The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"missing, and had pulled": maybe break the sentence here, as it's getting a bit long and rambling.
I think I have corrected this. Bruxton (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fischer says that Gaunt "ran" to the beach. Seems rather relevant here.
I have corrected this. Bruxton (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Thurber obituary of Gaunt makes it clear that this photo was the crowning achievement of Gaunt's career; we could say, I think, that it was mentioned at the top of the obituary.
I was not able to find that information in the source. Bruxton (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the obituary BEGINS "John L. Gaunt Jr., a retired Los Angeles Times photographer who was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1955 for his picture of a young couple standing by the ocean moments after their young son had been pulled out to sea, died Friday. He was 83." The emphasized clause is used to identify Gaunt to Times readers. We can say that the Times staff writer chose to identify him in this way.
I added a sentence to the bottom of the reception section. Maybe you can edit it if it is not correct. Bruxton (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Reception' is currently limited to reporting on prizes. These confer notability and the Pulitzer jury's brief remarks are of interest, but it would obviously be nice if there were some actual review comments from journalists visiting the prize exhibitions or whatever. I do understand it was a long time ago.
I am not able to find more reviews but I will keep poking around.
I guess the lead could mention the AP award also.
I have corrected this. Bruxton (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That photo is clearly relevant to this article; it would be well worth including with (I guess) an NFUR.
Found where the image of Gaunt with the photo was published. Not sure about using it as a non-free. Bruxton (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe on his article. No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article a bit after doing a more thorough search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruxton (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely worth the effort. I wondered, reading the more detailed 'Background', whether that section should not be limited to events before the photograph ('Prelude', perhaps), i.e. we take a chronological approach, and place the later events in 'Aftermath' or something of that sort, after the 'Description'. But this is purely optional.
Yes the article works better with the aftermath section; I just added. Bruxton (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's not much to say about this short article, other than one could wish there was more, but it is as it is. None of the news reports give away anything more that's useful here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.