PINK de Thierry was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 20, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
PINK de Thierry was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 18, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
PINK de Thierry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We installed some interlinks to the article PINK de Thierry and will be keen to install more. So we think that the orphan status can be removed, isn't it?Donald.louw 21:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
Donald.louw 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia Basic Notability guidelines are:
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." See
WP:BASIC
The subject is covered by a range of both online and published sources (books and magazines), which are independent of each other; These sources comply with Wikipedia's variability criteria (they don't have to be available online or even for free, they just have to be available; ease of access is secondary WP:SOURCEACCESS).
The subject also meets the other more specific guidelines, so yes I would agree that it meets notability guidelines.
With regards to Conflict of interests.... Wikipedia says:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
I don't believe you are breaking these rules. You're writing a book about the subject and are using what you know to improve the wikipedia article.
You are not
I can see why you were accused of COI but so long as you are not breaking Wikipedia's rules then it's ok.
I will remind people, however, of Wikipedia's fundamental rule: 'Assume Good Faith
Rushton2010 ( talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I am nominating this article on behalf of
User:Donald.louw, who is a relatively new user and was unsure how to do it.
Many Thanks
Rushton2010 (
talk)
20:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this one. More in a minute. Thanks to you both for your work on it! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
While there's a lot of good information here, after a first pass, this article unfortunately appears to still need a great deal of work before meeting the Good Article requirements. For that reason, I'm not listing it at this time.
Thanks for the work that's gone into this one so far--I hope you'll see this list not as discouragement, but rather as encouragement to keep improving it! Best of luck in revising and renominating, and keep up the good work, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking for reliable third party mentions in the news [1] but they just don't seem to exist. The article appears to have been translated or created by someone with English as a second language which doesn't help it's readability. I've removed a couple of captions because they simply didn't make sense, it needs a LOT more work though. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
To meet the GA criteria will take some time but it will be good sports to match the scope of the article with GA requirements. Donald.louw 08:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
Elucidation on meeting the GA criteria My criteria for the article are: (1) to give - in short! - a factual overview of the artist which is focused on her works. (2) since the book on Mass Moving (Leclercq, Labor 2004) and the film on MM (Francoise Levie, Memento Productions 2007) the early period (1963-1971) can be treated as a BIOGRAPHY. (3) About the works after 1980 books are being prepared to be published in the near future, so a factual record is preferred as LIST . (4) I started to add notes and critics by independent sources in the footnotes, some more will see light in the article in the coming weeks. (5) User:Khazar2 questioned the use of 'mankind' vis a vis 'humanity'. I prefer 'mankind' for it feels more substantial, mankind as one of the species on our earth. Substance is very important to artists. Cc User:Rushton2010:: So far, Donald.louw 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
I renominate this article for Good Article status. Donald.louw 20:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Epicgenius ( talk · contribs) 16:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The article seems pretty in-depth about the topic. However, many of the issues in Talk:PINK de Thierry/GA1 have mostly not been fixed, most notably the references. I will look at it later and see if the issues have been resolved. Epicgenius( give him tirade • check out damage) 16:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Outside opinion: Of the issues brought up at the first GA review, issues 1-4 have been fully resolved. Issue 6, about notable independent sources, has been largely fixed; the article now references multiple independent reviews of the artist's work. Issue 7 (regarding copyediting) has been partly resolved, though there are still many copy-editing problems. Issue 5 ( WP:EMBED) has clearly not been resolved.
If it were me, I would fail this nomination, while still congratulating the nominator on the progress the article has made in the past several months. I would recommend that the nominator request a peer review (following the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review) or request a copy-edit (following the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests). All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 14:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Please can I have assistance from an editor who knows all in the jungle of appropriate licences for diverse uploaded files? Donald.louw 15:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
== Repeated request for support in tagging files, see before ==Donald.louw 10:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The differences in licenses available aren't very clear to me. So I look for an editor who is specialized in file licensing. I dispose over the precise restrictions of each of the uploaded files. This is the third request I ask for. So you may understand I am not very pleased that the help forces seem to be overthrown by the control forces within Wiki. To make my stand clear I will undo the recent changes made by Wiki editors.Donald.louw 07:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs) To undo the recent changes by a Wiki editor doesn't work in restoring the file. I want a decent solution to my repeated question!Donald.louw 07:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
PINK de Thierry was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 20, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
PINK de Thierry was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 18, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
PINK de Thierry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We installed some interlinks to the article PINK de Thierry and will be keen to install more. So we think that the orphan status can be removed, isn't it?Donald.louw 21:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
Donald.louw 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia Basic Notability guidelines are:
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." See
WP:BASIC
The subject is covered by a range of both online and published sources (books and magazines), which are independent of each other; These sources comply with Wikipedia's variability criteria (they don't have to be available online or even for free, they just have to be available; ease of access is secondary WP:SOURCEACCESS).
The subject also meets the other more specific guidelines, so yes I would agree that it meets notability guidelines.
With regards to Conflict of interests.... Wikipedia says:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
I don't believe you are breaking these rules. You're writing a book about the subject and are using what you know to improve the wikipedia article.
You are not
I can see why you were accused of COI but so long as you are not breaking Wikipedia's rules then it's ok.
I will remind people, however, of Wikipedia's fundamental rule: 'Assume Good Faith
Rushton2010 ( talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I am nominating this article on behalf of
User:Donald.louw, who is a relatively new user and was unsure how to do it.
Many Thanks
Rushton2010 (
talk)
20:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this one. More in a minute. Thanks to you both for your work on it! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
While there's a lot of good information here, after a first pass, this article unfortunately appears to still need a great deal of work before meeting the Good Article requirements. For that reason, I'm not listing it at this time.
Thanks for the work that's gone into this one so far--I hope you'll see this list not as discouragement, but rather as encouragement to keep improving it! Best of luck in revising and renominating, and keep up the good work, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking for reliable third party mentions in the news [1] but they just don't seem to exist. The article appears to have been translated or created by someone with English as a second language which doesn't help it's readability. I've removed a couple of captions because they simply didn't make sense, it needs a LOT more work though. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
To meet the GA criteria will take some time but it will be good sports to match the scope of the article with GA requirements. Donald.louw 08:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
Elucidation on meeting the GA criteria My criteria for the article are: (1) to give - in short! - a factual overview of the artist which is focused on her works. (2) since the book on Mass Moving (Leclercq, Labor 2004) and the film on MM (Francoise Levie, Memento Productions 2007) the early period (1963-1971) can be treated as a BIOGRAPHY. (3) About the works after 1980 books are being prepared to be published in the near future, so a factual record is preferred as LIST . (4) I started to add notes and critics by independent sources in the footnotes, some more will see light in the article in the coming weeks. (5) User:Khazar2 questioned the use of 'mankind' vis a vis 'humanity'. I prefer 'mankind' for it feels more substantial, mankind as one of the species on our earth. Substance is very important to artists. Cc User:Rushton2010:: So far, Donald.louw 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
I renominate this article for Good Article status. Donald.louw 20:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Epicgenius ( talk · contribs) 16:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The article seems pretty in-depth about the topic. However, many of the issues in Talk:PINK de Thierry/GA1 have mostly not been fixed, most notably the references. I will look at it later and see if the issues have been resolved. Epicgenius( give him tirade • check out damage) 16:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Outside opinion: Of the issues brought up at the first GA review, issues 1-4 have been fully resolved. Issue 6, about notable independent sources, has been largely fixed; the article now references multiple independent reviews of the artist's work. Issue 7 (regarding copyediting) has been partly resolved, though there are still many copy-editing problems. Issue 5 ( WP:EMBED) has clearly not been resolved.
If it were me, I would fail this nomination, while still congratulating the nominator on the progress the article has made in the past several months. I would recommend that the nominator request a peer review (following the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review) or request a copy-edit (following the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests). All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 14:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Please can I have assistance from an editor who knows all in the jungle of appropriate licences for diverse uploaded files? Donald.louw 15:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)
== Repeated request for support in tagging files, see before ==Donald.louw 10:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The differences in licenses available aren't very clear to me. So I look for an editor who is specialized in file licensing. I dispose over the precise restrictions of each of the uploaded files. This is the third request I ask for. So you may understand I am not very pleased that the help forces seem to be overthrown by the control forces within Wiki. To make my stand clear I will undo the recent changes made by Wiki editors.Donald.louw 07:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs) To undo the recent changes by a Wiki editor doesn't work in restoring the file. I want a decent solution to my repeated question!Donald.louw 07:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw ( talk • contribs)