Draft talk:Judith Carducci

I suggest that "The Ruth Bader Ginsburg of Fine Art Portraiture" refers to the seeming similarity of appearance of the two, that RBG's appearance was far from the most noteworthy thing about her, and that if Carducci is notable (which I can believe) then her own appearance is similarly far from the most noteworthy thing about her.

There has been no published autobiography by a woman artist since 1930 when Cecilia Beaux wrote Background with Figures is quite a claim. It comes with no reference (merely a reference for the existence of the older book).

Wikipedia articles don't, or anyway shouldn't, have "Quotes" sections.

In 2008, Judith Carducci played a courtroom artist in a commercial featuring LeBron James for Vitamin Water. The sketches that resulted from this effort now hang in James’ home. This reads like mere namedropping. But I could be wrong. If I am, then source it -- and not to Carducci's book, which is the authority cited for far too much of this draft.

Too much of the remainder depends on other blogs and the like. The article should instead be based on sources that have editorial oversight.

Louis Zona stated that he hopes the portrait will end up in the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, it is currently in a private collection. The first half of that is backed up by the cited source; the second half is not.

A small point, but cited books are assumed to be first editions unless specified to the contrary. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, There has been no published autobiography by a woman artist since 1930 when Cecilia Beaux wrote Background with Figures is provably incorrect.Dorothea Tanning published hers in 1986 and 2001, Mary Woronov in 1995, Hannah Höch in 1973, Sophie Calle in 2010, Alison Bechdel in 2006 and 2012, Ann Wolff in 2002... the list goes ever on and on. --bonadea contributions talk 16:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Is "woman artist" here perhaps a mistake for "woman pastelist"? But even if the latter were the claim made here, it would need reliable evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Sample: After posing [for a portrait by Carducci] , Zona told a local newspaper he has a newfound respect for those who pose from life for a portrait. “I didn’t realize how tough it is to be a model, when you’re asked to stand and not move for three hours,” he said. “You get to realizing how many places can itch and how much back pain you can get from standing.” This tells us about modelling, portraiture, Zona, and perhaps also Carducci. But there's nothing that obviously makes having modelled for her unlike having modelled for anybody else. Suggestion: In the context of an article about her, it's trivia. Cut it. And cut anything of similarly trivial significance.

I may have slightly miscounted, but a quick look suggests twenty citations of Carducci's 2022 book Role Reversal: My Life In-Out-In Art, published by Little Red Hen. Other than for minor matters, material about the subject of an article should not depend on material written by the subject. And citing this book is more problematic than "a book by Carducci herself" suggests. A search within WorldCat (https://search.worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3A%22role+reversal%22+AND+au%3Acarducci) shows no evidence that a single library has acquired a copy of the book. (WorldCat of course does not aggregate the content of every library, but it's most unusual for a significant 20th/21st-century English-language book to go unmentioned.) If some claim about Carducci can only be backed up by something that she wrote in one of her books, remove it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, GuerillaGirl53, the closer I look the more problems I see. A sentence in the lead (which I'd normally suppose would be the section most carefully checked):

Louis Zona [reference to Carducci's Role Reversal] , Executive Director of the Butler Institute of American Art, compared Carducci's book to the writings of artist Robert Henri, author of “The Art Spirit”. [reference to Henri's The Art Spirit]

Two references, but neither of them for the claim that Zona compared Carducci's book to "the writings" (unspecified) of Henri. Indeed, we aren't even told what the comparison was.

Actually the first reference is clearly superfluous, and the second seems to be superfluous too. (If its purpose is to identify "the writings", then an extended footnote would be more suitable.) What do need references are assertions. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary for this very very detailed analysis of the article. I appreciate the time you've taken to go through it with a fine tooth comb.

I shall see what I can do to tighten it up.

On the issue of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg comparison…the quote also says she's not shy about "rendering a dissenting opinion"…which Judy Carducci, like RBG was very well known for in portrait circles. Her comments were not necessarily appreciated, but she called it how she saw it.

I shall check the other stuff too and work on it. Will you continue to be the one to review the article when I resubmit?

Thank you again for your help,

GuerillaGirl53

P.S. If you can tell from my Wiki moniker, my goal is to get more women artists into wikipedia to cement their reputations, lest they be forgotten by history like so many women artists were and are. I'm happy that there are others who have written autobiographies and they are also in wikipedia. I shall check them out. GuerillaGirl53 (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)