Talk:White Mountain art

White Mountain art was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 12, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
February 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 25, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 18, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Recent Edits

I'd like to discuss your edits concerning the Willey tradgedy. I'm new to wikipedia, so please bear with me.

Is there a standard format for dates? I find 28 August 1826 unusual. I see that it allows for two links, but are they necessary? I don't like abbreviations, since I don't feed they're necessary. How about "the notch between Mounts Willey and Webster?" Your edits do not make it clear that the Willey family had both parents and five children at the home at the time of the mudslide. Did you leave out the Bible because it can't be verified? Did you leave out the "buried under ..." because it's too graphic? I also suggest using an 'mdash' in the sentence containing "... allure — tradegy and nature — was ..."

JJ 14:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for checking back in. :-) Your original draft struck me as feeling just a little bit sensationalist, if you will permit me to say. I mainly wanted to make the language a little less informal and more neutral. Please feel free to edit the details back in if you feel that they're strongly relevant. As for your style questions:
- The preferred format for dates is described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The format in which the date is rendered is actually defined by the reader's preferences; check out Special:Preferences to change to a different format for viewing.
- Your point about the abbreviations is well taken -- I personally would find "Mount Willey and Mount Webster" easier to read, but don't care about "Mt." vs. "Mount". :-)
- I agree with the mdash too, good on you for spotting that.
- Please feel free to re-edit something if you feel strongly about it, and post a note in the article's "Talk" page if you seem to have a strong difference of opinion with another editor. Be bold in updating!
- And hey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! :-) Tim Pierce 17:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added more details about the Willey tradegy. Made the changes I first suggested.

 JJ 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to sign in, so the edit of 69.161.63.23 are me, JJ 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC). So, if you have talk, please address to me.[reply]

JJ 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Higher resolution pics

Can we get larger pictures. I click on them hoping to see big landscapes and they are just thumbnail sized. Broken S 02:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only images that do not have a link to a higher resolution image are the Thomas Hill of Crawford Notch and the Champney at 17. Is there a way to link the small images to larger ones on wikipedia? JJ 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the "thumb" command automaticaly resizes large images into smaller thumbs (so a small resized version of the pic will appear and link to the full size). If you can find larger versions you can upload them right on top of the current pictures and you won't have to change anything. And I'm going to sleep. Broken S 03:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded larger images as you suggested. Please check them out. Again, any further suggestions are gladly welcome. JJ 14:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Outstanding article. I love reading about this kind of stuff--nearly everyone has heard of the Hudson River School artists, but you've done some great research into this important and lesser-known early center of artistic activity.

Your images are terrific--great examples. I also like that you don't "over-link" the article: for example, another writer might have linked the word "artists" in your first sentence to the Wikipedia article "artist". This is a pet-peeve of mine; I think links should only be inserted to clarify something not commonly known.

If I were to make one suggestion it would be about the introduction. As someone unfamiliar with the historical details of White Mountain art, I was reading the first paragraph and came upon the "1826 tragedy of the Willey family." My immediate reaction was, "What 1826 tragedy of the Willey family?" Even though you answer that question in detail later on, I would avoid introducing a new term or unexplained reference right off the bat. I would have three suggestions:

add an explanatory phrase like "...1826 tragedy of the Willey family, in which nine people lost their lives in an avalanche."
link this text so that it drops the reader directly to the Willey paragraph (I have to admit I don't know how to do that; also, it aborts the introduction)
better yet, I would find a way to condense the introduction. Only the absolute essentials--the detail comes later. (Cutting is hard...adding is easy :)

Above all though, do what you (and not necessarily what I) think is right. It's a work in progress. Great job! --Worldofdew 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

as a reference you can link directly to a section by writing [[#section title goes here]]. As in #Recent Edits. Broken S 03:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Worldofdew 00:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Art Colony?

I'm adding this as a new section just for clarity. To what extent could North Conway in the 1850s be thought of as an "art colony"? I notice you don't use that term (and I'm not suggesting you should--I'm asking simply to learn your knowledgeable opinion). Most art colonies seem to be associated with impressionism, and while that's not the case here, there's nothing in the definition of "art colony" that restricts it to a certain artistic style. If it can be thought of as an art colony, does North Conway then lay claim to being America's first art colony? --Worldofdew 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence under "North Conway" to indicated that, indeed, North Conway had become the first "artist colony" in the US.JJ 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA

This article is OK overall but I must object to the image gallery at the bottom of the page. Please distribute the images throughout the article with critical commentary text in such a way as the images compliment the reader's understanding of the element's of the genre. Right now its just a random collection of images. If the gallery is fixed, I'd approve of this as a GA. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, my suggestions created staggering formatting problems, so if someone can come up with a better way to do this in the future, be bold. But its good enough for a GA.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. -- The Bethling ^(Talk) 22:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA status

I have removed the good article tag from this article. It was added by savidan^{(talk) (e@)} on February 21, but I cannot find any evidence that the 'GAnominee' tag was ever added to this article, nor was it ever listed on the Good article candidates page, nor was it added to the Good article listing after it the GA tag was added. If you would like to nominate this article for GA status, please review the good article criteria and nominate it at WP:GAC. Dr. Cash 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Shavey Noyes

I deleted the addition of George Shavey Noyes. The artist is unknown to me, and, therefore, I have no knowledge that he painted in the White Mountains. JJ 12:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable White Mountain artists

I suggest that we use these Notable people guidelines before adding artists to this list. Please discuss additions on my Talk page.

Campbell has the most extensive "dictionary" of White Mountain artists. Inclusion in the list was based on our experience with the subject having seen the works of all the artists listed. In addition, using Campbell we selected those artists that had a significant body of work with White Mountain subjects. In truth, I feel the list is pretty complete. But, again, "talk" to me if you feel there is an artist missing. JJ (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA status reinstated

A GA review of this article has been completed, and an evaluation of the form and presentation of this article has been made in keeping with the WP criteria required for GA status. In short, the article has been found to be well written from a neutral point of view. The content is well researched, verifiable, and accompanied by numerous in-line citations, as required. The principal contributor to this article has assembled a wealth of published information on this subject and has made a major contribution to Wikipedia readers. Numerous illustrations have been added to accompany the text and all appear to have the necessary copyright clearance and documentation. Very few improvements can be recommended. These include the recommendation that more careful attention be given to Wikilinking notable artists' names and art terms that currently appear within the text, in particular those that already have WP articles that can be readily accessed. Examples include first references for Benjamin Champney, en plein air, Thomas Hill, and Edward Hill. In addition, it is recommended that more attention be given to improving the list of references by placing authors' names first and italicizing the titles of published works cited. These very minor corrections in no way detract from the major contribution made by this article and its principal contributor, both of whom deserve the gratitude of WP readers with an interest in this important area of American landscape art. Jack Bethune (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]