Talk:Catalina Parra

Comments

I'm an online ambassador for your WMST 250: Women, Art, and Culture (2014 Q3) class and have just stopped by to provide a quick review and add what I hope will be helpful comments.

You've written a nice article about Catalina Parrar and I get a good sense of her character from your article. It's well written and organized.

Some suggestions that you may want to consider:

• Regarding sections: I, too, like to use sections to break up the work - and create an outline in the contents that helps guide readers to a particular section of interest. In this case, it's a bit choppy because many of the sections have just one or two sentence in them. What do you think about eliminating the subsections under Chile and the United States?
• When you have titles in two languages, you can format it like this: Reconstrucciones (Reconstruction). - you don't need to say translation / aka / etc. because the readers will recognize the English title.
• When there is a claim, like "established Parra as a renowned artist", it should be attributed to the speaker/author or publisher who made the claim.
• For "During her time in the United States she used American mass media as her new material." Do you mean something like: "During her time in the United States she used American mass media as a source of new material for her works of art." ?
• Regarding "Chilean Poet Nicanor Parra" - poet does not need to be capitalized, because it's not an official title. Would it make sense to identify him earlier in the article where it says that she comes from a renowned family?

I hope that the number of comments are seen as basically tweaks to a good article. Great job!

I'll be watching this page and your sandbox page for any updates. You can also "ping" me (just type "{{ping|CaroleHenson}}" as you see it) to your message on this page or leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

peer review from class

Over all I liked your article and thought it was well written. However the only suggestion that I can think of is maybe combining some of your sections together to make them flow better. Also in your note section it looks like there are duplicates of some of the citings. I am not sure if this is meant to be the case or if it is an error. Cpontell1 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Images

I see that you tried several times to upload a file for the article, which would mean that if it's not in the public domain, it would likely have to be a "fair use" rationale for the image. If you were trying to upload an image of Parra's work - and want help with the Fair Use rationale, let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Trick for managing multiple uses of the same source

Hi,

I thought I'd pass on a cool trip for managing multiple uses of the same source. You assign a unique "ref name" to the first citation <ref name=Oelker>....</ref> with all the source information. Then, all the subsequent uses of the same source can be a shortened tag <ref name="Oelker" /> that has a slash after the ref name. I made all the changes for the book by Oelker (see this as an example), which all had the same page numbers.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

There appear to be recent edits that are the same type added by the subject of the article earlier. The reference information is not clear - and there's an issue with the subject of the article writing her own biography. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Self-promotion. I am happy to help, if we can find some good, reliable and verifiable sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a particularly helpful and clear "how to": Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Potential sources may be found from these searches: books, news.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)