# Talk:William Utermohlen

This most interesting article could probably succeed at FAC if editing progressed at a slower pace, and with broader collaboration between medical, bio and art editors.  I believe I have mostly corrected the medical issues, but have not checked all copy edit needs, and have not checked all of the MOS:LQ issues yet.  But the more significant work that remains to be done is to have a new look at all of the sources to re-focus on his work and art, and avoid using art sources to make medical statements.  There is still fascinating untapped potential about the effects on his art of whatever condition he may have actually had, and it's unfortunate there was no autopsy in such an interesting case. That's all I have time for now, and I don't have access to all the sources, but the article is at least in a state I do believe it now meets the GA that was conferred earlier. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Six cycles" section discusses his illness, although it isn't introduced until the next section; the flow/narrative needs adjusting. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  23:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

William Utermohlen - 1967 self portrait mixed media on paper.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The Utermohlen story is well-known in popular medicine -- it's had a lot of cultural impact. I defer to Sandy on whether it's nearly as broadly covered in the medical literature itself (what I know about the dementia literature is different to her, and probably quite a bit less). Nonetheless, it's a worthwhile article to work on and a good one to prioritize for FAC, and I think it's already promising. I also understand the drive to get it as good as it can be before renominating, given the previous nominations and the emotional weight of unsuccessful FACs (firsthand knowledge on that one). It'd be quite far from the FA with the most FACs, so there's plenty of potential still to win this thing. Thoughts:

I agree the article presents Utermohlen's disease as more typically Alzheimer's than Crutch et al or Hsu (both otherwise well-utilized) necessarily do. This is tricky, because they don't go as far as to say it's uncharacteristic, and we don't have a huge base of well-known visual artists with confirmed Alzheimer's to contrast with. However, Crutch explicitly contrasts Utermohlen with another case that presented differently. Another case report that cites the case of Utermohlen is I think not at all discussed. These are things that should be focused on in the article's discussion of Utermohlen's legacy and analysis of his works.
I couldn't access the JAMA article through the Wikipedia Library, but I will include that second case report. There was also a comment in Crutch that compared their analysis of Utermohlen's works to the assessment of Willem de Kooning's works, so I will plan on including that too. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Did he stop painting in 2002 or by 2002?
In 2002. Stopped painting in 2000, drawing in 2002. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The anosognosia claim is strange. Sharma says agnosia, which is something different. While I'm not drawing hard lines between medical-analysis and artistic-analysis, I'm also not sure he's qualified to say either. It's worth looking critically back over the sources, and in particular thinking about how many arts-focused rather than medical-focused sources should really be used when discussing his late works specifically
Removed that. Thanks for pointing that out. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
There's a self-portrait in Crutch that seems to be later than the "last" Head portrait.
If you're mentioning Figure 3 (Image F), the caption for it says "Pencil drawing at age 66 years (E). Abstract self-portrait painted at age 65 years (F)". The caption for the image says that that this self portrait was done before Head. I will still change the caption of the image to say "one of the last" though, cause it still isn't. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The coverage of his pre-dementia work is very sparse. I get the sourcing focuses on the latter, I really do, but "what did he do before that?" is a big question.
I'm not sure the article supports the lead's "died in obscurity" statement.
Edited it so say that he lived most of his life in obscurity.  Realmaxxver (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a full review, just some notes. I'm focusing on content rather than prose, and can't speak for Sandy's prose comments. Vaticidalprophet 03:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet and Realmaxxver: I can't recall if I pointed you at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content, which has some information about how to prepare for FAC.  Besides what I wrote there, once the two of you have gone through Vaticidal's remarks and are satisfied, I suggest next asking for review via a post to WT:MED and giving that about a week or ten days (slow and steady wins the race).  After you've done that, please feel free to ping me for another look before the next launch at FAC.  The best way to get my attention is via a post to my talk page, as I hate the pingie-thingie. (I've never encountered mention of Utermohlen in my regular Alzheimer's reading, but I defer to Vaticidal that he is known in medical circles.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)