Jump to content

Talk:Mary Brewster Hazelton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMary Brewster Hazelton has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 24, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 30, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Mary Brewster Hazelton exhibited The Letter (pictured) at the 1915 Panama–Pacific International Exposition, where she won a bronze medal?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 23, 2017, and September 13, 2018.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Brewster Hazelton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 02:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
Hi, Thanks so much for taking this on! Great points, I'll get to work on them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've inserted responses above. Thanks, Curly Turkey!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pondering the wording "non-gender specific ward"—really, "gender specific", as a compound modifier, should be hyphenated, but that makes things awkward with the "non-", as logically it should be "non-gender-specific award". "award that was not gender specific" is a bit of a mouthful, though ... I'd like to think on this a bit (although it's too fine a hair to split to affect the reivew at all). Other than this, I think the prose is fine.
I know, I struggle with this, too. I wonder if breaking the sentence into two points would work: 1) There were three prizes awarded specifically to women in the late 19th century, 2) but Hazelton was the first woman to win an ?established, ?mainstream award open to both genders. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could work—give me an example of how you'd word it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Example: "Until the late 1890s, there were three prizes given to American women artists in recognition of their work, the Mary Smith Prize at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, the Dodge Prize at the National Academy of Design, and the Shaw Prize at the Society of American Artists.(Swinth) In 1896, Hazelton won the National Academy of Design's Hallgarten Prize. She was the first woman to earn an award open to both genders.(Swinth)(Jovin)"--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much wordier than I was looking for, but I suppose it's interesting background information. In the lead maybe it could be reworded to "award open to both men and women" or "award not gender-restricted"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I like "award open to both men and women".--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for comprehensiveness—I notice there's no analysis of her style. How are her works normally categorized? What aspects of her work are normally noted? Did she belong to any particular "-ism"?
I'll be coming back to do source and file reviews. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She's likely identified as an Impressionist, which is hinted at by the inclusion of her name in the American Impressionists article (but the point wasn't about Impressionism, per se). I'll look around for movement and personal style info. Good points!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some content about her style / Impressionism. I wasn't able to find anything about the Japanese or oriental influence that seems apparent in her work, though.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, Curly Turkey, is there anything else you'd like me to work on? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't come back yet. I'll have to take a look at your changes, and I've still got to do a source & image check. Ping me again if I neglect to come back in the next couple days. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do, Curly Turkey. It just started to fall off my radar - no rush.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his autobiograhical report to Harvard's Class of 1860, Dr. Isaac Hills Hazelton wrote about 50% of his update about his daughter Mary for the 1900 edition.: This seems to imply she had some mental illness...?
  • James owns Hazelton's painting Lady in a Kimono : I might throw in the year the paiting was made
    • I absolutely would if I had it. It's not at Smithsonian or other reliable sources. There's a pinterest and tumbler pages that say 1897, but I cannot cite it. Am I missing something, though, about how to get the date of paintings?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, if the painting itself isn't dated, it often comes down to sleuthwork. Do you know if artnet is consdered reliable? Here it says 1897. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Artnet is kind of iffy. It is considered by some to be linkspam. See noticeboard post. I did some noticeboard searches awhile back on artnet, and its seems that there are some that think it's ok, and some places where there's concern, so I avoid using it. I think for a Good article, we should avoid it, but it you think it warrants another look, I could run it by the noticeboard and/or Visual arts WikiProject.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read the caveat in the documentation for Template:Inflation—it's not a goodidea to use it unless you're sure you know what you're doing.
    • I'm sorry to be a dunce, but I don't know what you mean. I thought I used the parameters as I saw them in the documentation. Are you referring to the fact that inflation can be a negative number one or more years? Something else? We can absolutely remove it, but my preference would be to "know what I'm doing", if it's possible.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Consumer Price Index is used to calculate the change of price in staple goods—and nothing else. Slaries, government outlays, real estate, other goods, etc etc, change at totally different rates than CPI. American incomes, in terms of buying power, have tripled in the last 100 years compared to the rate that prices of staples have risen. This is why there is this disclaimer in the documentation for the Inflation template: "This template is incapable of inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich." Unless you are very sure about how and why you are giving these adjustments, they should be avoided. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I'll remove it. (side comment: It sounds, though, if anything to undervalue the estimate. I think it's so helpful for information from the 19th century or 20th century where the values can seem small, but at the time were significant amounts of money. It helps put it in context. It seems like a note, though, for non-good-articles that it's just an estimate and "is incapable of inflating capital expenses..." should be sufficient.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his article Early Women Artists at the Guild of Boston Artists, Bob Jackman noted: you should probably date the article here, or otherwise indicate why this should come here inthe chronology
  • Do you have a book of her works? It would be nice if we could get scans of the works mentioned in the text—I don't see Two Sisters at the Piano, Margaret, or Victory's Record in Google images. It seems almost teasing to mention them but not show them. You might want to upload some of these, even if they're not the highest-quality scans. Not that I'm suggesting you need to add one, but I'm a big fan of galleries for artist articles—you can be fairly sure that someone who looks up an article on an artist is hoping to see their work, and galleries allow you to avoid clutter.
    • Oh, man, if you only knew how many ways and how much time I've spent trying to find Victory's Record. I already have most of the images from the link you provided uploaded into commons. I've seen many of my articles thinned of images, so I was trying to not overdo the images. I'd be very happy to put some of these in a gallery. I've spent some time looking for Margaret and Two Sisters at the Piano, and will try again.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be back to check image licenses and sources. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eww—Fort Devens landscape is low enough quality that I'd keep it out of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

[edit]

Source check

[edit]
  • I don't see any issues with close paraphrasing or plagiarism.
  • Ref#1 says the Hallgarten Prize was for a paiting called In the Studio. Are you sure whether it should be "a" or "the"?
    • I know, I got caught on that when I saw it, too. I checked at that time to see if it might have been a typo in the cited source or the obituary, and the obituary appears to be wrong. It's In a Studio (google search). Do you think a note is needed to stipulate that the obituary says it's In the Studio, but it's In a Studio?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the wording "develop fine artistic skills" really reflects what Ref#8 is saying—it says that Boston was one place where women could take formal education in painting, and that certain of these woemn "demonstrate remarkable individual artistic skill". I'm not sure of the intended meaning of "individual" here, whether it means they demonstrate individualism, or if it means, individually, they demonstrate artistic skill.
    • Ah, that's a very good point. The article talks about the female “Tarbellites” - which I took to mean mimickers of Edmund Tarbell - rather than having their own unique (individual) styles and abilities. So, yes, it needs to be reworded a bit. How is this change?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be a prick (this won't affect whether this article passes), have you ever considered using shortened footnotes? I find {{rp}}s such an eyesore, and reader-unfriendly. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's helpful to get that feedback. I am not a fan of short citations. It's definitely something to consider - I have also made separate citations for the pages, as another option. That would be an easier change at this point to implement for this article. I certainly don't want to make the article reader-unfriendly.--CaroleHenson (talk)


Untitled

[edit]
Excellent, thanks Calvin999--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Mary Brewster Hazelton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Letter

[edit]

This source from 1912 (Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts) shows that The Letter was exhibited as early as 1912; see pp. 13, 46. Perhaps the creation date of 1916 should be changed if they are indeed the same painting? There’s a possibility that they are different somehow. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, Good catch. Done, here.
I am also going to see about changing the filename on commons so that 1912 replaces 1916. Thanks for catching this!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the description for the file and requested the name change (roughly "by 1916" to "1912") here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this is  Done here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of gold colors

[edit]

An exhibition catalog from 2015 provides some insight as to why Hazelton began using the color gold in 1912, which informs her mural work at Wellesley Hills in that same year. It’s connected to the Paige Traveling Scholarship which allowed her to travel to Sicily where she saw how the color gold was used in church mural decorations to intensify other colors. See page 32 by Courtney S. Kopplin. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Viriditas, it looks like this could be paraphrased for the article.

During Hazelton’s travels she visited historic churches on the island of Sicily and became enamored with the use of gold in their mural decorations to enhance the other colors, a treatment that informed her own work when completing religious murals for the Congregational Church in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, in 1912.

Would you like to do that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but thank you for the offer. You are welcome to do with it what you wish. I only offered it here because I found it and thought you might find it informative. Thank you, but I leave this article in your most capable hands. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Brewster_Hazelton&oldid=1216614745"