Template:Did you know nominations/Lena Gurr

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 02:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Lena Gurr

(

)

~~... that the American artist Lena Gurr made award-winning paintings with affectionate interest, piquant social satire, gentle humor, and compassion for victims of injustice?~~

Reviewed: QPQ = Rakastava

Created by Delabrede (talk). Self-nominated at 15:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC).

Substantial article on an interesting artist, with exquisite notes! Offline sources accepted AGF. Suggestions: have one image in the infobox, write a summarizing lead, don't use more than three sources for one fact,then nominate for GA on the day of DYK appearance, for a few extra clicks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Delabrede and Gerda Arendt. This is a great article, but I've pulled it from prep, as I believe that the hook is unsuitable. The way that the hook is phrased, it's treating opinion/critical analysis as objective fact. The hook will need to be reworded. Sorry, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is copied from DYKTALK, to have all thoughts one place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a hook in preparation which makes aesthetic statements in Wikipedia's voice: "* ... that the American artist Lena Gurr made paintings with affectionate interest, piquant social satire, gentle humor, and compassion for victims of injustice?" This doesn't seem quite right but I'm not sure of the protocol for querying it when it has gotten this far. Please advise. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe they are quotes from sources discussing the subject (the "piquant social satire" is by critic Howard Devree of the NYT for example - as some of the others). DYK has generally not worried about 'in wikipedia's voice' unless its something contentious, in order to make it more 'hooky'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's still in a prep area, here is the best place (if it's on the main page, WP:ERRORS would get it seen faster). It seems to me that the hook (and article) are paraphrasing a source's opinion on something when it would be better to simply quote it directly with an attributed voice. Pinging the article's author @Delabrede: in case they are in a better position to rephrase it. GRAPPLE ^X 14:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Part of it comes from quotes in the article, and parts of that hook are not in quotes in the article. It's a nice article, but it should have been checked for neutrality of prose. @Gerda Arendt: did the Review and might like to comment here.— Maile (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Would it help you to say that all these a views by different critics, the first a quote (which could be marked as such, and we could end there)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

With thanks for the careful consideration being given to this DYK, here are my thoughts:

-- As has been noted, "affectionate interest" is an exact quote. The full sentence in which it appears is given in the reflist (no. 72). I agree with Gerda Arendt; I should have put this phrase in quotes in the hook.

-- "Piquant social satire" is a paraphrase. The sentence from which it comes reads: "She turns out a piquant bit of social satire, an accomplished still-life with warmth of color and with finish, or a romantic landscape." (ref. no. 30). I expect I could reword the hook to use the exact quote but again I agree with Gerda Arendt; why not just leave it as it is?

-- "Gentle humor" is not a direct quote from a source. It comes from statements made by newspaper critics in 1935 and 1939. The phrase given in 1939 is "quiet humor" (quoted in ref. n. 69). The 1935 article is generally about "Humor in Art" not specifically about Gurr's particular humorous style. I don't think the hook would be weakened by using "quiet humor" in quotes instead of "gentle humor."

-- "Compassion for victims of injustice" paraphrases a statement in the article which derives from comments made by newspaper critics in 1938 and 1939. The ref from 1939 is the one mentioned above (no. 69). The 1938 ref needs to be corrected. It should point to no. 46 not no. 43. ~~The latter~~ No. 46 refers to Gurr's "scenes of war and persecution" which are "clearly done with the full strength of conviction." The full statement is quoted in ref. 46. I suggest we leave this phrase as it is. -- Delabrede (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not all of it need be presented as a direction quotation from the words used in the source, but anything that gives a subjective view, even if we paraphrase it and inline-cite it, should be attributed. "Compassion for victims of injustice" is perfectly fine to condense the source's language, but could be better presented as "described by a writer for The Daily Whateverthepaper as displaying compassion for victims of injustice", for example. The same goes for the rest; the key is just using the attribution to show that this is not something we have said and found support for, but something someone else has said that we are relaying. GRAPPLE ^X 16:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the hook from Prep 6 to Prep 4, since Prep 6 could be promoted to the queue at any time. This will allow plenty of time for this discussion to continue and for the hook to either be changed in place or removed while new ones are suggested and reviewed in the usual manner. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the article to provide attributions for instances of subjective view, have changed the phrase "gentle humor" to "quiet humor," and have corrected my reference error. Delabrede (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed the unusual phrasing in the hook, and am glad someone commented on it. Looking at the sources, "gentle humor" is indeed a good paraphrase, and "compassion for victims of injustice" could be said by anyone, but "piquant social satire" and "affectionate interest" really should be in quotes. As these phrases are from different sources, the hook would then be peppered with quote marks – not an ideal situation. May I suggest a different hook altogether?
ALT1: ~~... that a reviewer at Lena Gurr's fourth solo exhibition said that the American artist "painted with the gusto of a Goya"?~~ Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I love this ALT1 hook. I love it with the gusto of a Goya!!— Maile (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the gusto, but am no friend of the possessive "'s" attached to the bolded subject in a different colour, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, you may not be a friend of that possessive not being part of the bold link, but that is exactly how it is supposed to be done—see WP:DYKSG#C7. We do need to hear from Delabrede as to whether the proposed ALT1 hook is acceptable, and someone to actually check the hook to see whether the facts are properly sourced and in the article, and the hook is sufficiently neutral. I may have to push the hook back another day if it isn't ready to go in the next few hours, or perhaps even pull it back from prep if this is still not settled by Saturday mid-afternoon. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: According to the article this was at her third solo exhibition, not her fourth. The extracts from the sources don't seem to mention whether these exhibitions are the third of fourth though, so maybe we shouldn't use that in the blurb. Jolly Ω Janner 03:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The original hook was pulled from prep by The Squirrel Conspiracy about four hours ago, fortunately in time to keep it from being promoted to queue a couple of hours later. This discussion should continue at Template:Did you know nominations/Lena Gurr. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continued here

Not my turn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all for helpful contributions, particularly Yoninah for Alt1 which I like. Gurr's solo exhibition at the A.C.A. Galleries in 1945 was her third. I quote A.Z. Kruse's review of the show in full in the reference. I give it again here, formatted as in the original:.

A.C.A. Gallery
Because of her prodigious ability and indefatigable effort, Lena Gurr's place in the front ranks of outstanding American women painters is secure. She paints with a powerful sense of subjective realism and reveals an unusual ability to record the emotional impact of an inspired moment.
A gala event which fires the imagination at Cony Island has been magnificently poetized in paint in Miss Gurr's "Child's Wonderland." "City Vignette" is a rare achievement in pictorial composition. Last, and perhaps most important in her repertoire of 25 paintings, is "Little Old New York" its locale at the recent World's Fair, and painted with the gusto of a Goya.

(I assert fair use right to copy this extract from the full article, entitled "At the Galleries," Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 22, 1945, p. 28.) -- Delabrede (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally: Andrew Davidson and I have been carrying on a discussion of the article's lede on its talk page. My lede was weak and I meant to beef it up. Before I got to that task he kindly added text and a photo. The photo is a great addition. The text bothered me and that's what we've been discussing. If any of you wish to review what we've said so far, I—and I'm sure he—would welcome comments. -- Delabrede (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have some other topics to focus on today and so am happy to pass on the torch. ALT1 looks fine to me so you can proceed with that if you want to get the DYK back on track. Other issues like the lead are just nice-to-have and so needn't delay this. Andrew D. (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have just struck ALT1, since it seems to refer to the wrong exhibition, but have reconstituted it below as ALT2 with the correct information, since Delabrede liked it. I've also struck the original hook, based on the issues raised earlier. I think the confusion over the number of solo shows may come from this being her third solo exhibition at the gallery, but there is also mention of a 1932 solo show at the Brooklyn Museum that predates the gallery ones. I've added the gallery for clarity, and also added an inline citation for the "third" at the end of the requisite sentence.

ALT2: ... that a reviewer of Lena Gurr's third solo exhibition at the A.C.A. Gallery said that the American artist "painted with the gusto of a Goya"?

Reviewer needed to check ALT2. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. For my personal taste, it gives a bit too much attention to the name of the gallery, but is the best offer on the table ;) - Do we plan to highlight positive hooks and articles on the 15th wiki-birthday? This could be one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Would "third solo gallery exhibition" be a better wording, then, since the first-ever solo exhibition was at a museum rather than a gallery? Or is the specificity of the gallery name needed? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not exactly my field of expertise. I think museum is regarded as more important, as more independent. How about dropping the number?

ALT3: ... that a reviewer of a solo exhibition of the art of Lena Gurr said that she "painted with the gusto of a Goya"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

* Thank you, once more, Gerda Arendt. ALT3 is fine with me. -- Delabrede (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)