---
name: artbull-writing-style-and-citation
description: Use when polishing prose and formatting citations for an Art Bulletin article to The Chicago Manual of Style — endnotes (not author-date), full credit-line captions, and consistent CAA-style formatting. Art-historical writing must be precise about objects and rigorous in its notes. Handles style and citation; it does not do the analysis.
---

# 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.
2. **Precise art-historical prose.** Name media, techniques, and conventions correctly; describe
   works exactly; avoid vague evaluative adjectives that stand in for analysis.
3. **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`).
4. **Figure references in text.** Consistent "Figure n" references; figure numbers carry no period;
   every figure is cited in the prose.
5. **Quotations and translations.** Original language where wording matters, with accurate
   translations; consistent treatment of titles, foreign terms, and transliteration.
6. **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