# Talk:Susanna Paine

This review is transcluded from Talk:Susanna Paine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 23:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well this is fun. I get to review your article and you get to review my style of reviewing articles. Huh. I had an actual opening blurb here but it seems to have been eaten. Well, here's what it basically said: most of my comments are on clarity in the prose with a minority covering copyediting (it's often easier for me to list the ce notes as I go than edit the page during the review to fix them). Overall the article does a great job covering the subject. It should be a breeze to finish the review and bring it to GA.
I guess I pasted it in the style section somehow ("I've left specific notes where I have questions or comments. Where I'm asking a question feel free to assume it's not rhetorical. If you feel editing the text will make the answer apparent (and you agree with the change!) go ahead and do so, but don't be afraid to just answer inline and we can work out what may or may not need to be changed. The comments I've made mostly relate to clarity, though some are copyediting notes. Overall the article is quite good and should be a breeze to bring to GA."). Protonk (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


### images
It might be fun to left justify the ad next to the start of the Maine section (as it appears to be the one in question). also alternating images left/right overall can help break up the article a bit, but that isn't required for this review (and won't always work well, use your discretion)
Ok, sounds good!  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding left/right justification: I used to alternate images right to left... then began justifying to the right for a number of reasons and that approach goes along with WP:Manual of Style/Images to tend towards right justification. I recently saw, though, the WP:Manual of Style/Visual arts Images section that talks about right/left justification. So, if you think it would look better to alternate the images, I don't mind doing that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to alternate left right (and I guess the mos agrees with that, for some reason I thought that the mos used to say something about it). Also left justifying that seems to work weirdly with the rest of the images. I've tried to move it around a bit but I have no experience with this many images in an article. Do you think a gallery at the bottom might be better, picking the ad + 2 more for the artist section? Protonk (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
What is nice about the right justified images in the body of the article: you don't have to mess with switching the placement as the text grows or shrinks, no concern about having a left-justified image at the start of a section, it's nice to have them in the body of the article for visual arts articles, and they're a nice size to see the quality of the work. How's that for a long-winded response?
But, I question Catharine Williams b/w portrait. The only reason I left it was because she's mentioned in the article and seems to be a woman of prominence. (I couldn't find a color copy).--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
So it's funny. I review these articles in a small window in mobile view (where the images all end up at the top of the section, centered on the page) so I can have one pane for a text editor open in one side and the article open in another, so I have to switch out to a desktop view to see this. It doesn't cause grief, once I'm done with the bulk of the review I'll go back to regular tabs in a desktop browser, but it's interesting because we often write these articles so they look good at a specific resolution on a desktop browser and then when you switch to mobile it's different. I'd say remove the Williams portrait if you like but either way it's not holding up the article. Protonk (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated, blockquotes look WAAAYYYY better on mobile than on desktop. That's weird. Protonk (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


### style/layout
"...a year later joined "the best" academy..." if we're quoting from a source we should cite it in the lead per WP:CITELEAD.
cool, I learned something! It doesn't need to have "the best" in the lead - since the citation would through off the paragraph breaks... or perhaps require adding more citations. So, I just took "the best" out - it's covered and cited in the body of the article. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the subsection title Overview necessary or would it make sense to just begin the section directly under Artist?
Sure, that's fine. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This is tough, but I'm not sure the last paragraph in the lede does what we want it to do. I'm not sure what specific advice to give, but it seems like we switch from (in the first two paragraphs) a rough chronological and biographical summary to a talking about her relationships across the span of her life. Take a close look at it and see the lede can be a better summary by rearranging things a bit. Perhaps shortening the school years and introducing the notion of the close personal relationship to her mother earlier, then revisiting that at the end by mentioning her mother's death near the end of her career.
Ok, good point! I'll come back to this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I gave it a shot and hope it flows better now. I started out with her accomplishments, then two biographical summaries. How does it look now?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


### content
"She had a short, difficult marriage of abuse and control." Maybe "characterized by abuse and control"?
good  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"When she was a young girl, her father was lost at sea while working as a mariner." Maybe "Her father was a mariner and was lost at sea when she was a young girl"? That doesn't work so much if we was just moonlighing as a mariner, but worth a thought. On reflection that's maybe uglier. Well either way I'll wait for clarification on whether or not he was a mariner for a short period or during his career.
He was a mariner for his career. I was trying to avoid close paraphrasing (source="her father was a mariner who was lost at sea when Susanna was a young child"), and agree it could be better. How about: "Her father was a mariner. When she was a young girl, her father was lost at sea." I put that in the paragraph, see what you think - it seems like there's not a lot of options.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I copy-edited it slightly. If you're cool with it this is  Done Protonk (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"At 15 years of age, Paine taught school and then attended the best academy" do we know which one? I'm assuming (from the quotes in the lede) that our source simply says she went to the best academy. If we don't know and we're going with the quote we should quote it here as well and cite it inline. If we do know we should say which one.
No, I don't know which one... and tried to back into it by first finding out what have might have been the best school at the time and then search on the school and her name. No go.
Oops, sorry about the citation - I popped it in - and I used a quote from the magazine. Does that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. Protonk (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"The profits she made from the school were given to her mother or loaned to her stepfather." The source (if I'm reading it right, the text is small) indicates that she made a loan to her stepfather and the remainder was given to her mother. Is that correct? Sometimes with biographical articles the word "or" can get us in trouble because it can either mean the source can't discern which of two outcomes happen or the two outcomes occured with similar frequency.
Yes, you're correct.
Correction to "on one occasion made a loan..." does that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"Her husband was a controlling, abusive, and tyrannical gambler." this makes it seem like those terms modify "gambler".
Lol! Lol! Yes, I was trying to find a way to fit in gambler.
I could either change gambler to man... or say "Her husband was a controlling, abusive, and tyrannical man who was a gambler". Do either of those work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried about arson, murder and jaywalking. Maybe "her husband--a gambler, was abusive, tyrannical and cruel" I think that's the right use of that crazy dash. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's funny (the link). It's kind of fun to laugh this much during a review. Ok, cool.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"She left her husband after "one year and two months of cruel bondage"." Who are we quoting? Paine? Also a direct quote wants for a cite (normally, though it's not strictly always required)
Yes, Paine.
Ok, the references for three sentences are at the end of three sentences (yikes, that could be better worked). So, I'll look at pulling them apart so that the quote has the right / only source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"...later gave birth to the couple's son on August 30, 1821" why not say "her son"? (This is not rhetorical, though I suspect I know the answer :) )
Funny!  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Awww I was hoping (not sarcastically) to get a lesson on patriarchy and our habit of assuming maternal relationships by default. I figured "the couple's son" was a deliberate framing along those lines. Protonk (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I might be the wrong person to give a lesson on patriarchy, but I like to frame it as a "couple's" child, because unless there's immaculate conception, then it was the couple's child... but I thought your point was that the article was about Paine and so it should say "her" child--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"and having relinquished real property that she previously owned to her husband." Why do we choose to say "real property" here?
just another way of saying "real estate" from the source. Do you think I should use real estate (i.e., more people would be familiar with that term)?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be better to just say "property". That conveys what we want without borrowing too much of the language of the source. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Cool.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"...to supplement her earnings, which allowed her to support herself and send money to her mother..." How about "her earnings, allowing her"?
Good.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"They entered my "sanctum" with eager looks, to see whither [sic]—"a woman could paint a likeness?" Why is there a stray quotation mark there?
Good catch, fixed. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"The subjects of the paintings were generally portrayed in a confident manner in half-length poses." nit: do we have another word we can use aside from generally (either here or in the previous sentence) so we're not repeating ourselves?
Good point! how about "often"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, often works. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah,  Done another one bites the dust.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
" She was described as a idealist and was known to take liberties in the portrayal of her subjects..." is this sentence better integrated with the previous paragraph? It might be nice to have that note that she tended to take liberties with her subjects before mentioning the bit about the long hands and round faces. Though I admit moving this does orphan our description of her a bit.
See what you think of the comparison of these versions. I put her description at the top of the paragraph, moved the sentence about features in the summary of her approach to the last part of that cited content... and then added the "she tended to take personal liberties..." after that. Does that work?
I like the change. In retrospect, it may have been incorrect of me to suggest that the long hands/round faces bit might have been her taking liberties. More properly that may just be her style and the eye coloring is a more direct example of her taking liberties. I think the latter revision in that diff resolves this comment. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, good. I didn't even catch that... but if you're good, I'm good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"...the rental of a furnished parlor, an office for painting, and another to exhibit her portraits." Did she have another parlor for her paintings or another office?
Oops, sorry - another office. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
If it's another office the old text is ok (I thought maybe the house was all parlors). this is actually a question I have for you. Sometimes in GA reviews I have questions about the text which could be answered in the review but could also be answered by clearing the text up. In many cases it's fine either way but in some cases my question is interpreted as a statement that the text needs to be changed to answer the question rather than answered inline, when that happens (not necessarily here) the text can get worse because resolving the problem the nominator thought I had wasn't strictly necessary. How would you pose questions like that in a review? Protonk (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
What a wacky house with all foyers! You did a good job with the father / mariner question. But I'm guessing the question is a teaching moment for me: I guess "Is 'another to exhibit her paintings' referring to another office (in which case the wording is fine) or another parlor?--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"She received formal art training at the Boston Athenæum about 1832..." likely a word missing here before 1832
"in about"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe just "around"? Protonk (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You've got it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"...and spent the following summer in Cape Ann,[13] a peninsula that includes Gloucester." why is it important to mention the bit about the peninsula?
Just for context... I'm not familiar with that part of Massachusetts and I got confused about working in the village of Anniquam... and then the Cape Ann museum is in Gloucester... so I thought if I was confused it wouldn't hurt to add a little context. Ohhhh, that's a long way of saying that Cape Ann isn't just a town/city, like Cape May, New Jersey--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that you might have thought I just popped that in there... it came from the cited source for "a peninsula that includes Gloucester. Paine, one of the first artists to paint on Cape Ann,[4]"--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think if it's in the source in that exact wording I'd think about taking it out. You don't have to, one thing I'm really bad at is judging where additional info for context is required in articles like these. But if I were combing this for close paraphrasing I'd note the Gloucester bit as an odd enough fragment to look it up and be unhappy that it was very close to the cited source. Protonk (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I took it out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"She painted portraits by 1834 of..." This sentence may be better started with "By 1834"
Source="By 1834, she had discovered Cape Ann and found work painting portraits of several families in the village of Annisquam."
I'll come back to this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
How about: "She was in the village of Annisquam on Cape Ann by 1834, when she painted portraits of families."?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"...families from Annisquam on Cape Ann. and continued to paint..." should be a comma, no?
well, it definitely should be a period... removed that... but is a comma needed if it's not a compound sentence?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I leave that to you, as it's possible I could be introducing errors. Either way, no period. Protonk (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Since I reworded the prior bit, how about "Paine continued to paint on the cape during the 1830s and 1840s."?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this works. Protonk (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"...from 12- to 15-years-of-age." This is a formatting for ranges of years I'm not familiar with.
Lol! funny! fixed, no hyphens.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be funny! (ok, maybe a little) Is the trailing hyphen a style that shows up places? Because I haven't seen it, but that's not dispositive. Protonk (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
My brain was date format wacky yesterday from figuring out date formats for different scenarios, including how to get season ranges and winter range that crosses two years, etc. to work out in citation templates without creating cs1 errors. There are some circumstances where date would be formatted with a hanging hyphen/ndash, like 8- to 10-year-olds.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"...and then had difficulty finding commissions in Cape Ann and then back in Providence." sort of awkwardly worded.
Yep. How about "She went to Cape Ann and after a few months returned to Providence. She was unable to find work in both places, became ill and suffered financially."--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Or "She went to Cape Ann and after a few months returned to Providence. She became ill and unable to find work in both places, suffered financially." Maybe that's too clever (more likely it's not clever enough :) ). Protonk (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's more clever / cleverer (my brain's not totally activated). I changed it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"Paine painted the portrait of author, Catharine R. Williams, who wrote poetry..." this is sort of an abrupt transition from the death of her mother. Did she paint Williams's portrait after 1848?
Oh so right, the poor woman was an adrift orphan at the bottom of the section - and was pulled into a paragraph where she did not belong. I moved her to the top, so it flows chronologically.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"...establishing herself with the wont of connections..." I would say "for wont of connections"
Ok,  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
new -> "Her George Morillo Bartol portrait sold for US$38,513 on March 6, 2011." This sentence should give the reader some indication why it is there. We don't (I think?) mention the subject or the painting previously. It may be sufficient to say "one of her subjects while in Portland was George Morillo Bartol, whose portrait sold for XX dollars in 2011" or something like that. Protonk (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good!  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


### sources
Not strictly a GA issue (as reviewers can't require page numbers on cites), but do we have a page number for Creating Portland: History and Place in Northern New England? We're citing a single claim from it so I imagine if it's paginated we can find one.
Seriously, page numbers aren't a requirement for a GA review? Another learned item today.
Yep, updated the citation that was used before I started the rewrite. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Re: page numbers, see the "what the GA criteria are not" essay. It's got some exceptions but my basic takeaway is not to make adding specific page numbers a requirement unless you really need them for a certain claim. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason (aside from it being online available) you chose this link for "Roses and Thorns: The Life of Susanna Paine"?
Ummm, because it's the one I used. It is hard to use issuu until you click on the multi-document kind of icon on the bottom tool bar. Is there another source that should have been used?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
No, but it's not the usual online scan resource (google, etc.) and it didn't look like it was run by the journal so I was wondering if there was a reason. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
No, ISSU, is just a means to view magazines and sometimes books. It's nice because when they have a source, it's not a partial view but an entire page-by-page view.
I cannot find it in Jstor, Questia, HighBeam or Google. It was printed by another magazine a couple seasons earlier and is on google books Folk Art: Magazine of the Museum of American Folk Art, Volume 30, Spring 2005. There's no preview though.
Do you think a change needs to be made?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Nope, just wanted to know why you chose it. Protonk (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Protonk (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this is wonderful! Thanks for taking this on! I'll get to work on the items you've identified!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that I've addressed each of your items. The biggest open item seems to be the wording of the intro. I'll wait for your feedback on the changes to see where there may be additional tweaks/changes. Thanks much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Awesome. I've passed the article. There are still some comments above which are relatively marginal so we can work them out as we go, but the bulk of my objections have been addressed and I'm happy to pass it! Protonk (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah! I think I just caught your latest comments, but I'll take another pass. That was easy, and the article is more polished. I like it. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)