Talk:Cone sisters

ref name "shoppers"

The ref name shoppers points nowhere. I'm not sure what it is referencing, but one of them needs to have a ref tage setup like this:

<ref name="shoppers"> Reference </ref>

Hope that helps. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 19:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it did help. I tracked it down and there was unexplained removal of referenced material. The reference of "shoppers" was also then removed. Replaced material since it is referenced and the accompaning reference of "shoppers" used for multiple footnotes. --Doug ^talk 21:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection of this new article

I believe this article should be semi-protected from this much vandalism. How do we go about this?--Doug ^talk 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection was requested and granted by Bovlb. I added the protection template. Enigma ^msg! 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Doug ^talk 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cone sisters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019145733/http://www.artbma.org/collection/overview/cone.html to http://www.artbma.org/collection/overview/cone.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019145733/http://www.artbma.org/collection/overview/cone.html to http://www.artbma.org/collection/overview/cone.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cone sisters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Alanna the Brave (talk · contribs) 23:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. Comments to follow over the next few days! Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick update: I'll need a few more days to finish my initial review, due to a very busy week. Apologies for the wait. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Doug Coldwell: There are still a few things I want to check (including the lead and infobox), but I'm going to list my review thus far below. I'm so sorry again about the wait -- I thought I had a good stretch of free time coming up for this review, and then the month of June slapped me in the face. Such is life! Okay. Opening article review comments: the writing is generally strong (only a few minor issues of clarity). The illustrations are relevant and properly tagged/licensed. The nominator has made a number of new edits this week, but I'm going to call it "stable" on the whole (no edit wars). Earwig's Copy-Vio tool doesn't raise any red flags; when I spot-checked some sources, however, I found one phrase that may be a little too close to the original (noted under "Social status"). There is a good amount of in-line citations -- but also a couple of sentences that aren't currently supported by the existing references. More comments below...

Early life

• You should add dates of birth for both sisters here, with refs.

•  Done Added birth dates with references.

• The "Forbes 1999" citation needs to be formatted similar to the others.

•  Done Added correct cite web template.

• "During World War I the textile mills that their brothers started would again increase the wealth of the Cone sisters." --> Increased it again? If the sisters already had wealth, where did it come from?

•  Done Copy edited accordingly.

• What was Etta's "joint household"? Some clarification here might be useful.

•  Done Copy edited accordingly.

• The Rudacille source looks like it has additional info about Claribel's schooling (internship and family tensions).

•  Done Copy edited accordingly.

Career of the sisters

• Watch out for overlinking -- Picasso and others are linked more than once in this section.

•  Done Removed all duplicate linking in article.

• "were known to get thrown away sketches in Picasso's art studio for $2 or $3 apiece". --> What does this mean, exactly? Did the Steins purchase thrown-away sketches from Picasso for $2 or $3, or did they try to sell them on to others for $2 or $3?

•  Done Copy edited accordingly.

• "After Claribel's death, Etta became more adventurous in her purchases..." --> I can't find this stated in the supporting source. Possibly extrapolation?

•  Done Hirschland (2008) source says on page 152, Etta's response to this extraordinary photographic record has unfortunately not survived. But her actions are clear.

It goes on to say ..the era of Etta's dependence on outside influences was gone for good.

Hirschland (2008) source says on page 154, Despite rising tensions in Europe during the early 1930s, Etta continued building the Cone Collection at a prodigious clip.

Yes, that is what I get out of reading pages 152 and 154 that she became more adventurous in her purchases after Claribel's death. The Matisse Blue Nude painting and the Lady with a Bang Manet pastel and other expensive paintings she bought in the 1930s give me this impression. I changed the cite book reference for pages 152-154 to show this. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The Cones and the Steins

• "there are even hints that they were lovers at some point." --> Hints from where? Does this rumour come from contemporaries of the Cones, or is it something historians have picked up on?

•  Done Copy edited to say, in historian Brenda Richardson's book "Dr. Claribel & Miss Etta" that they were lovers at some point, as Ms. Richardson writes a lot about this. The New York reference #17 says, Ms. Richardson's book devotes a considerable amount of speculation to the degree of intimacy between Etta Cone and Gertrude Stein, concluding that they were very likely lovers at some point.

Social status

• "which was the case for about ten percent of women during this era". --> Is this info included to point out that their choice was unusual? Adding the qualifier "only" ("only about ten percent") might make this clearer.

•  Done

• "They were known as eccentrics and had a comical presence clad in their lengthy Victorian dresses." --> This is the line that comes a little too close to the source material for my liking. Also, it strikes me as unclear: what was so "comical" about their presence? Lengthy Victorian dresses may have been unusual in later years, but I'm not sure why it would have been considered funny.

•  Done - removed sentence

• "In fact, the sisters had an excellent feel for fine art influenced by the large collection of books on art which they purchased and used." --> This doesn't seem to be confirmed by the supporting reference (no mention of art books). Can another source be used here?

•  Done

Cone Collection

• Watch out for overlinking -- "Near East" may be genuinely helpful, but I'm not sure it's worthwhile to link each nation (e.g. Japanese prints) to very general info about that nation's historical art. Linking generally works best when it leads to specific information.

•  Done

Other collections

• "The Cone sisters often visited their famous brother there." --> "Famous" strikes me as a peacock word -- probably not necessary.

•  Done

• "Etta left in her will May 18, 1949, an endowment to the Weatherspoon Art Gallery sixty Matisse prints..." --> the supporting source says it was sixty-seven prints.

•  Done

Lastly, I think it would be worthwhile taking a second look at the overall organization of this article. From my perspective, there are only four main categories of information: early life, art collecting & connections (during their lifetime), museum legacies, and death. However, the article is currently organized under seven sections, and I'm seeing different information bleeding into different sections (e.g., family and friendship info is mentioned in museum collection sections, art purchases are described both in "Career" and "Social status" sections). What do you think? Could some of these sections be merged to make the article easier to navigate for readers? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Working Working on all the issues now. Will mark when Done with each issue.--Doug Coldwell (talk)
•  Working Got slowed up on this review by a couple of other reviews. Should be back on solving the issues on this review starting tomorrow. Thanks for patience.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Alanna the Brave: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: Looking much improved! I've made some further copy edits to the text for clarity/conciseness, and I've made edits to photo captions, categories, and reference info. There are just a few final items to address (listed below) before I'm satisfied that the GA criteria are met. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

• Add sisters' nationality and clarify the year that the collection was valued at (almost) $1 billion.

•  Done

• In infobox: add sisters' nationality and remove the empty spouse/children entries (it doesn't make sense to include those when there's nothing to say)

•  Done

Early life

• I have a ref question: you've now incorporated the Rudacille source info about Claribel's internship and family tensions regarding her chosen profession, but you haven't cited it with Rudacille. Is all this info confirmed by the cited Richardson source instead?

•  Done Added {Hirschland|2008|page=71} book cite for Claribel's internship and family tensions regarding her chosen profession.

• I was looking through the existing list of External Links, and I notice that the Encyclopedia of Jewish Women has additional info on Claribel's early life and medical studies/research. I think that's worth adding to this article.

•  Done

Art collecting and connections

• What year were the Steins orphaned? I think we need that info as context, since we're doing some jumping around in time within this section.

•  Done

• If the sisters' collection was private during their lifetime, does it make sense to say that they "exhibited" it on their walls? Did they invite the public to view it at their apartments?

•  Done

• @Alanna the Brave: All additional issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: I've made a few additional copy edits today, and I'm now reasonably satisfied that the article meets GA criteria. Thanks for the hard work! Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)