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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
I am looking for feedback regarding this article about Sheila Sriprakash. She is referenced on a wikipedia article as the chief architect and founder of Shilpa Architects.
( Rasikar ( talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)) Is this Sheila Sriprakash a famous indian architect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.0.110 ( talk) 13:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Article is a mess at the moment. There are 48 citations in the lead introduction and, really, they should be moved to (and used in) the main body of the article! The verry long section about public speaking engagements is really far too long. We can't expect to list every speaking engagement for a prominent architect. It would be better to highlight the important ones that have been reported in secondary coverage. I'm also perplexed that the sections about her architecture are so small in comparison. The section about "Current projects" is poorly cited and probably out-of-date. Far better would be a section about her "Notable works" that have already been built and received coverage/awards etc. In all honesty, there's no need for all the citations to prove she is 'pioneering' or 'preeminent' - her pre-eminence should become perfectly clear from her achievements. I've added back the "Peacock phrasing" cleanup template, because this issue hasn't been addressed/corrected yet. Sionk ( talk) 01:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The article contains far, far too many WP:PEACOCK words. "Pioneer", for example, means different things to different people, and is flattering without being especially informative. If someone describes her as a pioneer, that should be attributed, not merely stated in Wikipedia's voice. That there are 16 references (!) in the first sentence is a very, very big red flag that there are other problems here, as well. At a glance, this source does not meet WP:RS guidelines, and I can see that there are many, many more which do not belong in this or any other Wikipedia article. Grayfell ( talk) 00:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
It is not my intention, in the least, to attack you personally. I am an academician and the outcome of this debate has no direct impact upon me. I am however frustrated about the deep bias that exists across Wikipedia WP:Systemic_bias that favours the dominant opinions of the majority of editors sitting in the Western world, who have clearly assumed the right to tag or determine the notability/verifiability of topics pertaining to Asia. As a female researcher and professor of Architecture in this part of the world, I have empathy for those who are able to achieve within our male dominated profession. It is my opinion that sweeping tags at a supercilious and seemingly heavy handed level are not constructive. Unfortunately, it reeks of a lack of willingness to apply oneself towards the low level specifics that could lead to a resolution towards improving this article. I do sincerely believe that the future should be a denouement of healthy dialog and collaboration. It is the only way for our species to move forward constructively, given all that is happening in the Western world. I request that we work together to remove any sources that may not meet Wikipedia standards on this article and others, where I can help. If you would highlight the specific things that need to be addressed, I am willing to contribute to the extent possible from my end, to support those edits. My apologies in advance, if the tone in my written posts come across as abrasive or as personal attacks. As you may well appreciate, that is a limitation of the medium through which we are communicating, as a result of which I read your repeated high level tags as a callous affront upon a celebrated and accomplished woman in my field of expertise. 103.14.185.67 ( talk) 01:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I will continue contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, etc under this account that I just created. I am not an expert in the field pertaining to Bhargav Sri Prakash and hence will refrain from commenting about your observations about that article. I do however see that some of the references on that article point to Stanford Medical School, which I think most will agree, holds a fairly high standard for peer reviewed innovations in the field of Medicine. I do however want to clarify that I never suggested that "If articles on Indian people are held to a lower standard than Western people, this fosters the subconscious impression that Indians are less worthy of decent articles". Such tangential comments expose the underlying presumptions leading to WP:Systemic_bias. I believe firmly that articles of people around the world, must be subject to standards that are relevant to local conditions and realities. The assertion that such a "different" standard is somehow "lower", is the core reason there is a glaring prevalence of WP:Systemic_bias. How can we expect more Articles about notable people or topics from parts of the world, where journalistic standards are simply different from the West? India and Singapore are countries where such an issue is not as acute but it is still very real. In fact, in my home country of Myanmar, there is little to no foundation for secondary sources that would meet the standards that you assert. In any case, I will focus my contributions based on my expertise. Other notable female architects, who deserve recognition in my field, would be Brinda Somayya, Anna Heringer, Olajumoke Adenowo Farshid Moussavi, etc, all of whom probably have sub-par references (primary, non-verifiable or non-notable) per such standards. Ellazinko ( talk) 08:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
There are a bunch of non-RS or WP:SPS in the article. Many sources are also primary, giving undue weight to certain aspects. I will try and see if I can weed out some of them. From the looks of it, extensive WP:COI editing has been going on. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
I am looking for feedback regarding this article about Sheila Sriprakash. She is referenced on a wikipedia article as the chief architect and founder of Shilpa Architects.
( Rasikar ( talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)) Is this Sheila Sriprakash a famous indian architect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.0.110 ( talk) 13:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Article is a mess at the moment. There are 48 citations in the lead introduction and, really, they should be moved to (and used in) the main body of the article! The verry long section about public speaking engagements is really far too long. We can't expect to list every speaking engagement for a prominent architect. It would be better to highlight the important ones that have been reported in secondary coverage. I'm also perplexed that the sections about her architecture are so small in comparison. The section about "Current projects" is poorly cited and probably out-of-date. Far better would be a section about her "Notable works" that have already been built and received coverage/awards etc. In all honesty, there's no need for all the citations to prove she is 'pioneering' or 'preeminent' - her pre-eminence should become perfectly clear from her achievements. I've added back the "Peacock phrasing" cleanup template, because this issue hasn't been addressed/corrected yet. Sionk ( talk) 01:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The article contains far, far too many WP:PEACOCK words. "Pioneer", for example, means different things to different people, and is flattering without being especially informative. If someone describes her as a pioneer, that should be attributed, not merely stated in Wikipedia's voice. That there are 16 references (!) in the first sentence is a very, very big red flag that there are other problems here, as well. At a glance, this source does not meet WP:RS guidelines, and I can see that there are many, many more which do not belong in this or any other Wikipedia article. Grayfell ( talk) 00:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
It is not my intention, in the least, to attack you personally. I am an academician and the outcome of this debate has no direct impact upon me. I am however frustrated about the deep bias that exists across Wikipedia WP:Systemic_bias that favours the dominant opinions of the majority of editors sitting in the Western world, who have clearly assumed the right to tag or determine the notability/verifiability of topics pertaining to Asia. As a female researcher and professor of Architecture in this part of the world, I have empathy for those who are able to achieve within our male dominated profession. It is my opinion that sweeping tags at a supercilious and seemingly heavy handed level are not constructive. Unfortunately, it reeks of a lack of willingness to apply oneself towards the low level specifics that could lead to a resolution towards improving this article. I do sincerely believe that the future should be a denouement of healthy dialog and collaboration. It is the only way for our species to move forward constructively, given all that is happening in the Western world. I request that we work together to remove any sources that may not meet Wikipedia standards on this article and others, where I can help. If you would highlight the specific things that need to be addressed, I am willing to contribute to the extent possible from my end, to support those edits. My apologies in advance, if the tone in my written posts come across as abrasive or as personal attacks. As you may well appreciate, that is a limitation of the medium through which we are communicating, as a result of which I read your repeated high level tags as a callous affront upon a celebrated and accomplished woman in my field of expertise. 103.14.185.67 ( talk) 01:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I will continue contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, etc under this account that I just created. I am not an expert in the field pertaining to Bhargav Sri Prakash and hence will refrain from commenting about your observations about that article. I do however see that some of the references on that article point to Stanford Medical School, which I think most will agree, holds a fairly high standard for peer reviewed innovations in the field of Medicine. I do however want to clarify that I never suggested that "If articles on Indian people are held to a lower standard than Western people, this fosters the subconscious impression that Indians are less worthy of decent articles". Such tangential comments expose the underlying presumptions leading to WP:Systemic_bias. I believe firmly that articles of people around the world, must be subject to standards that are relevant to local conditions and realities. The assertion that such a "different" standard is somehow "lower", is the core reason there is a glaring prevalence of WP:Systemic_bias. How can we expect more Articles about notable people or topics from parts of the world, where journalistic standards are simply different from the West? India and Singapore are countries where such an issue is not as acute but it is still very real. In fact, in my home country of Myanmar, there is little to no foundation for secondary sources that would meet the standards that you assert. In any case, I will focus my contributions based on my expertise. Other notable female architects, who deserve recognition in my field, would be Brinda Somayya, Anna Heringer, Olajumoke Adenowo Farshid Moussavi, etc, all of whom probably have sub-par references (primary, non-verifiable or non-notable) per such standards. Ellazinko ( talk) 08:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
There are a bunch of non-RS or WP:SPS in the article. Many sources are also primary, giving undue weight to certain aspects. I will try and see if I can weed out some of them. From the looks of it, extensive WP:COI editing has been going on. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)