to open the "artistic peak" section - it breaks flow. I would remove or push up into the last section. Otherwise this is a yard stick for visual arts bios at FAC. The nominator has a lot of ability. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We get a better sense now at the start of "artistic peak" that he opened up. 05:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Other suggestions:

  • In the "Early recognition" section, ths detailing of his comings and goings outweigh and mask the more important internal difficulties with shyness he was going through. Similarly by the way details like the price of his rent ($22 a month (equivalent to CAD$480 in 2017)) breaks from the dialogue.
Unless the rent was very high or very low (in which case say it was very high or low), I would cut such detail altogether and stick with the central drama. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut out the inflation calculations for his rent (While I see the $1 rent explicitly mentioned in almost every source and feel surprised at how ridiculously low it sounds, the sources don't seem to go out of their way to say that it's very low). Should I also cut out inflation calcs for purchases of his paintings? (There are three of these currently) Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No these seem fine. How do you mean "the $1 rent" - the article says $22? Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
$22 was for the ground floor of the Studio Building while $1 was for the shack out behind. "In late November, [Thomson] returned to Toronto and moved into a shack behind the Studio Building that Harris and MacCallum fixed up for him,[128][129] renting it for $1 a month." Tkbrett (✉) 05:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. Have applied for a visa to Canada. Ceoil (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Might want to retract your application. Tkbrett (✉) 21:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would keep the "notes" as brief as possible, as far as cutting down extraneous words were you can.
  • Maybe more be more judicious and sparing in use of detail such as the following (unless it advances the narrative): Wadland has noted that if this timeline is correct, it would require "an extraordinary canoeist [...] especially on the open water of Georgian Bay, from the mouth of the French to Go-Home Bay (and back again). The difficulty is augmented by the fact of stopping to sketch at intervals along the way."[100] Wadland suggests that Thomson traveled via train at some points and by steamship thereafter.[98] Note this is an example only; I dont want the story bogged down in bio detail or blusterous later recounts.
  • I adjusted the sentence you mentioned and cut it down to "Wadland has noted that if this timeline is correct, it would require "an extraordinary canoeist," made further difficult given the constant stopping for sketching. Wadland suggests that Thomson traveled via train at some points and by steamship thereafter." I also cut some others slightly, but for the most part there are still those two paragraphs in the Early recognition (1914–15) section that deal primarily with his location and routes. I'm wondering how much you think they should be cut down, if at all? Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. FFIW, I went through a similar dilemma with Nick Drake, who also suffered from severe shyness and died young. There is a balance between conveying his personal and artist development and recounting his going hither and thither. Cut if not germain, though I get that a lot of it dove tails with his discovery of nature. Ceoil (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cut out some unnecessarily detailed parts covering his traveling routes. If someone really wants to duplicate his canoe trips they should really just get the Addison & Harwood (1969) or Waddington & Waddington (2016) books instead of reading the Wiki page! (And listen to Pink Moon on the way too) Tkbrett (✉) 21:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hallelujah the John Cale piano inserts. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean this as a tautology: "Trainor was later rumoured to have been engaged to Thomson" is the first part of the sentence and "for a marriage in the fall of 1917" is the second part. I reworded it to avoid this ambiguity: "Trainor was later rumoured to have been engaged to Thomson with a wedding planned for the fall of 1917." Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect. Although, Christ, I think I should probably unwatch the article and this review as, even post support, I keep on coming back to torture you with nick-picks. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To progress this, maybe ping Tony if he wants to support. You and him seem to be of a single mind. I might do the source review. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

edit

1a, lead only:

  • "His painting utilizes broad brush strokes"—the simpler "uses" would be less ungainly.
  • "and did not display any immediate artistic talent"—consider the simpler wording: "and displayed no immediate artistic talent"
  • worked ... worked. Perhaps the second one could be "was employed in"?
  • Is the first comma necessary? "There, he met those who eventually formed the Group of Seven, including J. E. H. MacDonald, Lawren Harris, Frederick Varley, Franklin Carmichael and Arthur Lismer." (Considering you're justifiably OK with no comma in this stretch, later: "paintings such as The Jack Pine and The West Wind have taken a prominent place in the culture of Canada and are some of the country's most iconic pieces of art.")
  • The very next sentence opens with another "there" wording. I can't see an alternative at the moment.
  • "following the advice of MacDonald"—simpler as: "following MacDonald's advice"?
  • I didn't like this: "Thomson is often considered an unofficial member with his art typically exhibited with the rest of the Group's." (i) Could we have a comma before the connective "with"?) (ii) there are two, close "with"s that have different grammatical functions (would it work as: "... member, and his ..."? (iii) the ending "the Group's" is pretty awkward. An ellipsis right at the end ...?
  • Do you think it would work better as two separate sentences? For example, "Although he died before the formal establishment of the Group of Seven, Thomson is often considered an unofficial member. His art is typically exhibited with the rest of the Group's, nearly all of which is located in Canada—mainly..." The problem with this is that it's ambiguous as to whether the "nearly all of which" is referring to Thomson's work or the Group of Seven's (although it is true in either case). I'm not sure how else to reword this, hmm... Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nearly all his work is located in Canada, mainly at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, the McMichael Canadian Art Collection in Kleinburg and the Tom Thomson Art Gallery in Owen Sound."—You might consider "all of his", but it's a personal thing. Might it be easier to insert a dash after "Canada"? "located in Canada—mainly at ...". "located" is not watertight: it could, I suppose, refer to the subjects of his paintings, rather than "housed in Canada", or similar. But I could live with "located" if you're fine with it, too.
  • I added the "of" and added the dash. I think "located" should be fine since the paragraphs beforehand make it clear that his painting was done exclusively outdoors or in his studio, and the list includes only museums. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'd go for "Nearly all his work is still in Canada ..." or "remains in". Locating and housing, and still more residing, are best avoided for art - see WP:VAMOS. There's another "housed" elsewhere. I don't know why WP editors love these Time-Life expressions so much. You never see them in propper art history. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've nit-picked, but it's fine writing indeed. It will be a support, but I'd like to return to look at more. Tony (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from SarahSV

edit

Hi Tkbrett, I'm enjoying reading this, and I've tried to do a little copy-editing as I read. I've found a few of these, which are best avoided:

  • "The circumstances surrounding his death have been of particular interest to many, with unsubstantiated rumours that he was murdered or committed suicide becoming common ..."
  • He was known to be stubborn ... with his brother Fraser Thomson writing that ..."
  • "He did not yet take painting seriously however, with Jackson saying that ..."
  • "Much of his artwork from this trip ... has been lost due to two canoe spills ... the first spill being on Green Lake ..."
  • "Thomson often experienced self-doubt, with A. Y. Jackson recalling that ..."

It's usually better to use a semicolon: "he was known to be stubborn; his brother wrote that ..." Tony wrote about this somewhere (see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing), but I can't find it right now. SarahSV (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your edits and for the link to the guide. I've noticed these shortcomings in my writing for a long time but I've never been sure how to combat them, so the guide should prove helpful. I'm confident I'll eventually be able to tame a semicolon and get it to serve my wishes! Tkbrett (✉) 06:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
edit
  • What does Silcox and Town, p. 49, say about the accidental drowning? Re: "Independent examinations of the body by a doctor and a coroner concluded that the cause of death was accidental drowning," another source (MacGregor) says that only one person examined the body (a professor of neurology who happened to be there on holiday), and that the coroner didn't. SarahSV (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little baffled as to how that citation ended up there since it doesn't really back-up the two independent examinations statement. Silcox & Town, p. 49 appears a few times in that paragraph but backs up the other information given. It says, "The official cause of [Thomson's] death was 'accidental drowning,' though it was noted that he had sustained a four-inch cut on his right temple and that his right ear had bled." The two primary sources provide more information (Howland 1917 and Ranney 1931), but given WP:PRIMARY I don't want to use them as citations unless it's to support a good secondary source. None of the sources I have on hand have mention the particulars of the post-death events, except to say that he was hastily buried, only to be dug up and moved away soon after. They seem so laconic partly because of their admitted weariness of advancing the alternative theories (Hunter and Silcox & Town come out and say this). Should we use MacGregor here for that information? I have been hesitant to use him because I did not want to lend too much credence to the alternate theories. Tkbrett (✉) 18:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing the citation errors. I'm not familiar enough with the sources to be able to advise about MacGregor. My question was whether it's correct that two people examined the body (a doctor and the coroner). I was also wondering what's meant by "independent" examinations. SarahSV (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that you cite several sources after apparently simple points, and I'm not always able to find the text in the sources. I did a spot check above of Silcox & Town, p. 49, and couldn't find the text attributed to it (the two independent examinations by a doctor and coroner, etc). There was nothing like that on p. 49 (although I know there are different editions, and Google Preview may not be showing me everything).
    I'm now looking at this: "After Jackson moved out in December to go to Montreal, Carmichael took his place.[27][94][95] They shared a studio space through the winter."[96][97] First, do you need three sources for the first sentence? Re: the second, I can't find it in Klages 2016, p. 207, which is footnote 96 (again, this may be a Google Preview issue). Also, "they" who share the studio: that's Thomson and Carmichael, is that right? SarahSV (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does Silcox and Town 2017, p. 49, say to support the following? "It was noted that he had a four-inch cut on his right temple and experienced bleeding from his right ear. The cause of death was officially determined to be 'accidental drowning'." Also, why do you cite different editions of the same book (Silcox and Town 1977 and 2017)? SarahSV (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's from p. 49 of the 2017 edition. I have used both the original 1977 text as well as the 2017 "revised and expanded" edition b/c the texts are different in places while still containing useful information. Is it inadvisable to use multiple editions of the same text? The Klages citation you mentioned is from the print version and not the Ebook that appears on Google Preview. I can confirm that, I'll just need a few days before I can run over to the library and grab a copy. Should I limit how many citations I have per sentence? During the Peer review it was recommended that I limit things to three citations in a row. I haven't found anything directly in the MOS concerning this. Tkbrett (✉) 04:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding how many citations, there's no rule about sticking to three citations. The best thing is to offer one. That makes things easy for readers and reviewers. If you need to add more than one, it's helpful to explain what each source says. See WP:CITEBUNDLE. For example:
<ref>For year of birth, see {{harvnb|Smith|2017|p=1}}; for graduation year, see {{harvnb|Jones|2018|p=2}}.</ref>
If several sources say the same thing, you can bundle them without explanation: <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2017|p=1}}; {{harvnb|Jones|2018|p=2}}.</ref>
There is no rule about this. You can cite however you choose. But it's hard to review an article when each source supports a part of a sentence or paragraph, with no sense of which ref supports which words.
As for citing different editions, I can't see a reason to do that. If there's something important in 1977 that's absent from 2017, you could consider it, but be careful in case it was removed because inaccurate. If you want to say "Smith alleged in 1977 that x, but in 2017 said y," then you can cite 1977. Can you expand on why you're doing it here? SarahSV (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only use the 1977 version twice: the first instance is unnecessary since it's bundled w/ a citation from the 2017 ed., so I'll remove it. The second instance is for a quote that is present in the 1977 ed. but seemingly absent from the 2017 ed. The quote is found in Wadland (2002) so I've gone and used that instead. Where I have several citations in a row, they cover the entire sentence. Tkbrett (✉) 05:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They each cover the entire sentence (i.e. each could stand alone) or they cover it jointly? SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The former. I'd have to look through and confirm it's true for all of them, but I believe so. Tkbrett (✉) 05:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, that's good to know. It makes things a lot easier. SarahSV (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, sorry, I forgot to respond to this. I went back to my university's library a few days ago but unfortunately they don't carry a copy of Klages' book. Instead, I consulted with King (2010) and confirmed the other citation backs up the information provided. I'll remove the Klages citation since it's not needed. Tkbrett (✉) 04:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks continued
edit
  • Thanks. Continuing the spot check:
  • footnote 33 (King 2010, p. 14) is fine;
  • footnote 69 (Klages 2016, p. 23) is fine;
  • footnote 55 is fine apart from the canoe trip; Klages 2016, p. 21, doesn't mention a canoe, but I assume the others in the bundle do;
  • footnote 99: Klages 2016, p. 207, doesn't include the relevant text (sharing a studio space) and is about his death;
  • footnote 163 (Silcox & Town 2017, p. 49): "Independent examinations of the body by a doctor and a coroner concluded that the cause of death was accidental drowning". Failed verification; now removed.
  • footnote 175 is too large a page range (Klages 2016, pp. 274–297), but more importantly Klages 2016 is only 253 pages long, including footnotes (and I would change "substantiation" to "substance").
  • What a bizarre typo. It looks like the page range was from before I even started editing the page. My apologies, I should have done a better job reviewing things before leaving them in. I'll try to look through and see if I can find any other instances of this happening. For now, I'll simply remove the page range since this is the thesis of the entire Klages source. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • footnote 238 is fine (Sloan 2010, pp. 70–71), but I wonder why you're citing three sources for a quote from Jackson. If it's that you haven't seen Jackson yourself, that should be cited as "Jackson 1958, cited in Sloan 2010, pp. 70–71".
  • I haven't been able to find the specific page within Jackson (1958), so I included the other sources (which say it's from his autobiography but unfortunately don't give a page). I've fixed the citation to confirm that it was quoted from another source like you suggested. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • footnote 248: Grace 2004a, p. 96, says that Thomson is a "haunting presence" and "embodies the Canadian artistic identity" for Lee and Kiyooka, not for artists in general.
SarahSV (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most tedious part of nominating an article for FAC is doing the final check of the text-source relationship. Things get moved around during rewrites and copy editing, and older sources that seemed like a good idea at the time may need to be removed. I'm wondering, based on the spot checks and your comment above ("It looks like the page range was from before I even started editing the page"), whether you made that final check.
    There was also a query about Silcox and Town, p. 49 (the four-inch cut). The edition I had didn't say that on p. 49 or anywhere near it; it was in the book but much later. But I didn't have 2017, so I accept that the pagination may have changed completely, so long as you're quite certain that p. 49 is correct.
    I also wonder how we can verify the content of the letters, e.g. "Jackson, A. Y. (August 4, 1917). 'Tom Thomson' (Letter). Letter to Mrs. Henry Jackson." SarahSV (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made sure that the citation and source information is accurate, but obviously the three mistakes above slipped through the cracks. I have again confirmed that the four-inch cut info is on Silcox & Town (2017), p. 49 (I'm looking at it right now). Keep in mind that the 2017 version is "revised and expanded" so the page numbers are quite different from the earlier version (to the point where some things that appear around page ~200 in the original '77 version are near the front of the '17 edition).
    Many of the letters appear on Gregory Klages' (author of The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson) website, Death on a Painted Lake. Should I link instances of the letters to the sources on this page? Other instances are from publicly available archives, though I'm not likely going to be able to go and double-check them anytime soon. In anything from Reid (2002a), the specific letter is typically mentioned in a footnote, though I guess at that point the "so-and-so quoted in Reid (2002a)" format should be put to use, as is the case with the example you mentioned. Tkbrett (✉) 00:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for confirming the p. 49 issue. I take your point about three mistakes only (four if you count no mention of a canoe trip on Klages 2016, p. 21), but I suppose my concern is that it's a large percentage of the ones I checked, and checking isn't easy because almost nothing is online. Even works that appear to be online show very few pages; one source supposedly available for preview on Google Books shows only the front and back covers. Your use of multiple sources to support one point, without saying which source supports what, makes checking very difficult. Which source(s) would you say you relied on most?
I don't think your fix works: "Scholar Sherrill Grace has written that he is a "haunting presence" for Canadian artists Roy Kiyooka and Dennis Lee and that he "embodies the Canadian artistic identity" for them." Why quote someone quoting/paraphrasing them, rather than those artists directly?
As for the letters, the citations must include where they were published. The point of citations (for Wikipedia) is (a) to show that you're using reliable, published sources; and (b) to give readers enough information to find those sources. SarahSV (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confident in the other citations given that I have them physically but have not been as lucky at finding a physical copy of Klages. I went through and added "quoted in" to make it clearer where some of the letters can be found. The most heavily used sources include anyone in Reid (2002a) (that includes Hill, Hunter, Murray (2002a/b), Stacey, Wadland), Murray (1999), Silcox (2015) (which is available in its entirety online) and Silcox & Town (2017).
    Grace's (2004a) book is about Thomson's last impacting in the art world and Canadian culture in general. If it's a reliable source, I would think it would be acceptable to use for this purpose.
    Do you I should link to the Canadian Mystery site then? I'm not clear. I've seen this done on pages like Vincent van Gogh. Tkbrett (✉) 01:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sherrill Grace (will respond to the rest later), I'm not saying her book isn't an RS. It's just an odd way to write it. Did those artists say those things to her? If so, say "X told Sherrill Grace that ..." or just use her as the source without attribution if you know that she's quoting them. If they said it elsewhere, tell us where. As you've written it, suddenly they're mentioned, with their views attributed to someone else (under Legacy):

Since his death, Thomson's work has grown in value and popularity. Group of Seven member Arthur Lismer wrote that he "is the manifestation of the Canadian character".[198] Another contemporary Canadian painter, David Milne, wrote to National Gallery of Canada Director H. O. McCurry, "Your Canadian art apparently, for now at least, went down in Canoe Lake. Tom Thomson still stands as the Canadian painter, harsh, brilliant, brittle, uncouth, not only most Canadian but most creative. How the few things of his stick in one's mind."[246] Scholar Sherrill Grace has written that he is a "haunting presence" for Canadian artists Roy Kiyooka and Dennis Lee and that he "embodies the Canadian artistic identity" for them.[247]

Also better to say when they made those comments. And please add what year David Milne made his. Re: "contemporary", in what sense? People often use that word to mean "contemporaneous". SarahSV (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I've reworded it to simply, 'For Canadian artists Roy Kiyooka and Dennis Lee, he is a "haunting presence" and "embodies the Canadian artistic identity".' I don't think I'm going to be able to find any direct quotes from either artist saying this though; Grace is interpreting Thomson's constant presence within their letters and poetry.
You're right, it should be "contemporaneous"; Milne was an early 20th century Canadian painter, as well. I added the David Milne year as requested. Tkbrett (✉) 02:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how other editors here handle these things, but I don't add anything to "Works cited" (the section you call "Sources") unless I've used it directly as a source. So I would not include "Thomson, Tom (October 17, 1912). "Letter to McRuer" (Letter). Letter to Dr. M. J. (John) McRuer" (that's a confusing citation; why repeat the word "letter" three times?), unless I had seen it and could include the publisher. Otherwise, it's no use to the reader. As this is something that you're citing via someone else (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT), then I would write <ref>Thomson, Tom (October 17, 1912). Letter to Dr. M. J. (John) McRuer, cited in Murray 2002a, p. 297.<ref>, then I would include the long citation for Murray in "Works cited". Or I would just cite Murray, especially given that, in this case, you mention the letter in the text. SarahSV (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand your answer to my question about which sources you relied on most. You wrote: "The most heavily used sources include anyone in Reid (2002a) (that includes Hill, Hunter, Murray (2002a/b), Stacey, Wadland), Murray (1999), Silcox (2015) (which is available in its entirety online) and Silcox & Town (2017)". It's the "anyone in" part that confused me. What I'm trying to work out is which secondary sources you relied on the most when writing the article. I can't tell from looking at the sourcing because of the bundling. SarahSV (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I will remove those sources that are not directly cited (mostly the "Archives and letters" sub-section) and instead cite only where I'm getting the information from. The confusing repetition is due to the unfortunate formatting of the Cite letter template; I'm happy to be rid of it!
Reid (2002a) is a book that is multi-authored, which is why those sources are given as, for example: Hill, Charles (2002). "Tom Thomson, Painter". In Reid, Dennis (ed.). Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 111–43. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3. Here is the list of my most heavily used sources:
  • Hill (2002)
  • Hunter (2002)
  • Murray (2002a/b)
  • Stacey (2002)
  • Wadland (2002)
  • Murray (1999)
  • Silcox (2015)
  • Silcox & Town (2017)
Tkbrett (✉) 05:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you, that list is very helpful (and I understand that filling in the templates can be trying, especially as the output can differ in unexpected ways). SarahSV (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, more confusion. Reid 2002 (Tom Thomson) is a collection of essays, but the first footnote cites "Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18", which leads to "Reid, Dennis, ed. (2002a). Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3."
Reid 2002b is a paper in Reid 2002a: "Reid, Dennis (2002b). "Tom Thomson and the Arts and Crafts Movement in Toronto". In Reid, Dennis. Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 65–83. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3. SarahSV (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in addition to editing the book, Reid also contributed an essay (which I designate as Reid (2002b), while the entire collection is designated as Reid (2002a)).
In the first citation, almost all of the essays in the book mention Cruikshank as possibly being Thomson's instructor. Since I already have three other sources (Murray 1986, Silcox 2015, and Silcox & Town 2017) I didn't want to have several more lined up and so joined them into Reid (2002a). This seemed a little too chaotic:
  • Hill (2002), pp. 113, 113n18
  • Murray (1986), p. 6
  • Murray (2002b), p. 309
  • Reid (2002b), pp. 70, 70n21
  • Silcox (2015), pp. 9, 100
  • Silcox & Town (2017), p. 43
  • Stacey (2002), p. 52
I thought that this looked cleaner:
  • Murray (1986), p. 6
  • Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18
  • Silcox (2015), pp. 9, 100
  • Silcox & Town (2017), p. 43
Is any of this recommended? I realize I probably don't need seven sources for a single point, but I wasn't sure which to cut out. Tkbrett (✉) 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cite "Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18", when Reid is just the editor. He didn't write the material on those pages, unless they all refer to his essay, but given the page range, that's unlikely. You need to cite the authors. But why do you need to cite (a) so many pages in Reid, and (b) so many authors, for "Thomson may have briefly studied under British artist William Cruikshank around 1905"? The sources for that sentence are "Murray (1986), p. 6; Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18; Silcox (2015), pp. 9, 100; Silcox & Town (2017), p. 43". SarahSV (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I won't cite Reid (2002a) in that case.
Yes, those are the sources I cited—I listed them in my last post to question which ones I should keep. I'll just pick three as best I can then. Tkbrett (✉) 07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've read this through again and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The spot checks mostly checked out; the ones that didn't were to do with the trace of older versions or differing pagination between editions. The sources all seem appropriate, and the recent copy edits have smoothed out any minor issues. Very happy to support. SarahSV (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the help! And also for holding my feet to the fire to make sure things are done right. I appreciate it. Tkbrett (✉) 05:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor issues (all resolved)
edit
  • Tkbrett, you're welcome. I've noticed an inconsistency in the sources:
  • Wadland, John (2002). "Tom Thomson's Places". In Reid, Dennis. Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 85–109. ISBN 978-0-88629-304-8.
  • Stacey, Robert (2002). "Tom Thomson as Applied Artist". In Reid, Dennis; Hill, Charles C. Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 47–63. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3.
Different editors, different ISBNs, same year, same title, same publisher. SarahSV (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, thanks. Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 04:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing that. I came back to look only because I was wondering why the article hadn't been promoted. Then I wondered whether one of us is expected to do more source reviewing (e.g. check for consistent formatting). So I took another look. It seems mostly fine. A couple of very minor things: you write "Fraser, J.S." but "Ranney, A. E." Decide whether to include a space or not. The MoS recommends a space. Also "pp. 92–7", but "21–24". Choose one or the other; I believe the MoS recommends writing out the numbers in full. For most books you include ISBNs; I assume that's because the others don't have ISBNs, is that right? SarahSV (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was going with the space between initials, so I fixed it to "J.S." Is there a way to find any other instances easily? In any academic writing I had done, I usually stuck with writing the last two pages if something was a continuation "pp. 300–01" rather than "pp. 300–301", and "pp. 92–97" rather than "pp. 92–7". I fixed the instance that you pointed out. If you'd prefer for me to write out all pages every time, just let me know. I included all ISBNs that I could find, so long as it was published when ISBNs were in use. Tkbrett (✉) 19:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tkbrett, that all seems fine, and thank you for being so attentive to these details. SarahSV (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment Comments and Support from KJP1

edit

Just wanted to record my appreciation of a fantastic article. It reads beautifully and is amazingly well-researched and wonderfully illustrated. Having read it through twice shall certainly come back to review/support but can't get to it before next week unfortunately. In the meantime, many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "the stark beauty and vibrant colour of the Ontario landscape" - here, and sometimes elsewhere, e.g. "The tragic circumstances of his drowning", you apply adjectives that might just shade into POV. I'm all for "colour" in writing but I'm not sure the adjectives are necessary.
  • "was seen by his contemporaries as a tragedy of Canadian art" - "for" Canadian art?
  • "in the Park" - does Park need capitalisation here, and elsewhere?
  • "they illustrated an above-average ability with composition and colour handling" - "they illustrated an above-average ability in composition and colour handling"?
  • "Through his development his later paintings vary in composition and have vivid colours and thickly applied paint" - not quite getting the meaning here. "Through his development" seems redundant and I'm not sure what the "vary" applies to. Is it that there are different approaches among his later works, or that his later works differ from his earlier ones?
  • Removed "Through his development". I'm trying to express that is later paintings have several different approaches. Would it be alright to write, "His later paintings use several different methods of composition, have vivid colours and thickly-applied paint."? I'm worried it's a little to wordy. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are some of the country's most iconic pieces of art" - to avoid the double "art", and the slightly odd "pieces of art", which reminds me of "pieces of eight", perhaps "are some of the country's most iconic works" or "artworks"?
  • "The tragic circumstances of his drowning on Canoe Lake in Algonquin Park, linked with his image as a master canoeist" - this puzzled me a bit. Did he have an "image" as a master canoeist? I see where you're going though and can't think of a better way to express it. Two other things - Algonquin Park, which you link here, is first mentioned in the para. above (and the lead). And would the 3rd and 4th para.s be better combined?
  • Is the word "image" your main problem here, or the sentence as a whole? If it's just the former, perhaps, ""The tragic circumstances of his drowning on Canoe Lake in Algonquin Park, linked with the public's perception of him as a master canoeist...". Fixed the linking. That's a good point, since they're both really about his legacy. I've joined them. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • "in the Municipality of Meaford" - do we need the capital M?
  • "an appreciation for nature" - "an appreciation of nature"?
  • "Thomson worked briefly as an elevator operator at the Diller Hotel" - you could bluelink the hotel.
Exploring Algonquin Park (1912–13)
  • "According to Jackson, Thomson did not think painting "would ever be taken seriously" - painting generally or "his painting"?
  • Hunter (2002), p. 25–26 is ambiguous, so I went back to the original letter: "I do not think he ever had the idea his work would ever be taken seriously, in fact he used to chuckle over the idea." (my emphasis). Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Early recognition (1914–15)
  • "would even throw burnt matches at his paintings" - I'm sure this is what the source says, but to what end? Lit matches would appear to make more sense.
  • Here's what the source (Hill 2002, p. 117) says: "'Tom had no opinion of his own work,' Lawren Harris later wrote. 'He might sit in front of a canvas that was set with thick paint and flick burnt matches at it in a kind of whimsical scorn...'" I agree that it makes more sense to throw lit matches, I'm just a little hesitant to change or interpret what Harris originally wrote. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pff. I would just go and say lit. Hill may have needed a better copy editor for this sentence. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the recognition was unheard of for an unknown artist". Not so unknown that the director of the NGC hadn't heard of him. "little-known"?
  • The source says, "Such recognition was remarkable for an emerging, unknown artist, though the money he received was not sufficient to live on." What you say is true though. Maybe it could be changed to, "...the recognition was unheard of for an emerging artist.", that way it still aligns with the source? Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Artistic peak (1916-1917)
  • "naivete" - does the source not have the accent, naiveté?
  • "and his work reveals himself to be a fine colourist" - again, a quote, but shouldn't it be "and in his work reveals himself to be a fine colourist" or "and his work reveals him to be a fine colourist"? But not, of course, if that's what the source says.
  • "Thomson produced many sketches which varied in composition, although they all had vivid colour and were applied thickly" - perhaps, "Thomson produced many sketches which varied in composition, although they all had vivid colour and thickly-applied paint"?
Artistic development
  • "such as Vincent van Gogh, whose work he may have known from books or visits to art galleries". A query, does the source expand on where Thomson may have seen van Gogh's work? The Armory Show appears not to have got further west than Chicago, and from the article, Thomson appears not to have ventured further into the US than Seattle. It would be interesting if the source does have more detail.
  • The sources do not directly say this. I think this is a relic of an older edition of the page, which listed many artists that Thomson "may have known from books or visits to art galleries." I only found Van Gogh's name in my sources and removed the other artists, but failed to properly edit the rest of the sentence. I've fixed it now so that it only says, "Thomson's art also bears some stylistic resemblance to the work of European post-impressionists such as Vincent van Gogh." Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that eventually brought international attention to his work" - I'd probably flip this, "that eventually brought his work to international attention".
Nocturnes
  • "Thomson often spent his nights laying in his canoe" - "lying"?
  • "Other times, given the difficulty of painting by only moonlight" - perhaps, "Other times, given the difficulty of painting only by moonlight", or just "painting by moonlight"?
Flowers
  • " E. H. MacDonald—himself deeply invested in floral imagery—was so captured by the former that he kept it for himself" - which one is "the former" of the three cited?
  • There are only two paintings listed: (1) Marguerites, Wood Lillies and Vetch and (2) Wildflowers. It's made difficult to read because of the "and" in the title of the first, so I've simply specified the painting by name: "...was so captured by Marguerites, Wood Lillies and Vetch that he kept it for himself". Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - my careless reading. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Industry in nature
  • "Thomson's and the Group of Seven's work is often absent of criticism for the typical Canadian attitudes of the time, namely that the available natural resources were meant to be exploited" - sorry, not quite getting this. I think it's something like, "Thomson's work does not challenge contemporary attitudes to the forestry industry, namely that natural resources were there to be exploited", but am not sure.
  • I'm trying to get across here that in Thomson's time and earlier, Canadian's saw the vast expanse of trees and rock in the north simply as resources to be exploited for profit. Today, some criticize Thomson's work for not criticizing those attitudes, and that is what Harold Town is responding to. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The outdoorsman & Alternate death theories
  • This is purely personal preference, but I wasn't keen on this ending. Almost all of it, except the romanticised view of his canoeing ability, is/could be in the Death section and I'd probably briefly expand that to cover these points, ending the article with the Legacy and influence section. It's a great article on an important artist and, for me, concluding it with a discussion of "fringe" theories regarding his death doesn't quite work.

Much of the above is by way of comments/suggestions, and you are, of course, quite free to ignore them after considering them. It's a really great article and you've done a superb job, here and elsewhere, of covering Thomson, his works, and his death. The prose is of high quality, the sourcing is extensive and well-researched, and the article's beautifully illustrated. It is quite long but not too long, in my view. Above all, the passion for the subject shows through, which makes it such a good read. All in all, an incredible achievement for anyone, and for one who has only been here two years, it's amazing. Delighted to Support. KJP1 (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your kind words and for your help! I really appreciate it. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pleasure was entirely mine. And thanks for thinking about the ending. To me, it is now a much more fitting conclusion, to his life and to an excellent article. And really pleased it's getting the interest it deserves. KJP1 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Johnbod

edit
  • The lead immediately mentions that the main oeuvre falls into two groups, but these are not easy to distinguish in small images, and none of the captions give dimensions. This needs to be addressed somehow. The larger works should probably have both dimensions given. For the small sketches just giving the width is probably enough. Or you just adopt (and explain) a convention that if a caption calls an image "small" or a "sketch" it means the longest dimension is less than 30 cm (or whatever).
This is a good point. I'm worried that by including the exact dimensions it will make the painting info not immediately decipherable, so I would prefer a shorthand convention if possible. Maybe include the dimensions for larger works and write "sketch" for the smaller ones, along with an initial note that "sketch" refers to works around 21.6 × 26.7 cm (8½ × 10½ in.). I'm open to suggestions here. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, try that. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I added dimensions for the larger works, as well as the "sketch" designation with a note on the first instance. Should I also include inches in the dimensions or is it enough to simply provide cm? Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if there's a rule, but some people turn up & add conversion templates. Personally I'm ok with just cm; the two look rather cluttered. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the course of his short career, he produced roughly 400 oil sketches on small wood panels along with around 50 larger works on canvas." - mention the other stuff? At least that it exists. "oil sketches" links to oil painting not oil sketch, which would seem more appropriate. "on small wood panels" doesn't actually seem correct - the image files for the mini-gallery of 1912/13 sketches give a variety of descriptions for the support:
oil on paperboard
Oil on paper (with embossed canvas texture) on plywood
oil on canvas on wood
oil on canvas
oil on canvas mounted on paperboard

- but none are what is usually meant by a panel painting.

This division is the one used in most sources. For example, Silcox & Town (2017), p. 181: "Thomson's art can be divided into two main bodies of work: the small oil sketches on wood panels he did when he was 'on the trail,' canoeing through Algonquin Park or elsewhere in 'the North'; and the larger canvases he made when he was in his studio in Toronto. He produced about 400 oil sketches during his last five years, although the total number might exceed that. There are, in addition, only about fifty canvases,..." I'm hesitant to change this as sources don't describe it differently. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptions of the supports in the image files, evidently drawn from museum metadata in most cases, are sources too. Adding "mounted" before "on small wood panels" might well cover it. Are any of the works identified by the owning museum as actually painted directly onto wood, or prepared wood in the traditional style? This is actually a very fiddly and somewhat expensive technique, which is why the vast majority of artists switched to canvas some centuries before. I'm sure some of the sources must cover this with a a bit more precision than the one you quote. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct in noticing that he used a few different techniques in 1913 and earlier, but to give you a rather succinct answer: yes, with his sketches he was painting directly onto wood panels. In the Further reading section, Webster-Cook & Ruggles (2002) has a lot of information regarding his supports. Before 1914, he painted in many different ways, but by 1914 and on he was using either a composite wood-pulp board or a softwood panel (possibly from disassembled crates). Webster-Cook says that, "This is an unusual support for oil painting and may been manufactured as a bookbinder's board." The information regarding the supports is mostly on the Materials section of the Artistic development of Tom Thomson page. I can include some of this information in the Artistic development section on this page to help clear this up. (As a side note: all the information on the Commons was inputted by me with what I have found on the Tom Thomson Catalogue Raisonné and, if needed, from exhibition catalogues. Any errors are my fault in transcribing). Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be good to add. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you've done to the captions looks fine to me, except that the note explaining what "sketch" indicates, currently note 6, is very easy to miss. I think it needs to be more prominent. You could either add it to the first one in each mini-gallery, or perhaps add the text in a box at the first mini-gallery to use it. Also refer to the captioning style in the text when describing the sketch/larger works split. I think it's worth adding more here on the progression from mounted on panel to painted on panel.
I've added more regarding the supports of paintings.
Would you mind helping me out with formatting of the "sketch" note, or at least pointing me to a similar example on another page? I'm not sure how to best make the note prominent. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added it one way as test - I had to move the pic above up a para. I'm sure there are other options. I'm actually not good at that sort of thing. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems good to me. If we wanted to make it more aesthetically pleasing I'm sure we could find someone—after all, this is in the Visual Arts portal! Tkbrett (✉) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They consist almost entirely of landscapes, depicting trees, skies, lakes, rivers and other nature scenes" - "and other nature scenes" seems a bit lame, & not sure what is left after the list - rocks I suppose. Maybe "They consist almost entirely of landscapes, depicting the trees, skies, lakes, and rivers of Ontario." Or something.
Good point. I've changed it to, "They consist almost entirely of landscapes, depicting the trees, skies, lakes, and rivers." I didn't include "of Ontario" because that is how the sentence that follows ends. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's what it's referring to; here's the full source: "There he picked up the rudiments of penmanship; a good copperplate hand was still a requisite for a clerk, private secretary or bookkeeper, despite the growing dominance of the typewriter." Of course, today no one seems to care much about penmanship so the sentiment may be lost. Should I expand the current sentence to make the context more clear or do you think it's fine as is? Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It reads oddly - the "rudiments of penmanship" would be covered at school, one would think, as they still are. I think at least one of "rudimentary" and "penmanship" needs changing, or a new approach: "learnt a professional clerk's handwriting" or something. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed both the body and lead phrasing of "rudimentary penmanship". It now reads, "There, he developed abilities in penmanship and copperplate—necessary skills for a clerk." Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 1912, he visited Algonquin Park for the first time" - I'd give his age here. You might expand on Algonquin Provincial Park in case anyone thinks it is like Hyde Park or Central Park. After looking at its article, I'm still unclear how far from Toronto it is.
It would certainly help to have a sentence or two describing exactly what Algonquin Park is. I included some information near the beginning of the 1912/13 section to help clarify. I also included Thomson's age at the time of first visit. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While his earliest paintings were not outstanding technically, they illustrated an above-average ability with composition and colour handling." - reads a bit oddly. "ability with" for one thing, and the "above-average" idea. Something like: "While his earliest paintings were not outstanding technically, they showed a good grasp of composition and colour handling." Composition (visual arts) is linked, not sure we have anything for the other.
You're right, I've reworded it to your way. "Colour handling" is a paraphrasing of "handling of colour," so I'm not aware of any relevant page to link to. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through his development his later paintings vary in composition and have vivid colours and thickly applied paint". The second bit (after "and") has already been said, & the first bit seems confused - is that "through" as in "throughout"?
KJP1 mentioned similar issues with this sentence above that I fixed before I got to your response. It was reworded to, "His later paintings vary in composition and have vivid colours and thickly applied paint." Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Thomson's death, MacCallum worked to preserve and advocate for his work.[73]" - "worked ... to advocate for" is clumsy.
How about, "After Thomson's death, MacCallum helped preserve and advocate for his work." Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late April 1914, Thomson arrived in Algonquin Park, where he was joined by Lismer on May 9. They camped on Molly's Island in Smoke Lake, travelling to Canoe, Smoke, Ragged, Crown and Wolf Lakes.[102] He spent his spring and summer divided between Georgian Bay and Algonquin Park, visiting James MacCallum by canoe. His travels during this time have proved difficult to discern, with such a large amount of ground covered in such a short time, painting the French River, Byng Inlet, Parry Sound and Go-Home Bay from May 24 through August 10.[103] H. A. Callighen, a park ranger, wrote in his journal that Thomson and Lismer left Algonquin Park on May 24.[104] By May 30, Thomson was at Parry Sound and on June 1 was camped at the French River with MacCallum.[104][105]" - some indication of distances between these places would be good, also in the following section.
The sources I've used don't list distances. The closest I've found is a promotional pamphlet that says, "In this distance there are twenty portages of varying length." Mapping them out and figuring out the distance probably doesn't fall under WP:CALC, so I'm not sure what else to try. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any times in hours/days? Without some sense of scale the passage doesn't convey much. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is as specific as the sources get, giving the same time as the one I've written. Here's Wadland (2002), p. 105: "Yet no author has yet satisfactorily explained how he got to the sites where he painted images at French River, Byng Inlet, Parry Sound and Go-Home Bay in such a short time—i.e., between May 24 and August 10." It's in a footnote where he writes, "It is not impossible to do this, but one would have to be an extraordinary canoeist to manage it—especially on the open water of Georgian Bay, from the mouth of the French to Go-Home Bay (and back again)." Without it being directly written, I don't want to provide anything that may violate WP:NOR. Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2nd tranche) "Many theories have gathered around the nature of Thomson's death...", reads a bit clunky. Don't know deaths have a "nature". Maybe "There has been much speculation about the circumstances of ...." or something.
Fixed to your version. Tkbrett (✉) 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andrew Hunter has pointed to Robinson as being largely responsible for the suggestion that there was more to his death than accidental drowning." - presumably this is "Park ranger Mark Robinson", but this is the first mention of him.
Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3rd tranche) "including one at Wembley in London," - date would be nice.
Added a citation w/ 1924. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trees section - the "heroic tree" in art goes back at least to Dutch Golden Age painting, with works like The Three Trees (print) by Rembrandt and various by Jacob van Ruisdael and others. Then there's Caspar David Friedrich, with several such paintings. There is quite a lot of literature on this, & it would be nice to source a mention. There's one mention at the bottom of the page here "As a metaphor of the human condition, the lone tree is a subject that harks back to the early German Romanticism of Caspar David Friedrich. This heroic tree was given a Canadian twist with Tom Thomson's Jack Pine...". In comparison, "The theme of the single tree is common in Art Nouveau" seemed rather iffy & marginal to me, as Art Nouveau doesn't really do heroic.
What is the specific source of the second external link there? I would love to add on to this. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See bottom of the page - where page 100 is I don't know. Maybe you have access to a paper copy. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my alma mater carries the magazine, so when I stop in on Thursday to check Murray (2011) I'll also check for this. The specific article: Halkes, Petra (Summer 2003). "Richard Gorman". Canadian Art. 20 (2): 99ff. I'll keep you posted. Tkbrett (✉) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added content after I went to the library and found page 100 (there actually wasn't much more since the article was detailing the work of Canadian artist Richard Gorman). I also added a bit more concerning the influence of John Constable on Thomson. If you have any other suggestions, just let me know. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flowers section. All the 6 illustrated are "sketches". Are there any larger paintings? Worth saying. The same question for the "People" section.
All six flowers sketches are the extent of it. Joan Murray included a few others in one of her books but they aren't still lifes. As far as paintings of people, the only canvas that features a prominent figure is The Fisherman. (I took it out after the complaints about there being too many images arose, but since those complaints have been addressed I'll go ahead and put it back in). Any other canvas with figures has them far off in the distance (e.g., The Pointers, The Drive). Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "logging and the lumber industry" - link to something?
Done. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fiddled to remove the impression that alligators are found in Ontario (global warming isn't that far advanced)
Ha! Thankfully not yet. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomson's and the Group of Seven's work is often absent of criticism for the typical Canadian attitudes of the time, ..." convoluted expression. Maybe "Thomson's and the Group of Seven's work typically reflects the typical Canadian attitudes of the time, ..." or "does not challenge" or something. Likewise "while Thomson and the other artists were not critical of industry, mining and logging, they did not glorify these issues and they took a relatively low profile within the art produced." This somewhat contradicts the previous para, where you refer to frequent coverage, & is oddly expressed - can you glorify an issue? Maybe "their work did not emphasize the industrial exploitation of the landscape", or something.
I've simply quoted Harold Town where he says that Thomson "did not glorify industry in the bush." Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • People section: staffage (= "figures far off in the distance") might be a useful link. Is The Poacher smoking fish? Worth mentioning if sourced.
Linked. Murray (2011) discusses what The Poacher is doing; I don't have the work on hand so I'll have to run over the library when I get a chance (probably Thursday). If I don't return to this then please ping me. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two sentences describing The Poacher. Here's an excerpt Murray (2011) writes regarding this sketch: "In this sketch of a poacher, Thomson again sought to suggest a particular person and carefully recorded details of his outfit, from the hat that partially hides the man's face to the hunting vest and blue shirt. He is seated comfortably before a grill over hot coals and is drying something—likely venison cut into strips or whatever he has poached." Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've split a couple, but some paras are still rather long. Splitting can also reduce sandwiches. You might look at those beginning: The family were unsuccessful as farmers.. (currently sandwich filling for me), Algonquin Park was established in 1893 by, Thomson continued canoeing alone until he met with A. Y. Jackson, Thomson produced more nocturnes than the rest of the Group of Seven, These paintings, especially Marguerites, Wood Lilies and Vetch (single para section, as is "People").
I've split these paragraphs. Tkbrett (✉) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the help! Tkbrett (✉) 18:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

edit

Deferring to KJP1 and Johnbod as experts on the visual arts, I'll put my inexpert two penn'orth in as a makeweight. I'll have more after a thorough read-through, but for now, two quick points on spelling from my preliminary canter through. First, just checking that Thomson did indeed spell "lilies" with three "l"s; and secondly ditto that the two "noctures" are not meant to be "nocturnes". More anon. Tim riley talk 20:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All were typos and have been fixed. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you changed them back when doing some of my points though! Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keen eye. Fixed them. Thanks! Tkbrett (✉) 03:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need at least two goes at this, as there's a lot of text to scrutinise. These are my comments to the end of the Life section. Meagre gleanings, as the prose is of v. high quality.

  • Early years
    • "including a respiratory issue" – "issue" seems an odd word. More a "problem", I'd have thought.
    • "spent it relatively quickly" – relative to what? A pity to use this precise term as a mere synonym for "quite" or "rather".
  • Graphic design work
    • "he left despite a good salary by the end of 1904" – I might be inclined to put commas in here for clarity: "he left, despite a good salary, by the end of 1904". Or reorder as "despite a good salary he left by the end of 1904".
  • Painting career
    • Not an important point, but does "squall" really need a link?
    • "In October, Thomson was introduced to Dr. James MacCallum by MacDonald" – I am not as agin the passive voice as some people are, but I do think this looks a bit effortful, and might flow better in the active: "In October, MacDonald introduced Thomson to Dr. James MacCallum". I admit this then presents the problem of how to start the next sentence, so ignore if you wish.
  • Your's is much better. I put it in and changed the sentence that followings: "In October, MacDonald introduced Thomson to Dr. James MacCallum. A frequent visitor to the Ontario Society of Artists' (OSA) exhibitions, MacCallum was admitted to the Arts and Letters Club in January 1912. There, he met artists such as John William Beatty, Arthur Heming, MacDonald and Harris." Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a later founder of the Group" – later a founder of the Group?
  • I'm worried how the entire sentence reads with that alteration: "In October 1913, MacCallum introduced Thomson to A. Y. Jackson, later a founder of the Group of Seven." I'm not absolutely sure here, it's just that to my ear it sounds as though something is "off". If you think it's fine I'm still O.K. to change it, I just wanted to double check. Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "planned for the fall of 1917" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating events by season if possible, as some readers in the southern hemisphere are put off by our northern hemisphere assumptions. When the seasons are relevant, as in your "Early recognition (1914–15)" section, it's fine to use them.
  • Wow, I had never even thought of that (someone in my family married a Kiwi so I should really know better). The source doesn't get more specific and writes, "Later, [Trainor] was rumoured to be engaged to Thomson for a marriage in the fall of 1917..." Should I write "late 1917" instead? Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to complain about in the Life section. More anon. Tim riley talk 18:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second and last batch of comments from Tim

  • Artistic development
    • There's a lot of repetition in the early stages of this section: we've already been told about the graphic design, Grip and Dr McCallum. Mentioning them again here is harmless, and perhaps beneficial, but I think the text would flow better if written as though your reader had read the earlier bit: e.g. instead of "He was employed as a graphic designer with Toronto's Grip Ltd., an experience which honed his…" something like "His experiences as a graphic designer with Toronto's Grip Ltd honed his…" and so on.
    • "Thomson peaked creatively between 1914 and 1917" – Two points on this. First, I'm not sure if the peak refers to quality or quantity of output. Secondly, as the statement doesn't seem to be substantiated during the rest of the paragraph, it could do with a citation. (Looking back to the Life section I'm not sure the sub-header "Artistic peak (1916–17)" is wholly justified by the text that follows. I don't doubt that it's correct, but a bit of evidence is wanted.)
  • This was meant to refer to the quantity of output. I've reworded things to make it: "Thomson's produced nearly all of his works between 1912 and 1917. Most of his large canvases were completed in his most productive period, from late 1916 to early 1917." (Silcox & Town 2017, p. 181). Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his work is sympathetic" – unexpected tense. The past tense seems wanted here, unless I'm missing something.
    • "400, and the second is of around fifty" – this is not a criticism, but I wonder where you, personally, draw the line between using words and using numbers for figures. I don't think the MoS lays down the law on this point.
  • Not sure how this crept in. Most style guides I've seen suggest switching from words to numbers after ten or (rarely) at twenty. Once you hit 50 though, you should be well past it. Changed. Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While the sketches were produced quickly, the canvases were developed over weeks" – I'd be cautious about using "while" to mean "although": it can lead you into what Fowler calls "the absurdity of seeming to say that two events occurred or will occur simultaneously which cannot possibly do so". I'm not sure that's quite avoided here.
    • "one to can see" – superfluous "to"?
    • "Although he sold few of the larger paintings during his lifetime" – but none at all after he was dead, presumably.
    • "Described as having an 'idiosyncratic palette', Thomson's control of colour was exceptional" – there's a dangling participle here: it was no doubt Thomson, and not his control of colour, that was described as having an idiosyncratic palette. Changing the second part to "Thomson had an exceptional control of colour" or some such would solve the problem.
  • Trees
    • "the effect of the seasons upon them" – this the fourth "upon" in the article. It's a perfectly good word, but one does begin to notice it on (or upon) repetition, and a simple "on" might be less conspicuous here and there.
    • "MacDonald in turn was likely influenced by the landscape art of John Constable, whose work he likely saw" – two likelys in the one sentence. Making one a "probably" would oil the wheels. (There are 12 "likely"s throughout the article, and perhaps a few of them as "probably"s would vary things nicely, too. Just a thought.)
  • Skies
    • "capturing the lakes reflection" – possessive apostrophe missing?
    • "light on the sky" – can the sky have light on it, rather than in it?
    • "inspired painter Edvard Munch" – not entirely sure anyone reading this article will need to be told that Munch was a painter, but this isn't a matter of great importance.
  • Flowers
    • "his father John" – as opposed to other fathers? We've already been told Father's name, and don't need it here.
    • "his naturalist uncle Dr. William Brodie" – but Brodie was Thomson's grandmother's first cousin, rather than T's uncle, when we met him earlier.
  • The Thomson family referred to Dr. Brodie as "uncle". I had this in an earlier version of the page but removed it because it didn't seem that important or relevant. I've cleared up the confusion by rewording things: "...his naturalist relative Dr. William Brodie..." Tkbrett (✉) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By placing flowers against black backdrops, the colours become more vivid" – another dangling participle, I think. It's the artist, not the colours, who placed the flowers.

That's all from me. All pretty minor comments, and I look forward to supporting the promotion of this interesting and (to me) revelatory article. I had never heard of Thomson and am very glad to have made his acquaintance here. Tim riley talk 09:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I'm very happy to have brought at least one person to Thomson who had never heard of him before. Tkbrett (✉) 22:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – very pleased to add my name as a supporter. As I have said above, I'm no expert on the visual arts, but I can see at least three other reviewers on this page who certainly are, and I leave technical and aesthetic comment in their capable hands. Meanwhile, this article seems to my layman's eye to be of the highest quality: a pleasure to read; well proportioned; balanced (not ducking adverse comment when called for); comprehensive without going on excessively; and conveying the main author's sheer pleasure in the subject. I hope we shall be seeing more from you, Tkbrett. – Tim riley talk 00:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy

edit
Great read.....but I take it the review will fix the image problems ? People do look at mobile view during the review right? Because its a scrolling gallery nightmare with 50 images that have fixed image sizes and 2 instance of sandwich text. Remember 50%+ are mobile viewers--Moxy (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned up in the image review that my basis for this page is the FA Vincent van Gogh and it seems to have a similar number of images and galleries. It doesn't have five images in every gallery though, so I've gone ahead and removed some of the ones Ceoil thought might warrant removal. If you have anything more specific just let me know. Tkbrett (✉) 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy - Moxy's quite right - the needs of mobile readers need to be borne in mind. That said, I've just gone through it on my iPad and iPhone and they both looked fine. But I'm no expert on image accessibility, so I'll go and ask someone who is to take a look and advise. KJP1 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a some images (here and here). Moxy, what do you mean by "sandwich text"? I haven't been able to find this term in any guides. Tkbrett (✉) 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"sandwich text" is when images on the left and right partially overlap vertically and push the test into a narrow central band. I'm not seeing it in this article. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article about an artist can be expected to have lots of images in it. The viewing figures for the last 30 days are:
  • desktop: 5,879 pageviews (190/day);
  • mobile web: 5,051 pageviews (163/day) (and the images look mostly fine on that; a bit crowded at the top);
  • mobile app: 100 pageviews (3/day).
Please don't remove images for the sake of three pageviews a day. SarahSV (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. Art, and indeed architecture, articles benefit hugely from images and I wasn't in any way arguing for removal. But accessibility's also important and I've asked another editor, who's helped me greatly before on this issue, for their input. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the images in desktop view and in mobile view on several mobile devices and emulators, as well as the Wikipedia App on my phone. Apart from the infobox image, only the gallery images have fixed sizes, and I didn't find a device or setting that caused me problems with how the images displayed, with two principal exceptions – on any screen around 800px wide there can be sandwiching of the text:
Otherwise, the layout remains good to my eyes at anything less than a 4K screen, but as it becomes increasingly difficult to cater for the extremes of screen sizes when you mix images and text on any web page, I think Wikipedia can be forgiven for assuming that nobody will be reading our articles at 100% zoom on any browser width above 1920px.
I hope this may be a help in resolving some of Moxy's concerns. Please let me know if you'd like me to elaborate further on any points. --RexxS (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this, it's very helpful. Are they bad sandwiches? Some mild sandwiching on wide screens is inevitable & fine. About how many words per line do you get in the sandwich filling? Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks RexxS, this is solid guidance. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone in this thread for the help. I've followed RexxS's suggestion and moved the Northern Lights image lower. Tkbrett (✉) 21:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: At its worst, it's pretty bad sandwiching, John. At a screen width of 860px in Desktop view with TOC hidden, Early years looks like this:

Thomas John
"Tom"
Thomson was
born in
Claremont, Ontario, the sixth of John and Margaret

. You can duplicate that yourselves on desktop by hiding TOC and narrowing the browser window bit-by bit while keeping the Life section in view. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - obviously that's bad. Do the changes Tkbrett has made improve things? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my last edit, I moved File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg down to fix the issue and, just in case, also replaced the vertical Study for "Northern River" with the horizontal Black Spruce and Maple (a work Lawren Harris was particularly fond of and is completely deserving of a spot near the top of the page). Lastly, I also removed the quote box that was causing issues. Tkbrett (✉) 19:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good.....after looking at a few FA articles about art and artists I see many galleries is the norm. Not sure it's very accessible friendly....but I guess if your here its because of the art to begin with. Sorry not familiar with art articles....was reading the article because of the Canadian aspect of the topic. --Moxy (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

edit

All, I hate to be a pain, but this has been open since 27 October and is still on going. Yes its a first nom and needs more scrutiny, but it has received heavy duty praise by some of our most forensic and/or subject area experts (Sarah, Johnbod, Outriggr (in lead up), Tony), but is dragging on...seems to me now to be process inhibited, yet its very unlikely an substantial problems will turn up at this stage. From a purely selfish art history community POV...want this rather talented and able new comer to continue with the project, and not get the impression that every FAC nom will an exercise in slow torture. I suppose I'm asking for still open reviewers to take a position and close out. From my vantage point, I'm seeing the editor tending to finer points on this when she/he could be doing so much else. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Sarah supported on the 27 November; and while I have utter and utmost respect for the volunteer delegates, who cant be everywhere all the time, this seems to be slipping though the cracks. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Ceoil, this has slipped through the cracks but I'll try and take a good look at it today. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sound and no worries Ian man. Ceoil (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Aside from a few tweaks to prose that I made, as I usually find myself doing before promotion, I find the sandwiching quite pronounced in the Life section. I realise this has been worked on quite heavily above, and that different screen resolutions produce different results, but I wonder if things might be improved if Jack Pine and Black Spruce were simply moved to the gallery immediately below and the c. 1900 portrait moved to Early life. The 1905-10 portrait could stay its current subsection but go left so he looks 'into' the article page.
Also, I note several duplicate links in the article -- some may be justified but pls review and rationalise as appropriate (I can point you a duplink checker if that helps, let me know).
Neither of these points need hold up promotion but I'll give you some time to respond while I look over some other nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and removed duplicate links. I know it's alright to have a link appear in both the lead and in the body, but I wasn't sure if a link could also appear both below a gallery image and in the body. For example, I have "Edmonton" linked in the description for the painting The Fisherman as well as in the body ("Discovered in an Edmonton basement in 2018..."). Should I only link the first instance, or should I link both?
I included both The Jack Pine and Black Spruce and Maple just below the infobox because I thought they served as a useful visual summary of Thomson's work, similar to what is seen on the page for Vincent van Gogh. (The latter painting serves as an example of his sketches, while The Jack Pine is perhaps the most famous painting in Canada). I can move them back down into the body if you think the sandwiching issues make the current format a no-go. I have toyed with trying to get the c. 1905–10 portrait to be on the left so Thomson is "facing" the text like the MOS suggests, but I have had trouble getting it to look aesthetically pleasing since a gallery comes immediately below it. Someone better than me at formatting may have more luck here. Tkbrett (✉) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, tks for that. Re. duplinks, I've seen them used in both text and accompanying tables/diagrams without complaint, so I wouldn't say one needed to avoid links in captions as a rule. Re. sandwiching, or other image-related practices that the MOS advises we avoid, it's really down to whether you have a rationale for exceptions -- you seem to have one (though it wasn't obvious to me when I first read the article) so fair enough. MOS is after all a guideline, and guidelines should always tolerate reasonable exceptions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother waiting Ian, and as you say image placement been discussed (to death) above. Dup links, are very trivial matters and hardly grounds for further stalling a FAC that should have been closed 2 weeks ago. The last thing that is is need here is "some time"; note the basis for my original plea. I am loosing patience, and find this reply disappointing. Ceoil (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I genuinely appreciated your request for attention above but at this point I'd rather hear back from the nominator. I'm as keen as anyone to close this out, and to encourage a talented newcomer, so I'm really just after an acknowledgement to look at the points above, even if that takes place after promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok grand, no problem and thanks as always Ian. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tom_Thomson/archive1&oldid=1138474024"