# Talk:Cady Noland

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cady Noland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: 19h00s (talk · contribs) 00:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Floating Orb (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The final words have been made. The review is done. I hereby declare this article as one of the Good Articles on Wikipedia. Thanks It is a wonderful world for helping me out! Thank you 19h00s for helping as the nominator! - Floating Orb, the reviewer


### 19h00s replies
Just breaking my replies off into another section so they're not jumbled up with the review!

Adjusted the description of Langer's store, it's referenced as a clothing store in other texts but Hainley does describe it as a boutique.--19h00s (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Floating Orb (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Adjusted the invocation of Stephen Butler, you're right that a dedication does not necessarily mean inspiration. But the article calls him a professor and says he was her teacher; to me that means she studied under him in college. --19h00s (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Floating Orb (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
So, in re: the quoted text from the end of the "Early life and education" section, can you clarify what you're struggling to understand? In the first quotation, Noland is talking about her hometown and saying that she believes the people who live there are "two-faced" and that she wants to be different. In the second quotation she is saying that as the daughter of a successful artist, she understood how art dealers (the people who sell art) work and act. [Also I'd just add you don't have to delete every comment you make after I address it :) - we want other editors to be able to read this review in the future to see what was discussed] --19h00s (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Following up on the citations: yes, many of the citations are to books or periodicals only available in print, I had to go to a number of libraries to access the sources to expand this article. And yes, citation 14 (I believe you're referencing the article by Gretchen Faust) is used more than once, as are several other sources. I'm not sure why that would be an issue, though. --19h00s (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh. Sometimes Wikipedia likes if you use multiple different kinds of sources. Floating Orb (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean here? Wikipedia has guidelines and policies on sources, nowhere does it say "Sometimes Wikipedia likes if you use multiple different kinds of sources." I'm really not trying to be rude, but it honestly appears like you started this review on a lark because it was directly below the article you nominated (until that nomination was removed again), and you don't seem to have read in detail the article, the review instructions, the GA criteria, and other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I tried to assume good faith from the beginning, but this doesn't feel productive anymore if I have to explain why reusing a source or using a print source are allowed on Wikipedia. 19h00s (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Tapping in @It is a wonderful world as I'm really struggling to understand how to move forward at this level. I apologize for jumping to the worst conclusion. 19h00s (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
No. I never said it wasn't allowed. I was just saying it isn't good. Sorry. It's okay. Floating Orb (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I will read the guidelines a little more and then resume. Floating Orb (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I read the guidelines. I will give you a list of anything I would like to change in a moment. Floating Orb (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Floating Orb, thank you for reading the guidelines. It is really important you understand the guidelines and the criteria, since that is what the review is based on. To make the review readable, you want to split it up into sections based on the criteria. I can help you with this if you would like – we can review this article together. IAWW (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, that sounds good. Floating Orb (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Floating Orb, thanks for reading the criteria. I started a new section below, where I have created a section for each of the criteria. We can work through the sections one by one, ticking them off as we go and raising any issues there. Take a look. Perhaps we could start on the reference spot check? IAWW (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. That's what I was doing. I didn't know how to get the structured review piece. I think the references have been pretty good so far. We should look a little more. Floating Orb (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
@Floating Orb That's really good. In the spot check section of the review I have started the spot check. You can continue it by indicating, as I have, what sources you checked and whether there were any issues. IAWW (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I noticed that Source 1 doesn't really match up with the information, I wrote it down below. Floating Orb (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
@Floating Orb good work, a few issues though. We don't want to put a Y if the source doesn't support the content, however in this instance the reference is only meant to support the quote, so it does actually support the content. Additionally, take a look at the formatting of the spot check section. It isn't very clear, and could be made more clear by putting the reference checks on separate lines. IAWW (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I just noticed you made it a list, which is much better, well done. IAWW (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Floating Orb (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. I fixed it. Floating Orb (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Nice, I noticed you checked more. Note that instead of marking the ones you can't access with a N, it's best just to skip them. You don't have to check every one! Only mark with a N the ones that don't support the content fully. IAWW (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't know how to get a X. For the ones I that don't match I'll put the hammer for needing improvement. Floating Orb (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Aha okay :) Be sure to only put the hammer on the ones which do not support the text. Not the ones you can't access. Just remove your comments on them and skip any ones you can't access in the future. IAWW (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Your checks are looking really good. Note that you only need to check around 15 or so. You don't need to check every reference in the article! When you are ready to move onto the next part, I'll show you how to check for copyright violations (copyvio). IAWW (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
That sounds good! Let's continue. Floating Orb (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
See the box titled "GA toolbox" in the top right of this page? In there, there are three links. The first link checks for copyvio, the second link shows authorship and the third link flags any problematic external links. Check these links, are there any issues? IAWW (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I clicked the links. I don't know how to use the first one and second one yet. Floating Orb (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
See if you can figure out how they work based on common sense and any online instructions you can find. If you can't figure it out yourself, I'll explain. IAWW (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Link one says that the article has 57.4% similarity. Floating Orb (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
You can check a comparison of the 57.4% similarity one by clicking "compare". It will show you what phrases are similar between the article and the source. Are there any long copies that are not direct quotes in the article? IAWW (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I clicked compare and it has some sentences that are quoted from the people in the articles, though no full paragraphs that were labeled in red. Floating Orb (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Nice. Note that there are no sentences or extended phrases that are copied without quoting. This means the article has no issues with copyvio with the online sources that Earwig can access. As for the sources that aren't online, Earwig cannot access them, so I'll check myself for any problems manually. IAWW (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Also, I meant first and third one. Floating Orb (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Have you had any luck understanding the third one? IAWW (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Not really. There are 10 links labeled with an exclamation point. Floating Orb (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
We are only really interested in the links that aren't already archived, so click "does not have a archive.org link". Then, check the four URLs the tool flags as possibly having issues. Do they all work for you? If they do, you can tick off the "health and formatting" section. We know there are no serious issues with formatting because we were able to access the sources on the spot check. IAWW (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Complete. Floating Orb (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Great! Up next is "scope", the GA criteria requires the article is not excessively detailed or not detailed enough (criteria 3a and 3b). I already checked for excessive detail and found no major issues, I'll leave the broadness check to you. Have a look at the article, does it cover the artist's whole life? Does it obviously miss any major aspects of the topic? If not, feel free to mark the scope section with a Y. IAWW (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Done. It covers the Noland's life well. Floating Orb (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Great! Another criterion evaluated. The next criterion is 2b, which requires the sources be sufficiently reliable. Read WP:RS, and then look through the references of this article. Are there any that are insufficiently reliable? IAWW (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. Floating Orb (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay, just so you know, it would take hours to fully check the reliability of every source in this article. On a surface scan, I noticed one source that was potentially questionable, and I'll mention it below.
The next part is the prose review, where you will be checking criteria 1a, 1b and 4. Read through these criteria at the GA criteria page and ensure you understand them. Then, read through the whole article noting any issues you find with those criteria in the appropriate section of the review. It can be hard to spot prose mistakes, especially when the article well-written, which it looks like this one is. I'll let you go through the article first and then I'll also do a prose review after you to identify any points you may miss. Good luck and let me know when you're done. It's alright if this takes you a couple days – it's a big job and it is normal for it to take a while. IAWW (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Am I supposed to check the formatting? Floating Orb (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I did that, don't worry. IAWW (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Let me know if you don't understand anything I said. IAWW (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Where do I find the criteria? I checked the good article criteria page. Floating Orb (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
The six good article criteria can be found near the top of the good article criteria page with the heading "the six good article criteria". I'm going to sleep now, so good luck! IAWW (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I'll try to figure it out. Floating Orb (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Anything new I need to address? --19h00s (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
No. I don't think so. Floating Orb (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
@19h00s @Floating Orb, I'll review this article's prose sometime in the next few days, to see if there is anything you Floating Orb may have missed. IAWW (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
No. Where did @It is a wonderful world go? Floating Orb (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@Floating Orb I'm still here! As indicated above, I'll have a look at th prose sometime in the next few days. IAWW (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh. Okay. Thank you. Floating Orb (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
We're getting near the end of the process. Floating Orb (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, well done. When you finish, could you keep the review open so I can double check a few things and take a second look at the prose? IAWW (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@19h00s Just to keep you in the loop, I'm I am finishing this very intensive review. After that, I'll have time to turn my attention to this. IAWW (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@19h00s Having read the prose and glossed some of the other criteria I'm quite confident this is ready for GA. I included two suggestions on the prose portion of the review below. @Floating Orb You are free to pass this! IAWW (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks for your your help! I think that this article is ready too. Floating Orb (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Floating Orb Great! Do you know how to pass the review? Or would you like me to pass it for you? IAWW (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't really know. Do I sign it with a check? Floating Orb (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Should I write something on the talk page? Floating Orb (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Neither, you can pass it by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Step 5: After the review. Or I could just pass it for you, let me know which you want to do. IAWW (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I guess I'll try it out. Thanks for your help! Floating Orb (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I added the button now. Is it all complete? Floating Orb (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I updated the talk page with the new rating. I will add the little button on the top of the main page in a moment. Should I do anything else? Floating Orb (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
As long as you followed every step in the instructions, all is good! IAWW (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


#### Pre-review conversation
@Floating Orb: Thanks for starting this review! Can I ask, do you plan to follow the full set of steps for reviewing this article? I'm a bit confused by your opening statement as it seems to imply that you aren't planning to complete the rest of the review. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, give me a moment. Floating Orb (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I certainly did not expect you to complete the entire review immediately! Was just confused by your wording as you seemed to be giving a final verdict before following the process. And yes, the copyright tag was just added several minutes ago, I just started a discussion on the talk page with the editor who added it. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. I think it is over for this page. The copyright violations are already bad enough. Floating Orb (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Just flagged this on the GA discussion. I'm really confused by the process you're following here and I hope we can get some assistance.
Additionally, that tag is not saying there is a copyright violation, it's a warning asking admins and experienced editors to look at the non-free images on the page and ensure they're following the policy for non-free images. Again, I asked the editor who added the tag if they could explain their reasoning, and I gave my reasoning.
Thank you again. 19h00s (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Floating Orb, @19h00s, I came here from WT:GA and I'm really confused. Have things been removed from this review page? -- asilvering (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes — Floating Orb has been removing most of their comments, I flagged in my replies that they should keep their comments for posterity even after the issue is addressed. 19h00s (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
@19h00s I would like to work with floating orb for this review if possible, but if that doesn't work out I am happy to finish the review myself. I note you have been waiting a long time for a review, and you have clearly put a lot of effort into the article, so it deserves a good review. IAWW (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
@Floating Orb, can you please restore all of your removed comments? If you need to "remove" a comment, it's almost always better to use strikethrough instead of getting rid of the text altogether. Silently removing the text makes it really hard for others to follow along, and it is really easy to interpret that kind of behaviour as deceptive, whether you intend it that way or not. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Not anymore. Floating Orb (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Floating Orb, citations should not be in the lead, since the lead should be supported by the body. Please read and fully understand the GA criteria before reviewing, or you will make many more mistakes like this. IAWW (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. I'll continue with the process and try not make the same mistake. Floating Orb (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


### Old Review
Disregard this: (Sorry. I put this review on hold. I will continue in moment while I read the guidelines a little more. Problems (this section changes quickly): I can't read some of the citations since they are books. Also, citation 14 is used multiple times. Old Review: When I first saw it, the page is pretty good. It has enough citations, though it reuses citation 2 multiple times throughout. Some sections are long without a subheadings, so it may be hard to traverse those parts. Though, it explains things pretty well. I would say it should become a GA, unless if anyone can fully prove the slight problems that I did state were major in some way. Old problems: This sentence does not match with the source fully. The parts that don't appear to be in the citation I put in parenthesis here: "(While in college) she studied under sociology professor Stephen N. Butler, (whom she would later cite as an influence on her work) What does this even mean?: "Speaking as an adult about her hometown of Washington, Noland said it was "a city of façade," adding, "What's behind it? We're two-faced! I'm trying to break the façade – mix things up." She has also said that growing up around her father's practice as an artist helped her to understand the machination.) Floating Orb (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)


### Structured review
### Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) Y
@19h00s I just read the article, and I think it is very well written. I made some small copyedits myself but couldn't find any issues I considered severe enough to impact the GA criteria. Here are a few suggestions:

Template:External media can be used to link to external images of the artworks. This would really help readers visualize the art that is so thoroughly described in the prose.
This article spends more time listing her works than giving context to them. This isn't ideal for an encyclopaedic article – you may as well just list them in a table instead of incorporating them into the prose. IAWW (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


### Sources Y
#### Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Y
#### Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y
[255] references an MDPI journal, which are generally considered unreliable (WP:RSP). IAWW (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. That's the only contemporary journal I didn't recognize at first. Struck.  Done 19h00s (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)


#### Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) Y
Floating Orb, indicate what references you have checked here. I checked reference [253], which fully supported the text, so I put:

[1]: Y (Never says that she is a sculptor, printmaker, and installation artist)
Citations in the lead are only used in this article to support direct quotes. In this case, it supports the quote so there is no issue here. To learn more about citations in the lead, read MOS:LEADCITE. IAWW (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
[2a]: Y
[3a]: Y
[7a]: Y
[3b]: Y (Never says the property was her father's)
Yes, it does. "Four years after his divorce from Langer in 1957, Kenneth Noland moved to New York, living at the Chelsea Hotel but eventually buying the Gully, in South Shaftsbury, Vermont, near Bennington College, a property formerly owned by Robert Frost. [...] When seen in the light of candids of C.N. and her brother and sister and dad at the Gully, should Dad’s sculptures..." --19h00s (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
[9]: Y
[7b]: Y
[15]: Y
[16]: Y (The text says more than the source)
I don't understand what you are saying here? Could you clarify what the problem is? IAWW (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
It talks about Expressions of Evil in Literature and the Visual Arts and International Conference. Neither of these are mentioned by name in the source. Floating Orb (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I think it's one name ("International Conference on the Expressions of Evil in Literature and the Visual Arts"), but yes, you are correct I think. Good spot and thanks for clarifying. IAWW (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Your welcome. Floating Orb (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Adjusted the title to be in line with Stillman's version. I had done some deep Googling to find the full name of the conference because "The Expressions of Evil" seemed oddly short, I couldn't find any actual sources to pull from but the full title of the conference is in the publication notes for several written essays in library/archive collections that were originally presented at the conference. --19h00s (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
[2b]: Y (The page only uses part of the quote, without saying so)
That's not an issue IAWW (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
We can change this to a Y then, along with ticking [1] for reasons I explained up there. IAWW (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
[2c]: Y
[2d]: Y
[2e]: Y
[17]: Y
[2f]: Y
[34]: Y
[2g]: Y
[253]: Y


### Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Y
Earwig (copyvio detector) finds nothing. I will check for any too close paraphrasing with the print sources manually. IAWW (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Are you done with this? Floating Orb (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes you can tick this section off. IAWW (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


### Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) Y
### Stable (Criterion 5) Y
### Media Y
I have a slight question. Would it be good for the page if there was more of Noland's art added. I noticed that the beginning of the "Career Beginnings" section doesn't have any pictures, and only describes the art. Maybe it should have some pictures of it? Floating Orb (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Floating Orb, I moved your suggestion to the appropriate section of the review. This is a good suggestion, but it may not be possible if there are not free images available. IAWW (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Floating Orb (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)


#### Tags (Criterion 6a) Y
Almost every picture in this article is flagged for needing a rationale. Floating Orb (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
That is incorrect - every single one of those images has a rationale, all listed in the "Summary" section of the file pages. 19h00s (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
If you are referencing the warning label directly below the license text, that is not a warning saying that these images do not have rationales. That is a request for administrators and patrollers to confirm the rationale. There are very clear rationales listed in the correct section on each file page. 19h00s (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I was wondering so. Floating Orb (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I'll consider it good. Floating Orb (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@Floating Orb Well done for actually trying to check the tags though IAWW (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Floating Orb (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)


#### Captions (Criterion 6b) Y