Talk:William Utermohlen

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 9 July 2021 by reviewer Qwerfjkl (talk · contribs). Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wik.ipedia.Pro's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles Disability William Utermohlen is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philadelphia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

Section sizes Section size for William Utermohlen (18 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,902 2,902 Early life 4,038 4,038 Style 1,605 4,113 Six cycles 2,508 2,508 Alzheimer's, late works 4,686 5,047 Death 361 361 Later work 15 9,362 Self-portraits 7,107 7,107 Influences 2,240 2,240 Legacy 6,100 6,100 Exhibitions 3,481 3,481 See also 347 347 Notes 38 38 References 15 24,783 Citations 29 29 Sources 16,838 16,838 Journals 4,705 4,705 Bibliography 3,196 3,196 Total 60,211 60,211

This most interesting article could probably succeed at FAC if editing progressed at a slower pace, and with broader collaboration between medical, bio and art editors. I believe I have mostly corrected the medical issues, but have not checked all copy edit needs, and have not checked all of the MOS:LQ issues yet. But the more significant work that remains to be done is to have a new look at all of the sources to re-focus on his work and art, and avoid using art sources to make medical statements. There is still fascinating untapped potential about the effects on his art of whatever condition he may have actually had, and it's unfortunate there was no autopsy in such an interesting case. That's all I have time for now, and I don't have access to all the sources, but the article is at least in a state I do believe it now meets the GA that was conferred earlier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Six cycles" section discusses his illness, although it isn't introduced until the next section; the flow/narrative needs adjusting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• William Utermohlen - 1967 self portrait mixed media on paper.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Utermohlen story is well-known in popular medicine -- it's had a lot of cultural impact. I defer to Sandy on whether it's nearly as broadly covered in the medical literature itself (what I know about the dementia literature is different to her, and probably quite a bit less). Nonetheless, it's a worthwhile article to work on and a good one to prioritize for FAC, and I think it's already promising. I also understand the drive to get it as good as it can be before renominating, given the previous nominations and the emotional weight of unsuccessful FACs (firsthand knowledge on that one). It'd be quite far from the FA with the most FACs, so there's plenty of potential still to win this thing. Thoughts:

• I agree the article presents Utermohlen's disease as more typically Alzheimer's than Crutch et al or Hsu (both otherwise well-utilized) necessarily do. This is tricky, because they don't go as far as to say it's uncharacteristic, and we don't have a huge base of well-known visual artists with confirmed Alzheimer's to contrast with. However, Crutch explicitly contrasts Utermohlen with another case that presented differently. Another case report that cites the case of Utermohlen is I think not at all discussed. These are things that should be focused on in the article's discussion of Utermohlen's legacy and analysis of his works.

• I couldn't access the JAMA article through the Wik.ipedia.Pro Library, but I will include that second case report. There was also a comment in Crutch that compared their analysis of Utermohlen's works to the assessment of Willem de Kooning's works, so I will plan on including that too. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Did he stop painting in 2002 or by 2002?

• In 2002. Stopped painting in 2000, drawing in 2002. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The anosognosia claim is strange. Sharma says agnosia, which is something different. While I'm not drawing hard lines between medical-analysis and artistic-analysis, I'm also not sure he's qualified to say either. It's worth looking critically back over the sources, and in particular thinking about how many arts-focused rather than medical-focused sources should really be used when discussing his late works specifically

• Removed that. Thanks for pointing that out. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a self-portrait in Crutch that seems to be later than the "last" Head portrait.

• If you're mentioning Figure 3 (Image F), the caption for it says "Pencil drawing at age 66 years (E). Abstract self-portrait painted at age 65 years (F)". The caption for the image says that that this self portrait was done before Head. I will still change the caption of the image to say "one of the last" though, cause it still isn't. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage of his pre-dementia work is very sparse. I get the sourcing focuses on the latter, I really do, but "what did he do before that?" is a big question.
• I'm not sure the article supports the lead's "died in obscurity" statement.

• Edited it so say that he lived most of his life in obscurity. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a full review, just some notes. I'm focusing on content rather than prose, and can't speak for Sandy's prose comments. Vaticidalprophet 03:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet and Realmaxxver: I can't recall if I pointed you at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content, which has some information about how to prepare for FAC. Besides what I wrote there, once the two of you have gone through Vaticidal's remarks and are satisfied, I suggest next asking for review via a post to WT:MED and giving that about a week or ten days (slow and steady wins the race). After you've done that, please feel free to ping me for another look before the next launch at FAC. The best way to get my attention is via a post to my talk page, as I hate the pingie-thingie. (I've never encountered mention of Utermohlen in my regular Alzheimer's reading, but I defer to Vaticidal that he is known in medical circles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]