artbull-writing-style-and-citation

Writing Style & Citation (artbull-writing-style-and-citation)

The Art Bulletin follows The Chicago Manual of Style, using endnotes (not footnotes) for the

scholarly apparatus, per the CAA Publications Style Guide. The prose must be precise about objects and

arguments, and the notes and captions must be flawlessly consistent. (Verify the current Chicago

edition — the Style Guide states the 17th; an older page referenced the 16th. See 待核实.)

When to trigger

• Final stylistic polish before submission
• Converting citations to Chicago notes form (endnotes)
• Formatting captions and credit lines
• A reviewer or editor flagged inconsistent or non-Chicago citations

Style & citation norms

1. Chicago notes, as endnotes. Numbered consecutively, superscript after punctuation; full

citation at first mention, short form thereafter (CMOS chapter 14). Not author-date.

1. Precise art-historical prose. Name media, techniques, and conventions correctly; describe

works exactly; avoid vague evaluative adjectives that stand in for analysis.

1. Captions and credit lines. Artist, italicized title, date, medium, dimensions (inches then

centimeters), collection and location, and the required credit/copyright line in parentheses,

exactly as the rights holder mandates (see artbull-images-and-permissions).

1. Figure references in text. Consistent "Figure n" references; figure numbers carry no period;

every figure is cited in the prose.

1. Quotations and translations. Original language where wording matters, with accurate

translations; consistent treatment of titles, foreign terms, and transliteration.

1. Manuscript mechanics. 12-point, double-spaced, Microsoft Word (not PDF); endnotes, not

footnotes; one consistent style throughout.

Anti-patterns

• Author-date citations (The Art Bulletin uses Chicago notes)
• Footnotes instead of endnotes; inconsistent short-form citations
• Captions missing dimensions, location, or the mandated credit line
• Figures never referenced in the prose, or referenced inconsistently
• Evaluative adjectives ("masterful," "stunning") substituting for description
• Submitting a PDF (breaks the office's ability to anonymize) — submit Word

Chicago-and-caption conformance table for the CAA quarterly

The College Art Association's quarterly runs on Chicago notes and full credit-line captions, and a

copyeditor (and referee) will notice every slip.

| Element | Correct here | Common error | Correction |

|---|---|---|---|

| Citation system | Chicago notes as endnotes (CMOS ch. 14) | Author-date, or footnotes | Convert to numbered endnotes; full first, short after |

| Caption content | Artist, italic title, date, medium, dimensions (in. then cm), collection, location | Missing dimensions or location | Complete every field in the prescribed order |

| Credit line | The rights holder's exact mandated wording, parenthetical | Generic or omitted credit | Reproduce the wording the permission requires |

| Prose | Precise about media, technique, convention | Evaluative filler ("masterful," "stunning") | Replace the adjective with what is observable |

Worked vignette: copyediting a passage to house style

Suppose a paragraph reads: "Caravaggio's stunning canvas (see fig. 3.) brilliantly handles light, as

Smith argued (Smith 2009, 42)." Three things are wrong for this venue. The author-date

parenthetical becomes a Chicago endnote, full first citation and short form thereafter. The **figure

reference** is normalized to "Figure 3" with no period on the number, the text confirming the figure is

discussed where cited. The evaluative filler — "stunning," "brilliantly" — is replaced with what is

observable: the tenebrist contrast and single raking light source the argument depends on. The caption

is then checked for artist, italic title, date, medium, dimensions in inches then centimeters,

collection, location, and the museum's mandated credit line in parentheses.

Style objections an editor flags, and the house-style fix

• "These are author-date citations." The venue uses Chicago notes; convert to endnotes and drop the

parentheticals (CMOS ch. 14).

• "The captions are incomplete." Add the missing dimensions, location, and the rights holder's exact

credit line, since the permission is conditional on the wording.

Calibration anchor (hedge where uncertain)

• The apparatus rides in endnotes, which count toward the long-form word cap, so short-form

consistency matters across a long article (confirm the current Chicago edition and caps against the

journal's current submission guidelines); the credit line is the visible end of the image-permissions

pipeline, and incorrect wording can breach the grant (artbull-images-and-permissions).

Output format

【Citation style】Chicago notes / endnotes, CMOS ch. 14? [Y/N]
【Chicago edition】confirmed on live page? (17th per Style Guide; 待核实)
【Captions】full credit lines + mandated wording? [Y/N]
【Figure refs】every figure cited, consistent "Figure n"? [Y/N]
【Prose】precise about objects, no filler adjectives? [Y/N]
【Format】Word, 12-pt, double-spaced, endnotes? [Y/N]
【Next】artbull-review-process

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — Chicago notes reference managers and manuscript tooling
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Chicago edition (待核实), CMOS ch. 14, caption/credit-line format