![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While most interesting, this is a very odd article indeed. Near the end is what I interpreted (and therefore formatted) as a block quotation, by an unnamed person and itself from an unspecified source, which says:
I am not familiar with Impressed by Light, but note that it was prepared for MoMA (and perhaps by MoMA) and published by Yale University Press. Sadly not all university presses are as careful as their names might make one hope, but I've never yet been let down by a book published by Yale UP and have difficulty thinking of criticisms of their publishing process.
Impressed by Light is a good example of the kind of source that this article requires.
Meanwhile, here is the "nutshell" version of " No original research", a Wikipedia policy page:
And here's something from " Verifiability", another Wikipedia policy page:
A Wikipedia policy is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. But this description is too weak. Take it to mean "a standard kept to by every editor who does not want to be prevented from further editing, only allowing for exceptions in truly extraordinary cases; the exceptions must be agreed to by editors on the relevant talk page and are never for such humdrum reasons as the inconvenience of finding information published by reliable sources, or the certainty of one or more editors that they have access to the truth or are unusually qualified to make artistic or similar judgements. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
We were and are told:
I assumed that this was a quotation from somewhere. From where? In this edit, "Citation needed" is deleted. No, it's needed.
Unless of course it's not a quotation. But material in an article that is not a quotation should never be in the first person. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
After our biographee was married, her full name became Jane Martha St. John. That's the title of the article on her in Impressed by Light (incidentally, this is still the only substantive published source on her that's mentioned in the WP article). However, within the article in Impressed by Light, she's referred to as Jane St. John.
Had Ansel Adams been born in a different nation and century, Impressed by Light might have an article on "Ansel Easton Adams". But WP's style guidelines decree that the article here on him is instead titled Ansel Adams, with a simple mention of "Easton"
Is there any pressing reason why this article isn't titled "Jane St. John"? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, I changed Brother Michael died swimming in the sea on holiday (unsourced) to Jane's brother Michael drowned on holiday (unsourced). Perhaps wrongly, I inferred the latter from the former; and anyway it's shorter.
In this edit, Keithatciren changed Jane's brother Michael drowned on holiday (unsourced) to Jane's brother Michael died of sunstroke while on holiday (unsourced), with the edit summary correction to somebody interfering and changing facts to fiction in biography.
Unsourced facts count for nothing here. The only facts that matter are those published in sources that can be taken seriously. What published source says that Michael died of sunstroke while on holiday?
Expect considerably more "interference" soon, to delete material not clearly based on published sources. Please see WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:OWN. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While most interesting, this is a very odd article indeed. Near the end is what I interpreted (and therefore formatted) as a block quotation, by an unnamed person and itself from an unspecified source, which says:
I am not familiar with Impressed by Light, but note that it was prepared for MoMA (and perhaps by MoMA) and published by Yale University Press. Sadly not all university presses are as careful as their names might make one hope, but I've never yet been let down by a book published by Yale UP and have difficulty thinking of criticisms of their publishing process.
Impressed by Light is a good example of the kind of source that this article requires.
Meanwhile, here is the "nutshell" version of " No original research", a Wikipedia policy page:
And here's something from " Verifiability", another Wikipedia policy page:
A Wikipedia policy is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. But this description is too weak. Take it to mean "a standard kept to by every editor who does not want to be prevented from further editing, only allowing for exceptions in truly extraordinary cases; the exceptions must be agreed to by editors on the relevant talk page and are never for such humdrum reasons as the inconvenience of finding information published by reliable sources, or the certainty of one or more editors that they have access to the truth or are unusually qualified to make artistic or similar judgements. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
We were and are told:
I assumed that this was a quotation from somewhere. From where? In this edit, "Citation needed" is deleted. No, it's needed.
Unless of course it's not a quotation. But material in an article that is not a quotation should never be in the first person. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
After our biographee was married, her full name became Jane Martha St. John. That's the title of the article on her in Impressed by Light (incidentally, this is still the only substantive published source on her that's mentioned in the WP article). However, within the article in Impressed by Light, she's referred to as Jane St. John.
Had Ansel Adams been born in a different nation and century, Impressed by Light might have an article on "Ansel Easton Adams". But WP's style guidelines decree that the article here on him is instead titled Ansel Adams, with a simple mention of "Easton"
Is there any pressing reason why this article isn't titled "Jane St. John"? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, I changed Brother Michael died swimming in the sea on holiday (unsourced) to Jane's brother Michael drowned on holiday (unsourced). Perhaps wrongly, I inferred the latter from the former; and anyway it's shorter.
In this edit, Keithatciren changed Jane's brother Michael drowned on holiday (unsourced) to Jane's brother Michael died of sunstroke while on holiday (unsourced), with the edit summary correction to somebody interfering and changing facts to fiction in biography.
Unsourced facts count for nothing here. The only facts that matter are those published in sources that can be taken seriously. What published source says that Michael died of sunstroke while on holiday?
Expect considerably more "interference" soon, to delete material not clearly based on published sources. Please see WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:OWN. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)