Talk:Elizabeth Catlett

message: The different sources cited in #External links give different dates for her birth and paintings. Specifically, Artcyclopedia and PBS say birth 1919, but PicassoMio says 1915, and African American Registry even says April 15, 1915. I find the latter more likely, considering she got her BS in 1935 - surely this was at the age of 20, and not 16! Partly because of this, I'm going to put back the PicassoMio link, even though they spammed it throughout the Wikipedia on Jan 6, 1996. It's not a bad site, quite comparable to a few of the others I listed for Catlett, it gives several pictures and a more detailed biography in some ways, it's just one unobtrusive link at the bottom, and, finally, it led me to correct a probable error. 
Similarly, the African American Registry says Sharecropper is 1968, while PBS says 1970. I'd believe the AAR, since their birth date seemed more likely, but PBS is the one that actually displays the Sharecropper image. So I'm leaving it as "sources differ". If someone wants to resolve the difference, please feel free, and make a comment either on the page itself or here as to how you resolved the difference.
GRuban 14:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible that both dates are correct, since the design appears to have been made in 1952, with later printing dates. This print appears to be directly from the Art Institute of Chicago Website ( http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/object?id=117319&artist=catlett&keyword= ). So, I changed the date to reflect their data. It is possible that the image posted on this website does not fall under their fair use guidelines, however, it is low resolution. It seems Elizabeth Catlett herself would want it to be exposed to the largest audience possible. The Art Institute also gives her birth year as 1915, in addition to the sources I cited when I edited the date to 1915. Mmacken 03:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date differences

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject class rating

message: An image used in this article, File:Elizabeth Catlett.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Elizabeth Catlett.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Elizabeth Catlett.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: New NPR story: http://www.npr.org/2014/05/18/313175209/how-do-you-wring-sound-from-sculpture-it-takes-a-quiet-pride --Jeremyb (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New media coverage 

message: i'm going to nominate this for GA, since the revscore indicates it. i trust user:ChiChiNewOrleans has it in hand.  Duckduckstop (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the nomination, one of many by this nominator on March 17, because the article has significant prose and punctuation issues, which should have been cleared up prior to nomination, and would be the basis for a quickfail if reviewed. It has been tagged with a copyedit template, and as such is not eligible for GAN until this is cleared up. The nomination, based on a questionable scoring algorithm (which clearly does not include "clear and concise prose", a basic GA requirement). Actually, the revscore indicated this should be an FA, not a GA. This casts even greater doubt on the tool, since the prose requirement for FA is even more strict—"engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"—and that is certainly not the case here. Per WP:GANI, the consultation with the active editor(s) is supposed to be done prior to the nomination to give them a chance to weigh in, not at the same time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: it's an interesting critique of the algorithm, maybe you should give some feedback to the developers so they can incorporate your insights. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Revision_scoring_as_a_service  -- Duckduckstop (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: I was looking at old art books published and found one that stood out. The book was an exhibition of pastel work by Rupert García (Rupert Garcia: Pastel Drawings, March 3-April 23, 1978), it was authored by Elizabeth Catlett and Rolando Castellón and published in 1978 at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMoMA), my question is, is this same Elizabeth Catlett? If she was affiliated somehow, it would be good to develop here too. Jooojay (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  SFMoMA