Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for input: Intro and Career subsections

@Modernist, Mandarax, TheMindsEye, PDH, Coldcreation, Skyerise, Ppt91, DocWatson42, Paleolith, and Mageeking:, you are on this list if you are among the top ten editors of the article, made recent salient changes, or posted on this talk page about improvements to the article. Anyone not on this list are, of course, welcome to comment, too.

A new, self-described close contributor Orangesky6791 - an intern from the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum - started the #Possible New Outline conversation yesterday about the order and naming of sections, summarization of the introduction, and reworking the subsections under "Career". Currently, with my input, it most resembles a wall of text, so I will break it down here a bit.

I took care of some common sense edits + ones I agreed with regarding some of the section headings names and placement (pulling out some sections that had been under "Career", shortening one heading to "Criticism", changing "Affairs" to "Relationships", now including personal and professional relationships, and redistributing content that was under "Hospitalization" to "Career" and "Relationships") here.

In my opinion, there are three key open issues, that would be great to get your input on:

• Summarization of (or changes to) the introduction section, particularly O'Keeffe's early career.
• An optimal way to group the content and sections under Career (e.g., phases, group of years, types of works, other), perhaps moving groups of images — {{Multiple images}}, in a gallery — from "Paintings" to the (new) sections–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Approach for the Criticism section - are any changes needed?

If you have time, your input is very much appreciated about any of these three items or thoughts you might have about improving the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that Orangesky6791 does not intend making any direct changes to the article, is interested in feedback, and could submit {{request edit}} or use a sandbox to draft up revised language for review before being posted (e.g., in my opinion, an optimal close contributor approach). And, we have discussed use of objective, encyclopedic content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Added a bit about moving / grouping paintings.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 and Reception grouping (Orangesky6791's initial post is Option 1)

@CaroleHenson thank you for the ping! I actually was hoping we could discuss the current structure a bit more as I think the article would benefit from some reorganizing. I think the current structure is not only hard to follow, but also suffers from repetitions and there simply is too much happening. My suggestion (of course all of it open to feedback).

• Early life and career
  • Education
  • Early work
• New York (1916—1929)
  • Stieglitz circle
  • Flower paintings
• New Mexico (1929—1986)
  • Taos
  • Abiquiú
• Personal life
  • Marriage and relationships
  • Mental health
  • Death and estate settlement
• Reception
  • Criticism
  • Legacy

This is obviously very much a draft and I realize there are issues here (like periodizing New York till 1929 when she still returned almost annually), but hopefully it's a start. Also, I'd either get rid of "Criticism" as a separate section (it seems to take away from her accomplishments and places undue weight on the opinions of her critics) and instead include it in a section titled "Reception" along with other relevant scholarship. Looking forward to hearing what others think. Ppt91^talk 19:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91, I really like the Reception section for Criticism and Legacy. I moved Criticism down and grouped it with Legacy, under the new "Reception" to try it on for size from the talk page - seems like a very good, common sense approach. Changes made here, and open for discussion.

It will good to hear from others, too, about the Career section and your other suggestions. Thanks for the work you put into that!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91, Would it make sense to add "Awards and honors" to the "Reception" grouping?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson Thank you! And yes, that sounds great to me. Looking forward to hearing what others think about the rest and always open to help/discuss any of the above in more detail. Ppt91^talk 19:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91, Okay, that's done. Hopefully another nice low-hanging fruit item that doesn't require a lot of debate. This is the diff for the current "Reception" section and subsections.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91 The "Reception" section is great and putting "Criticism" under that section makes a ton of sense. I know the "Career," section is very tricky, partly because she went back and forth and traveled quite a bit in her lifetime. For the New York part we could have the last few sentences of that section state that since 1929 she would travel back and forth from NY to NM, and did not permanently move away until after Stieglitz's death. That definitely should not be verbatim and should be workshopped, but just an idea. Also, could we include Skyscrapers underneath New York part as well? I see a possibility of adding more underneath New Mexico, for example a later years subsection that talks about her transition to pottery? But I definitely would like to hear more feedback from everyone. Thank you both for all the suggestions and time you have been putting into this page! To me the page is already so much better! Can't wait to hear more feedback and suggestions. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC))

@Ppt91:: Just to note two typos: You've used em dashes in place of en dashes in the year ranges. ^_^; —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This is also true in the #Discussion subsection below. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 - High level career sections

@Orangesky6791 Really good comments, thank you! I agree that Career is tricky and you're absolutely right about NY/NM, in addition to other travel. I would be happy to adjust it accordingly, and think more about dating, though I thought that perhaps in the meantime we could come up with an update to the current structure that would improve readability without compromising the content (a lot of which is obviously very good). How does the following division sound?

• Early life and education
• Career
  • Early work
  • New York
  • New Mexico
  • Late career

(I am only focusing on career now, with Personal life to follow once we have a consensus here.)

We could revisit dates at a later time, so that we don't have to worry about pinpointing specific years during times of frequent travels, but rough chronology could be Early life and education ending in 1916 (first important exhibition), which would be followed by Early work and and we can then keep the beginning of New York as it is. As for Skyscrapers, it could be a subsection of New York with Taos or Abiquiú becoming subsections of New Mexico. (@Orangesky6791 I fully agree that her skyscraper work should be discussed separately due to its unusual character, closer to the iconography of Precisionism in its focus on technology and the bustling modern city than it is to the rest of her nature-driven work.) Also, I am usually not in favor of doing too many subsections, but considering how much she has traveled and how important many of these specific geographic locations were for her, it seems perfectly fine to have more subdivisions in the article.

I think that once we arrive at a mutually agreeable structure and then divide the work up amongst ourselves, bringing this up to at least GA-level is very much within our reach. :-)

@CaroleHenson and @DocWatson42 curious to hear your thoughts (and, of course, other editors who would like to continue collaborating on the project). Ppt91^talk 18:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91: and others, I absolutely see that as workable, with some overlaps.

I don't mean to throw a curve ball, but I have been thinking about this since the draft that had flowers as a subsection. I wonder if it makes sense to divide the career section by type of work: abstract shapes, flowers, southwestern (animal horns, etc.), and skyscrapers. That would take the need to categorize things by dates, which overlap.

If that doesn't make sense, I am fine with the proposed subsections.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Option 4 - Career subsections by themes

@CaroleHenson I definitely like the idea of thematizing the work overall (per my sentiment on skyscrapers) and I wonder if we could include each subject matter you mentioned as a separate subsection? Maybe even remove the section Career altogether and just go by geographical locations with relevant subsections for themes?

Abstractions could be placed under Early work, placing emphasis on the work mailed to Stieglitz in 1916 and subsequent interest in the city, and Skyscrapers and Flowers under New York. While she began the flowers during the 1920s, they obviously became her landmark iconography throughout the career and it might make for a good and logical transition from NY to NM. Then we could move to Animal skulls and Landscape imagery featured prominently in her late 1930s paintings and Portraits of the 1940s. Later 1960s abstractions could be discussed under Late work. Something like this:

• Early life and education
  • Abstractions
• New York
  • Skyscrapers
  • Flowers
• New Mexico
  • Animal skulls
  • Landscape
  • Portraits
  • Late career

If we'd like to keep some date ranges, we can be more generous, for example: New York (1916—1930s); New Mexico (1930s—1984).

I realize this isn't perfect, of course, but finding a workable chronological/iconographic framework is quite challenging for O'Keeffe, as we all know. Let me know what you think and whether you feel comfortable with such structure? I'd like to make sure I am not imposing too much, as my only goal is to just get the ball rolling on improving the article. :-) Ppt91^talk 15:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I really like that format! I think it would be nice to have a small groupings of works under each section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Just for fun and illustrative purposes:

• Abstractions
• 
  Blue and Green Music
• 
  Blue 2
• 
  Sunrise
• 
  The Flag

–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I added some captions, but it would be good to have fuller captions (e.g., year, musuem).–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to use mixed portrait and landscape images, the heights and widths should be equal; and the "perrow" parameter should be deleted. It's unnecessary here (since there are only four images), and an undesirable limitation for wide browser windows. See also Help:Gallery tag#Usage notes for a further minor note. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you have a suggestion for a good way to present the images (multiple image template, image frame, other methods?)–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have used the image map a couple of time and find that a fun way to manage portrait and landscape images. See Ukiyo-e, the first group of images.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@Modernist, Mandarax, TheMindsEye, PDH, Coldcreation, Skyerise, Ppt91, CaroleHenson, Paleolith, and Mageeking: I'm a peripatetic editor without a strong attachment to this article, though I did just find things I missed on my first visit, and made changes to correct those. I hope those changes meet with your collective approval. As for the rest of the article's structure, I'm agnostic about the text, though the images still clump together a bit too much for my liking in the "Career" section on my (very wide) monitor. But that's a fairly minor thing to me. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope everyone is okay with me breaking this sections into subsections for navigational purposes. If not, let me know and I'll take them out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson Thanks so much for dividing this up into several posts and doing the heavy lifting on the talk page! It seems to me that only a few editors have responded at all, so perhaps we can send another courtesy ping to @DocWatson42 and @Orangesky6791 in case they'd like to chime in? Of course, if anyone feels strongly about the suggestions above, I'd be open to hear and adjust accordingly. Otherwise, I think we have demonstrated enough WP:DGF to move on with constructive work. :-) Ppt91^talk 19:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91, DocWatson42, and Orangesky6791:, that makes sense. I checked around yesterday and found about half of the people that were pinged for input haven't been on Wikipedia lately or just sporadically. A few are entrenched with other types of work. I think we have the core group.

How does that sound to the two of you? What do you think of Option 4, or do you favor another approach?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Option 4 with a chronological/thematic division is probably the best way to start. I also am feeling a bit more enthusiastic about doing general year ranges primarily to benefit an unfamiliar reader, but happy to hold off based on how others are feeling. Finally, I made edits to my previous list of subject matter names for better clarity and to reflect a more appropriate art historical tone. A slightly amended version of Option 4 included below, pending approval and open to any adjustments. :-)

• Early life and education (1887—1916)
  • First abstractions
• New York (1916—1930s)
  • Skyscraper paintings
  • Flower paintings
• New Mexico (1930s—1986)
  • Skull iconography
  • Desert landscapes
  • Portraits
  • Late career

ps. Not strictly related to the structure, but in terms of content, it'd be lovely to get access to the catalogue for the most recent show at MoMA... I'll inquire at my library and can try ILL if needed.

Ppt91^talk 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91 and @CaroleHenson I think this is great! Of course there might be little changes as we keep working on it, but I think this is going in the right direction, and also quite the improvement compared to the the original outline. Maybe we can work in a paragraph before and after the subsections, for example a paragraph before "skyscraper paintings," that could summarize her transition to NY, paragraph after "Flower paintings," that introduces her travel to NM, etc. Thoughts? I am hoping to work on the intro this weekend and maybe have it slightly reflect the structure of the page, if that makes sense. Stay tuned for that, sorry its taking awhile! This is very exciting, thank you both! (Orangesky6791 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC))

Glad that we're coming to a really good workable approach. I don't think that we need content to bridge into the next section, but it would be good to see an example. It could be that I'm just having a hard time seeing what you are thinking.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Orangesky6791 and Ppt91: I really like it!

Regarding the catalogue, there are pictures of each wall in the exhibition at MOMA, and then under that the works that are being shown. I'd be happy to go through that and make a list of works.

For something like List of works by Georgia O'Keeffe–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked on SIRIS and there are a lot of "works" pages, about 1,200 - that's another option. Just trying to think about how / if that list could be a bit focused (not so long, is what I really mean to say. I am not up for taking that on at the moment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: I found out than the list of works can be filtered by place (New Mexico, New York, Peru...). So that makes it a lot more workable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Orangesky6791 and Ppt91:, Should we move forward with the sections - just creating the sections and moving applicable text - for the moment? I am happy to work on it, but if someone prefers to do it, go for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I won't be able to get to it until later tonight, so if you'd like to go ahead, I am in full support! Ppt91^talk 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91, that would be pretty soon. You've done so much work on these drafts, it seems right to leave it to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson@Ppt91 With my resources I might be able to get that list without you having to do all that work. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC))

Excellent, thanks, Orangesky6791!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson @DocWatson42 @Orangesky6791 Just made the changes (here is the diff) and corrected the dashes for date ranges. I also did some minor copy editing when moving content around, slightly amended subsection titles to fit well with the current text (Skull and desert motifs, for instance), and also made minor changes to Reception and Legacy. There was some content that belonged to Reception and Legacy, so once I moved it, I ended up doing some cleaning in terms of organization. I realize the last part was more of a WP:BOLD move on my end, but I am obviously open to adjust based on your feedback and receptive to any criticism if you think it should be discussed in more detail.

Once we feel comfortable with the above, I was wondering if it might be a good idea to chat more about the Personal life section before moving into further content editing? I certainly agree that the section is very important, but I think it would be useful to do some brainstorming on how to reduce the number of subsections to avoid redundancies, especially when one considers the very detailed biographical information in career sections. It seems that Marriage, Mental health, and Relationships are probably the ones which deserve their own subsections, while Transition, Travels, and Death and estate settlement can be merged into existing content in career and Reception. Thoughts?

Thanks all for amazing teamwork. I am really excited for this project and looking forward to working together on the article. :-)

Ppt91^talk 15:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, Ppt91! Great flow for the New York and New Mexico subsections! Thanks so much for that. Your points about edits to the Personal life section make sense to me.

I would like to work on creating a grouping of images for each subsection - and eliminating the "Paintings" section if you all are good with that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson Thanks! And sorry that I forgot to address your comment about images--absolutely agree with you. It will be much easier to have a grouping/gallery for each relevant section. Would you be opposed to leaving a few images in the text throughout the article if they are immediately relevant (one or two per subsection)? Ppt91^talk 15:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91, Yes, of course. If a current image doesn't go into one of the groupings, I intend to leave it in its place.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91 I feel like a broken record, but this is looking great. Yes, the Personal information needing work is an understatement. I absolutely agree that transition, travels, etc. can be a part of career and reception. I do just want to make note that some of the information in Marriage and Relationship, I believe is not 100% accurate. Whenever we get to edit this section I just encourage everyone to follow the citations and read the source, I do not think it necessarily matches with what is being stated. There has been speculation on certain topics but from what I know there is no confirmation on what is being stated on this page. I need to do more research and would like to know what you all think. Also this is not the biggest priority right now, just wanted to put it out there. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC))

@Orangesky6791 This is a very good point, especially in regard to the Relationships content. Given we seem to be in agreement with some of these editorial changes, I went ahead with another WP:BOLD move and merged some of the content from other subsections into relevant career sections (here is the diff if you would like to make any additional changes).

As for Relationships, I placed two tags on top of the section, as it sounds too speculative and, as @Orangesky6791 noticed, requires a lot of work. @CaroleHenson@DocWatson42 I hope you are okay with this, because the subject of O'Keeffe's personal relationships has been a contentious one and we need to provide more context with specific biographers and the evidence they provided.

For example, Eisler's conclusions about O'Keeffe's being bisexual were seen as "startling revelations" when her biography was first published etc. So we need to tread carefully and it will likely take some more research. It's best to keep the readers aware that the current content is not entirely reliable. Ppt91^talk 14:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with it. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with the tags at the top of the section, Ppt91. I put the ones at the end of the first paragraph into inline citations. I meant to have an inline tag for "bisexual" and made a mistake. Since you placed the tag at the very end of the paragraph, I thought you might have meant the same.

I would be interested in drafting new language for bisexuality, if that's okay with you. I know that you and OrangeSky have opinions about that paragraph, too, and your feedback is important. Would that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

See #Accuracy and Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/bisexuality draft–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a reference, plus punctuation (per MOS:CURLY and MOS:RANGE). Also, despite their quasi-standardization in Good Articles I'm afraid I find the use of "References" and (especially) "Bibliography" as section titles to be problematic. "References" on its own is fine, but "Bibliography" is used for both lists of creators' publications, and of general references and of cited works. I prefer unambiguously self-explanatory titles, such as "Citations" and "General and cited references", so that casual users know what the sections are for. (Please pardon me—this is a pet peeve.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I should note that my strengths include copy editing and bibliographies/formatting references, and less drafting first drafts. (Thus the WikiDee and WikiFairy templates on my user page.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if I should take a step back from the editing of this section because of my ties with GOK Museum. From my research it seemed like this was more speculation than fact. I believe most of the speculation about O'Keeffe's affairs and bisexuality came from the contents of her personal letters which have been disputed for quite sometime. I am seeing several Wikipedia pages where speculation is seen as a factual evidence, like Pollitzer, Kahlo, etc. I personally find it frustrating because it seems very sensationalized and takes away the complexities and realities of this time. But because of my feelings towards this I do not think I should be a primary editor to this section. I also want to say that the book Foursome by Carolyn Burke, might also be a good resource to use on this section. I have yet to finish it, but it is one of the more recent publications on this topic. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC))

Orangesky6791 My gut reaction is that the reasons you state for feeling you should step back are the reasons that I think you should be here.

I appreciate that you provided a book to review. I will take a look at it. It would be good to know what else you would be looking at for sources for this section.

If there's something in the work page Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/bisexuality draft that you don't think has solid footing, that would be helpful to know. If you know of someone who tells a different side of her sexuality, that would be good to know.

I started this without any bias at all. I didn't even go back and read the Relationship section so I could come in clear-headed. I hope you stay, but understand whatever you decide. –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wasn't going to say the words that "she's a bisexual", but I did/do intend to say what has been printed that characterizes her interest in men and women. Saying one is bisexual is a very personal statement - and I don't think we should be saying it if she didn't say it about herself.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Orangesky6791 I agree fully with @CaroleHenson. Wikipedia welcomes experts and there are various initiatives that encourage direct participation from non-profit institutions, especially WP:GLAM when it comes to museums.

I think that because you have declared your COI and are being forthcoming about any potential issues, your participation will be a valuable addition to the page. That said, I understand how direct editing could be construed as COI given your affiliation, so as long as you provide the material here or in sandbox/drafts, we're fine. Our job is always to summarize information from WP:RS and your connection to GOK Museum offers access to a number of resources, including older book publications, which would otherwise be hard to get.

As for the bisexuality debate, I think we need to include both sides, i.e. how these letters have been used by researchers and scholars and what conclusions were drawn as well as how others reacted to it. Anything beyond that will be WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS.

All of this is my long way of saying: I hope you can stay onboard and help us tremendously by providing and summarizing any relevant information you think needs to be included along with sources. :-)

^{Ps. I have my own views on COI and think that the current guidelines are confusing and restricting, but that's a separate conversation...} Ppt91^talk 20:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91, Makes sense to me. I am going to do a little more research and then will start writing up a draft. It would be really helpful to get your feedback as well, including about the usefulness, or not, of using letters for evidence... and now based on the info that I've been finding in research to see if you have other sources that I should be looking at. Also, feel free to go ahead and made edits to the document.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson great, thank you! I'll monitor the page and will be happy to give any suggestions/brainstorm ideas. As for letters, I think that we might inadvertently risk getting too close to WP:OR in this particular context because of how contentious the debate surrounding these letters has been. I will double check the sources, though, to make sure we're not missing anything more recent...

Re lead, given that @Orangesky6791 expressed some concerns with the introductory paragraphs, I went ahead and edited the first paragraph by using some of the content from my recent GA Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe) which is in turn taken from a good and reliable article on the artist from the Met Heilbrunn Timeline.

I think that the page in general relies too heavily on "Georgia O'Keeffe". Biography Channel. A&E Television Networks. August 26, 2016. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2017., which has 20 footnotes as of now; it is technically a reliable source but there are so many alternatives that I think we can probably drop it altogether, especially thinking about GA-criteria.

Curious to hear your thoughts on the updated first lead paragraph. Feel free to edit accordingly! Ppt91^talk 20:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91, Sounds great! Let me know when to look at the intro. I am still plowing ahead on relationships / sexuality.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson @Ppt91I definitely plan on staying onboard, I just was not sure of my role on this particular topic of relationships. Thank you both for your comments! I will be more than happy to give suggestion/brainstorm as well. I do want to make another note. This has kind of been a personal side project on my, so right now there are a couple of other projects I have been working on. Apologies for not contributing a whole lot or taking while to reply. I am hoping to have some more free time soon! (Orangesky6791 (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC))

Orangesky6791, Sounds good!

If we could stop this conversation here, that would be great! I get so lost in these long sections. If it doesn't related to any of the specific topics that already have sections (images, accuracy, checkered dress, dashes, etc.), if you could start a new section at the end, that would be sublime.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I agree—Wikipedia isn't ideal for long, threaded conversations. In catching up, I've started using (as I sometimes have in the past) the History function to view the changes to this page, edit by edit. That might be helpful to you as well. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I second Ppt91talk's edit of 20:16 ET, 3 July 2023 in reply to Orangesky6791 ("I agree fully with @CaroleHenson."...). —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Outdent for readability, it will distinguish this discussion from the next, earlier post.

@Ppt91, @Orangesky6791, and DocWatson42:Of course, we should check anything in the article that is questionable. In the short run, you can add a tag for anything that you question, like {{Accuracy dispute}} with the date, {{Accuracy dispute|date=July 2023}}.

In fact, I would prefer that since you already know that there are some issues. It would call out what we need to work on - and notify readers in the meantime that a statement is being challenged. I will add one to the content about bisexuality.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91, CaroleHenson, and Orangesky6791: It doesn't look bad, but I do prefer reasonably easily read/editable code (I use source editing, thus some separation is useful), so if you would be so kind would you please add two carriage returns before each image so that they are easily found, or one before the second image in a group, as the case may be? (Based on this edit; specifically before File:Rotunda at the University of Virginia and File:Georgia O'Keeffe UVa.jpg.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

DocWatson42, I put rows in the image groupings / galleries and before and after free-standing files. Good to know that it can be done. I am challenged myself - and also work in source editing - and that would have helped me a LOT when I was setting up the groupings.

I don't know if it will help you or not, but I use the "find" function a lot to get right to where I want to be, by finding on a unique word or couple of words. For instance, to find groupings to add the rows, I searched on "packed" that is only in the galleries. I hope that tip helps for you. It helps me a lot when looking for something in the middle of a big paragraph.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I do use the Find command, but still—figuring out where a file name, template, or other piece of wiki markup starts or ends can be challenging if the code is all run together. (If you want my full opinion on the subject and other points on editing, click the link in the second line on my user page.) DocWatson42 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Re formatting preferences, @DocWatson42 I am happy to concur. No strong opinion as long as we can keep it with three images per subsection in the same size (ideally no larger than 200 height) across the article. :-) Ppt91^talk 15:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91, Yes, the article was updated yesterday - max three images per grouping, all having the 200 height.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion 2 - Implementing changes

To start with, I put images into groupings using the "Gallery" format.

Changes could be made to the "Gallery" format, size, or number of images. They could be put into {{multiple images}}, multiple image with multiple rows, or ImageMap. Or, something I don't know about yet.

I am going to play around with the formats a bit and see if there's anything in commons that would be good to add.

Any thoughts? Changes to the groupings and format are relatively easy to tweak to whatever would make it better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I made a version with "packed" which removed that white box around each grouping - and gets more in a row

Gallery version without "packed" and version with "packed, and some tweaks to captions and breaking Abstractions into two rows–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much, @CaroleHenson! I would say the non-packed version looks easier to navigate, and I also am now thinking that maybe we could limit each subsection gallery to three images and move anything remaining to the gallery at the end of the article? I am also thinking ahead to possible GA nomination where we are likely to be encouraged to only keep enough images to provide necessary visual reference. Ppt91^talk 18:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ppt91 Thanks for your input. Yes, it sounds fine to have a max of 3 images to a grouping.

Ppt91, I made the change to the article to have more more than 3 images per grouping. I am totally stuck, though, on the Abstractions in the Georgia O'Keeffe#New York (1916–1930s) section. There are six now and cannot figure out which three to remove. Can you help out with that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also started a sandbox page with examples. Right now, there are three ways examples. Next, I want to try {{image frame}}, making it example 4, to play around more with portrait / landscape placement like initial Ukiyo-e box - perhaps within the hour.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I meant image frame, but image map may be an option. I will check it out, I have only done an image map one time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I finished the sandbox examples, unless someone has another template / image placement option.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson Sorry, just saw! My vote would be to keep compositions from 1917, 1918, and 1921 for the three abstractions. As for formatting, and having now looked more carefully at the sandbox, I think I actually like packed gallery option best with image height at 200 (as you already did for Early work gallery) for all to maintain visual consistency. :-) Ppt91^talk 00:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, great! I have updated the Abstract grouping and set all the gallery groupings to the same height and width.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally prefer the Gallery tags, as {{Multiple images}} (and tables?) cause the images to not flow around around the other objects on the page. Also, a little more punctuation: As of now there are fifteen spaced en dashes (including for ranges) and six em dashes, including one spaced one. The last needs to go whatever the decision, but per MOS:DASH an article needs to stick to em dashes or spaced en dashes ("In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article"). (I prefer the former, but will abide by the majority opinion.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DocWatson42 (talk • contribs) 22:45, July 1, 2023 (UTC)

DocWatson42 Okay, cool, regarding the images.

The earlier sections became very cumbersome, so I collapsed them, but if you feel I collapsed anything too soon, feel free to remove the templates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Biography source

Ppt91, I hear your concern about reliance on Biography.com - particularly for a GA review from here where you say I think that the page in general relies too heavily on "Georgia O'Keeffe". Biography Channel. A&E Television Networks. August 26, 2016. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2017., which has 20 footnotes as of now; it is technically a reliable source but there are so many alternatives that I think we can probably drop it altogether, especially thinking about GA-criteria.

I posted it here so that we don't lose track of it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Intro section

Background:

• For the intro I understand that an overview is important, but I do think it needs work since it mainly talks about her early career, and then the last sentence is how much a painting sold for, it just seems a bit random. But maybe this is one of the places we can start! - Orangesky6791 27 June 2023
• Orangesky6791 expressed some concerns with the introductory paragraphs, I went ahead and edited the first paragraph by using some of the content from my recent GA Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe) which is in turn taken from a good and reliable article on the artist from the Met Heilbrunn Timeline. - Ppt91 3 Jul 2023
• The intro is just the first paragraph to improve flow. _{I did some more work on New York yesterday and will plan to gradually move into late 1920s and then early 1930s. My schedule will get a bit more busy later this week, but I'll keep everyone posted here on progress.} Ppt91 4 July 2023

Discussion:

• Ppt91, I took a look at the first paragraph in the intro section, looks good!––CaroleHenson (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Ppt91 and anyone that would like to comment, I took a stab at the second paragraph, summarizing what was there. It could be further summarized. What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)