# Talk:Lola Álvarez Bravo

To Bookistan, thanks for adding much info, but could you please also add the reference(s) from which the information came? Thanks. Pinkville 23:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Foto de Lola Alvarez Bravo (2267119327).jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lola Álvarez Bravo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


### First reading
#### General considerations
The lead is well written and accurately summarizes the body of the article. Because it consists only of summary text, it does not have (and does not need) references. Similarly the infobox contains only material summarizing what is detailed in the article. [GAC 1a,b]
The choice of self-portrait as lead image in the infobox is a little unusual — the lead image of a biography is usually a more easily read face-shot. But it nicely serves a double purpose of depicting the subject and the subject's art. It appears to be properly licensed under a fair use rationale and accurately captioned. The later image is also fair-use, but is covered by a full paragraph of article text, justifying its fair use. [GAC 6]
References are consistently formatted (with short footnotes linking to a separate alphabetized bibliography in Citation Style 1) and all appear reliable. [GAC 2a,b]
Overall, the article is organized around her life (four sections), death and legacy (one section), and artworks (one section). I might have put the last two sections in the opposite order but the chosen ordering is ok. I think it covers all significant aspects of her work. There's a listing of shows but all are significant and sourced; it mostly doesn't go into excessive detail about gallery-level shows as many lesser artist biographies do. There are a few gallery shows listed, though (Stellweg, Whistler, Martín, Quetzlli, and Aperture) and one might consider whether those are worthy of inclusion. [GAC 3a,b]
The article has undergone significant recent improvements by the nominator and others since late November, but otherwise is stable, does not appear to be the subject of any significant disputes, and has no cleanup tags. [GAC 5]
Earwig found MoMA's copy of our Wikipedia article, a similar listing of her shows on a German site, some proper names from the NYT, but no problematic copying. [GAC 2d]
Several offline sources (e.g. Ferrer) taken in good faith. The entire article (after the lead) is properly sourced at the sentence level and spot-checking the sources I could view found no issues. [GAC 2c]
The writing is for the most part clear and surprisingly non-dry, while still remaining factual and encyclopedic. [GAC 1a,4]


#### Specific issues
Should the article be moved to the name in the lead, Lola Álvarez Bravo, rather than the unaccented name? The names in the infobox and in the second image caption are similarly unaccented and probably shouldn't be. There is one other unaccented name, in the title of the exhibit Lola Alvarez Bravo: In Her Own Light, but I suspect that one should stay as is.
I agree that the article should be moved but it will take an administrator to do this as there is already a redirect from the accented version. Perhaps you could take care of it yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but to avoid confusing the bot that maintains the list of GA nominations, maybe it should wait until after the nomination has closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I had the same problem as Ian, couldn't move the article but concur the name is correct with the "Á". SusunW (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The second image's caption has two dependent clauses but no verb, and might be better rewritten to form a complete sentence.
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
At the end of the "early life" section, "Their only child Manuel ... Manuel was still working ... soon after Manuelito's birth" is a little confusing. I assume the second Manuel is the father and the Manuelito is the same person as the child, but I shouldn't have to assume.
 Done I thought English speakers would recognize that "ito" means little, literally little Manuel. As your comment indicates that is not the case, added "his son". SusunW (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
At the start of the "Early career" section, "That same year" comes off as dangling. The section should be more self-contained rather than relying on continuity from the end of the previous section.
 Done SusunW (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
"distance herself from the subject to capture its underlying essence": is "it" the right pronoun for subjects that are often people?
Changed tense to plural...subjects, their. SusunW (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
At the start of the "Middle career" section, the first word "Moving" is a dangling preposition: it can't really modify "Álvarez worked as an elementary school art teacher" because the move and the work are two different events at distinct and separate times (she moved first, and then she worked). And the same sentence has two prepositional phrases, a little awkward.
Re-worded and broke into two sentences. Better? SusunW (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
"other influential people" perhaps merits a {{who}} tag.
No idea. Cárdenas was widely credited with the progressive shaping of educational and cultural reforms after the Mexican Revolution. He was Minister of Education and became the President of Mexico shortly after Álvarez met him. Congdon/Hallmark says "He [the Minister of Education] was so pleased with her photographs that he showed them to many influential people" (p 1). while Ferrar says "Cárdenas used his influence".(p14) SusunW (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there some reason to use the Spanish name for UNAM when it has a perfectly good English name? And why add the acronym when it is never used later?
UNAM is what it would be called in Mexico (like UCLA in the United States, it is known by the acronym), but giving that acronym after the National Autonomous University of Mexico would be bizarre, thus I opted for giving it the actual name with the acronym. SusunW (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The acronym is familiar enough in academia as well (I just had a visit from a student from there) but I think for Wikipedia the spelled-out name works better. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
In "Selected works", the separation of noun from the preposition that modifies it in "black and white film, rather than color photography, for her pictures" comes off as a little awkward and staccato. Maybe better "black and white film for her pictures, rather than color photography"?
 Done SusunW (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
In the sentence "Many of those from her later career were posters." what does "those" refer to? The most recent noun that it should refer to is "images from the published work of others" but that doesn't seem right.
Changed those to "the photomontages" SusunW (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
"nude portraits, which were unique in their depiction of women": really? In what way is creating nudes unique?
She took nude photographs of mothers, pregnancy, breast feeding, etc. As the text says, not images likely to be portrayed by her contemporaries who were male. Not sure how to reword it, male photographers portrayed mothers as chaste, domestic figures. She portrayed them in a more sensual manner. SusunW (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Ok, but none of that comes across in "nude portraits, which were unique in their depiction of women". And "unique", used without a description of the manner in which something is actually unique rather than merely distinctive, certainly falls under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch [GAC 1b]. I think this is the last remaining unresolved issue from the review, but it shouldn't be hard to find a more specific wording. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein  I took a quote from the source "como alegorías de la condición femenina en el contexto de la sociedad patriarchal mexicana" and translated it (allegories of the female condition in the context of Mexican patriarchal society). Does that work? SusunW (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
In "During her final years", is "her" Alvarez Blanco or Kahlo?
Kahlo, corrected. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
"The last photograph" — last in what sequence? Maybe, it's Alvarez Blanco's final photo of Kahlo? The last photo anyone took of Kahlo?
Anyone, modified text.SusunW (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
In the paragraph about Entierro de Yalalag, I think the description of what it's a photo of ("The photograph captures a funeral procession...") should come before the more evaluative text ("The care with which the composition ...")
 Done SusunW (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
In the sentence "Demonstrating both her respect for indigenous culture[60] and desire to document Mexican rituals, the photograph has deeper social meaning", the word "her" appears to refer to the photograph. Why is the photograph female?
Modified text "Álvarez also captured a deeper social meaning in the photograph." SusunW (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a stray bracket character in the second external link.
 Done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


#### Overall
Very close to GA already, only a few minor issues (mostly under GAC 1a) to fix.
—David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein Thanks for the review. I think I answered everything. Let me know if I didn't satisfy your queries. SusunW (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Almost everything, but see "unique" above. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Everything now handled, passing for GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David Eppstein! Can you move it so that it is correctly titled, since you are an admin? SusunW (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Given WP:SURNAME, what name should be used for her? The article uses "Álvarez" apart from in the External Links section where "Bravo" is used. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Lopifalko In Spanish names the surname is the father's family name. The 2nd surname is the mother's family name, (which is only used to identify who her parents were). She would never have been referred to by Bravo, except by an English speaker who did not understand Spanish naming customs. It is quite unusual for a woman to adopt her husband's surname as Álvarez did, so I did not use the template for Spanish name. Technically and legally, her surname was Martínez, her father's name. The formal way to depict her name would have been Lola Martínez de Anda de Álvarez Bravo; Lola Martínez (mother de Anda) (of spouse Álvarez Bravo). As she adopted her husband's name as a professional name, her surname was Álvarez. SusunW (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks SusunW. I have amended the "Bravo" in External Links. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and 218.158.28.237: This is has been reviewed and accepted as a Good Article. While it is great that a google doodle adds to the traffic that might come to the article, it in no way adds to her notability. It has been added and removed numerous times and the IP user above just reverted my removal of same with the notation that it has been added to other articles. To me, that is a deflection, as we aren't discussing other articles, but rather whether a google doodle adds anything to Álvarez's notability. As I don't see the point in edit wars, I am posting it here to see if there is consensus for keeping it. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, who was the last person before me to revert addition of a Google Doodle to the article. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a banned editor.  He'll keep coming back to edit war over it, so I've semi-protected the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems like such a trivial detail to keep adding to a file wherein notability is clearly already established. SusunW (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)