Talk:Natalie Clifford Barney

message: I am reviewing this very old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. The FAC nominator has not edited in years, and the article does not appear to be watched.
* There was a large amount of MOS:SANDWICH, which I have resolved.
* MOS:LQ attention is needed.
* There is some uncited text.
Hopefully someone will adopt this article so that it won't need to be submitted to Featured article review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: The two citation needed tags remaining are:
# 'This gender-balanced structure was not carried through on the book's packaging, which listed eight of the male writers then added "... and some women".'
#: I suspect that this is some light OR, based on the image of the cover. If that's the case, I'd suggest keeping the sentence but trimming the first clause. "The book's packaging listed ..." with a citation to the book itself.
# "Of these, the three longest relationships were with de Gramont, Brooks, and Wilde; from 1927, she was involved with all three of them simultaneously, a situation that ended only with Wilde's death. Her shorter affairs, such as those with Colette and Lucie Delarue-Mardrus, often evolved into lifelong friendships."
#: Tough to verify as written. That her relationships with de Gramont and Brooks were her longest and most important is easily verifiable (Rodriguez, for sure). Could we replace this with some different, sourced "overview of her relationships" material?
Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with your suspicion about the "light OR", as I haven't found any secondary sources commenting upon it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I also can't find any secondary sources commenting on it; while it is obviously true, it's not clear to me what the relevance is (is this a decision Barney made?  Cover designs decisions aren't solely up to the author, and often have very limited authorial input!)  Given that sources I've looked at don't comment on it, I'm removing it as undue weight and synthesis; if someone wants to defend its inclusion and make its relevance to the rest of the article more clear, they're welcome to find sources discussing it! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

text: True, as far as I can tell. Rodriguez focuses on de Gramont and Brooks, calling them "her two long-term relationships (p. 284) and "the two major loves of her adult life" (p. 294) but seems to relegate Wilde down a tier. Schenkar's book is about Wilde and lumps her into a sort of major trifecta (p. 156). I haven't been able to find a source that pulls it all together the way our article does. If we remove the line, the three still get prominent treatment, with a subsection each. We lose a little summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm missing something, but the line in question reads to me like a summary of the following subsections which is supported by their content and doesn't need a footnote of its own. It's only making a statement about chronology, not who was a "major love". XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree. I see now I was experiencing some text blindness, and there is, in fact, no comment on which were "major loves". Remove the tag? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems justifiable; I've gone ahead and done that. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

text: If we're summarizing content in ways that sources do not, we have a classic SYNTH problem, so I removed that portion.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Two remaining CN tags

message: : True, as far as I can tell. Rodriguez focuses on de Gramont and Brooks, calling them "her two long-term relationships (p. 284) and "the two major loves of her adult life" (p. 294) but seems to relegate Wilde down a tier. Schenkar's book is about Wilde and lumps her into a sort of major trifecta (p. 156). I haven't been able to find a source that pulls it all together the way our article does. If we remove the line, the three still get prominent treatment, with a subsection each. We lose a little summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm missing something, but the line in question reads to me like a summary of the following subsections which is supported by their content and doesn't need a footnote of its own. It's only making a statement about chronology, not who was a "major love". XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree. I see now I was experiencing some text blindness, and there is, in fact, no comment on which were "major loves". Remove the tag? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems justifiable; I've gone ahead and done that. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

text: If we're summarizing content in ways that sources do not, we have a classic SYNTH problem, so I removed that portion.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last CN tag 

message: This section needs expansion or rewriting. Right now, it includes biographical detail on Wilde, but little information on her relationship with Barney. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The broad beats of the Barney-Wilde saga are now included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolly Wilde

message: Sentence needing attention (either lose second half or split in two?) 
SandyGeorgia (Talk)  03:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Narrowed, but more work needs to be done on the "end" of their relationship, as Rodriguez is clear it continued for years and mentions an above-the-waist-only fling decades later. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Same here:  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to have been fixed since I last looked at the article Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Found the Livia 1995 title Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Appears to be correct.  The Rodriguez is certainly meant to be p.31, and she cites Adventures p.31, though I don't have access to Adventures to verify for myself. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm iffy on reliability, and even more so on relevance; the meeting between Oscar Wilde and Barney is already discussed (sourced to Rodriguez's biography of Barney, an obviously reliable source) in #Early life; I don't see any reason to mention it again in the section on Dolly Wilde – it's not as though Barney's meeting of Oscar as a child had any bearing on her meeting Dolly.  I'll cut it.  Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Seems to be a Library of Congress reference for the photograph.  The LOC entry is linked from the commons page for the file, so I've cut it from the caption as being simply confusing Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does describe de Gourmont as being "défiguré par un lupus tuberculeux" on page 237. FYI, I think we can all access this via the Wikipedia Library. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Why is this trivia in the article? "This plaque was vandalized in July 2010." SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I may have exacerbated the sandwich issue in this edit by adding one image. I'd be happy to work on the lead after I finish reading up on and then expanding the de Gramont subsection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sandy, do you think we could fit :File:A gathering of women including Eva Palmer, Natalie Barney, and Liane de Pougy in Barney's garden in Neuilly.png somewhere in the Poetry and plays section? I'm a little sandwich-shy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could try a multiple image like this, but a) I don't know why the Gathering image doesn't show full size or how to fix that, and b) do you think it odd to combine three images that are so differently colored?  I've never uploaded images, so I don't know how to go about cropping the Gathering image to get it to a normal size ... SandyGeorgia (Talk)  04:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Now cropped. I think it updated in your multi-image automatically. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome ... if you like the look, this would fit ... usually when I do a multiple image, I try to have similar-looking images ... these three are very different, but up to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I do like the look, and I think you're on the money about why. I'll give it some thought, and perhaps someone else can chime in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK ... I was going to combine a couple of others (as soon as I get caught up and find the time) that are causing a bit of clog, but easier to do when on real computer.  If you dislike anything I do in that realm, once I get to it, do not hesitate to revert! SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes! I have some ideas for the caption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  SG review 

message: The main photo is of Alice Hughes, not Natalie Barney. However there is a photo of her as a younger woman online very similar to that of the Alice Hughes photo shown. 2601:645:581:55F0:F8CA:18CD:7D74:3C80 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to whom? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Smithsonian say it is Barney... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate photo