Talk:Gjura Stojana

For the future

A lot of this work, like the Bullock Wilshire mural, will go into the public domain next year. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sortakinda COI disclosure?

I had a conversation with someone I know where they were telling me they learned they were related to some painter who was actually pretty well known back in the 1920s. They showed me some work and I liked it, so I looked to see if he had an article. He didn't, so I wrote a draft. I'm saying this because "someone I know told me about some famous relative and I wrote an article about them" is rather more of a COI than I'm used to, and I'd like to disclose it here. To be clear, that person didn't ask me to write this, doesn't know I'm writing this [yet -- I'll probably ask them to find more sources for me], and I don't stand to gain anything from it. Regardless, I'm hoping someone else will take a look at it first before I move it to mainspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

A couple notes:

• I have some emails out to archivists/curators/librarians to find more sources, but I'm confident that what's here is more than enough for either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST.
• Unfortunately there's not much information after 1933/34.
• There are some sources which may draw skepticism. A couple go to a blogspot page, but one of them is just linking to a scan of a newspaper hosted there; the others are the blog of historian John Crosse, who has published a number of journal articles, etc. about California art/architecture (WP:EXPERTSPS). The YouTube video and the tfaoi.org materials were created by Laguna Art Museum curators.
• I know it would still need some work to head to a GA. There are perhaps a couple too many quotes, for example. At this point, I just want to make sure it's clean enough for mainspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Here are a few notes on this draft. I'm not evaluating sources or notability here . Obviously everything is simply a suggestion.

• This is obvious, but if you're eventually bringing this to GA, the lead needs an expansion to properly summarize the body.

• I would add a citation after "Gjura Stojana was born in 1885" even though the later cites might do it. May be a point of preference but it adds clarity.
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "At some point when he was young, he traveled to several places in Europe and Asia, which would greatly influence his work" can be made more concise with "When he was young, he traveled around Europe and Asia, which would greatly influence his work".
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "in the early days of abstraction in Los Angeles" This part juts out to me, why does it relate to the rest of the sentence? Can you contextualize it more?
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "they lived primarily on Elizabeth's wages" MOS:SURNAME
  • Would be confusing, as she likely took his last name. Copyedited, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "according to friend and peer Conrad Buff" Why does this statement need attribution? Doesn't seem contentious.
  • The claim that his work was unpopular and that he lived off Elizabeth's wages only appears in one source, which is a [published] oral history by Buff. Just seems like good practice to attribute there IMO? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "who first knew Stojana as George Stanley entirely superfluous detail.
  • I guess I thought the variety of names he went by was interesting. It's only in Buff's account that he's known by that "Stanley" name. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• More context is needed on what modernist/abstractionist is and how Stojana found this style.
  • Added a little description, but I don't have any information about how he found the style. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "praised his early work and regarded him as "the first abstractionist in Los Angeles" link "abstractionist"
  •  Done in the previous sentence. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "This led Buff to spend hours convincing him that if the museum got the impression modern painters were so temperamental, it might dash any chances other modernists would have, too The tone of this feels a tad too casual. Would revise it a bit.
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "he produced a lot of work" -> "he produced many works" more encyclopedic tone
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• among Los Angeles modernists Modernists should have been linked at its first mention.
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "He was part of a movement to bring together architecture and arts" -> "He was part of a movement which combined/was combining architecture and arts tone
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Through his friend, Anitta Delano, he met Eleanor Lemaire" irrelevant detail
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Millier described a set of tempera paintings" -> "Millier described a set of his tempera paintings
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Would consider separating this article into a biography section(s) and a style section. It also should have a list of works.

• Also consider splitting the reactions of his works into a separate reaction section. The commentators interspersed within the biography reads sort of messy.

• With the Exhibitions section, the structure becomes vague. Is this a continuation of the biography or a listing of his exhibitions, or both?

• The first , including exhibits grammar error
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Exhibitions may work better simply as a bullet list of exhibitions.

• "Personal life" is confusing when much of the other sections already devote time to his personal life! I would clearly separate the article into "career" and "personal life" or just combine everything into a "biography" section.

• "His work is in collections at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County..." etc. has nothing to do with his personal life. I suppose it's legacy but it feels strange to combine these seemingly unrelated sections.

Hope this was helpful, pinging @Rhododendrites: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, PerfectSoundWhatever. I've tackled the low hanging fruit above. What remains are the structural suggestions, which are all sensible points. I'm waiting to hear back from a few people (museum librarians, etc.) to try to pull together some additional sources, and will revisit the structure once I have all that together, since it may change what I can say about exhibitions, a list of works, etc. Fair to say it's good enough to move to mainspace for the time being, though? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! I think it's good for mainspace — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)