Talk:Henry Darger/GA2: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 04:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 00:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progress template for GA review by Noleander

Comments from Noleander

• Cite p vs pp error: Rundquist 2021, p. 10–13, 18. P/PP error? p. 10–13, 1;

But inspecting the report, they are both false positives. The textual overlaps are proper names, book names, etc. So, no issues there.

• Out of curiosity: what is the reason this book was not used as a source?
  • Elledge, Jim (2013). Henry Darger, Throwaway Boy: The Tragic Life of an Outsider Artist. Overlook Duckworth. ISBN 9780715646328.

Was it duplicative of other sources already used in the article?

• Partially that, but several reviews of it called it out for taking a lot of ‘creative liberties’; see Bonesteel’s review of it here (which I cite), where he says Elledge extrapolates from facts to create biographical re-enactments that are pure fiction. Because it’s very hard to tell at any point which parts of the books are scholarly and which are dramatizations, I didn’t feel comfortable citing any of it. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• … on that same image: I see it is stored in English Wikipedia. Is it not in Wiki Commons because it is copyrighted? I thought fair-use images could be put into Wiki Commons. No big deal, the image file location is not relevant to GA review, I’m just curious.

• Wording clarity: Scholars have assigned many different psychological conditions to Darger, with the initially prevalent views that he was a pedophile or murderer having been discredited. A bit awkward. Consider something like: Scholars have hypothesized several different psychological conditions Darger may have suffered from. Theories [by whom?] that he was a pedophile or murderer have been discredited. (if you don’t mind ending a sentence with a preposition).

I’m not sure if those are legitimate, but if they are, they should be linked at the bottom of the article. Even if they are kinda ugly prints, readers will want to directly view some of his writings.

• … continuing prior note: Is there any benefit to having a “Works” section at the bottom of the article that lists selected works: books and art? Not extensive, maybe five or ten most notable items. Even if internet links to the works/books/art do not exist: just listing the works will be important to some readers. I realize the article already has a “Collection catalogues…” section, but that is distinct from a list of works: the Collection links go to museums etc that have professionally curated & edited data; a “Works” section is simply a bulleted list that give readers a brief overview of what Darger produced (without having to visit an external site).

• At the top of the “Collections” section are two items:

The layout is confusing: the second item (Thevoz) is indented under the Anderson item. What does the indentation mean? Is the Thevoz item related to the Anderson item? Is the indentation a mistake?

• Clarify: Darger described initially hating children younger than him and bullying them, which he retrospectively attributed to a lack of siblings; however, he wrote that he grew deeply fond of children slightly later in life. I’m not sure how to interpret the word “slightly” in this context, …. can it be omitted? Sentence seems fine without it.

• Wording: … and at one point unsuccessfully arranged for one of his relatives to adopt him. Consider … and at one point unsuccessfully attempted to have one of his relatives to adopt him.

• In the section about galleries and donating art to museums, is it possible to add anything about sales? Did the Lerners make any money selling the artwork? Reading between the lines it seems like they did…. it would be nice to have some specific numbers.

• In the paragraph galleries and donations to museums, in one sentence says “the Lerners donated”, and then the next sentence says “she donated” … kind of a confusing alternation between the individual and the couple.