This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frank Gehry 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 |
Archives: 1 |
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frank Gehry 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 |
Archives: 1 |
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
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here are some of the issues. I am seeing quite a few direct quotes and I believe that's giving undue voice to opinion statements. There are other issues such as the use of words "famous" and other superlatives that's not part of a reliable source. Also, the long list of external links seems to be foul of WP:EL guidelines. Graywalls ( talk) 00:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Graywalls: Let me get something clear: you never edited either the article or this talk page prior to 23 August 2020, is that correct? There's nothing wrong with that, or course, but I'm wondering: what attracted you to this article, and did you come here with the expectation of having to make major changes? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls went to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (NPOVN) and poasted (what I preseume is a little of) his argument there. One might call this " WP:Forumshopping before the fact", as NPOVN is not intended to be a substitute for discussion on the article talk page.
Here is what Graywalls wrote there:
My evaluation of the article is that it unduly leans towards embellishing favorable points of view and make excessive use of direct opinion quotes and quotations of subject'self statements. There is an excessive amount of indiscriminate images as well. Furthermore, the article contains editorialized puffery like "prestigious" "famous" that are not properly cited or cited at all. I've made changes to those and left detailed edit, but it has not been a productive engagement with My Beyond My Ken and I would like additional inputs and edit.
" This designation stems from the Los Angeles area's producing a group of the most influential postmodern architects, including such notable Gehry contemporaries as Eric Owen Moss and Pritzker Prize-winner Thom Mayne of Morphosis, as well as the famous schools of architecture at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (co‑founded by Mayne), UCLA, and USC, where Gehry is a member of the board of directors.[citation needed]"
"Gehry is known for his sometimes cantankerous personality. During a trip to Oviedo, Spain, to accept the prestigious Prince of Asturias Award in October 2014, he received a significant amount of attention, both positive and negative, for publicly flipping off a reporter at a press conference who accused him of being a "showy" architect." (this is unsupportable for sources provided within the article)
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Re. images, I wouldn't describe them as excessive. I count 27, including the gallery, which happens to be the exact number in William Burges, an Architect FA. I think there is now a clear consensus that articles on the visual arts need images and, as BMK says, Gehry's work can be quite hard to render in prose! It is also the case that Gehry has designed a large number of major buildings. In a comprehensive article, I'd expect them to be covered, and illustrated. For me, the acid test is whether they assist/interest the reader - in my view, they do here and the article would be poorer without them. As to direct quotes, I personally like them, they are properly attributed, and they convey useful information. It is worth knowing, for example, that Philip Johnson called the Guggenheim "the greatest building of our time". On puffery, I think there may be more of a point, although a small one. I personally don't think it is necessary to introduce Johnson as "legendary architect Philip Johnson", or to embellish the "phenomenal success" of the Guggenheim. Phrases such as "vaulted to a new level of international acclaim", have a slight air of journalese - "reputation rose further"? More significantly for me, the lead could do with a bit of a re-write. Its core is a straightforward list of buildings; I'd look for more of an overview of Gehry's life, career, works and reputation. Hope these comments are helpful. KJP1 ( talk) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
input from you, Graywalls, justify your edits, You continue to re-insert them as if thay have been approved by consensus (they have not been) with your offering anything but the most superficial of explanations. That is not sufficient. Please post here any section you are concerned about, explain what you think is wrong with it, and allow other editors to discuss your concerns here and nto in edit summaries. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
To editor Beyond My Ken: Where did you get the idea that consensus is required to remove unsourced text? Read carefully, this is core policy: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. And that is not even the BLP policy, which says that All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source (my emphasis). The only way to get unsourced content back into the article after someone has removed it, even if you don't like the removal, is to source it. You and Graywalls both are millimeters away from an edit-warring block. Both of you, stop it right now. Zero talk 09:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frank Gehry 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 |
Archives: 1 |
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frank Gehry 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 |
Archives: 1 |
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
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here are some of the issues. I am seeing quite a few direct quotes and I believe that's giving undue voice to opinion statements. There are other issues such as the use of words "famous" and other superlatives that's not part of a reliable source. Also, the long list of external links seems to be foul of WP:EL guidelines. Graywalls ( talk) 00:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Graywalls: Let me get something clear: you never edited either the article or this talk page prior to 23 August 2020, is that correct? There's nothing wrong with that, or course, but I'm wondering: what attracted you to this article, and did you come here with the expectation of having to make major changes? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls went to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (NPOVN) and poasted (what I preseume is a little of) his argument there. One might call this " WP:Forumshopping before the fact", as NPOVN is not intended to be a substitute for discussion on the article talk page.
Here is what Graywalls wrote there:
My evaluation of the article is that it unduly leans towards embellishing favorable points of view and make excessive use of direct opinion quotes and quotations of subject'self statements. There is an excessive amount of indiscriminate images as well. Furthermore, the article contains editorialized puffery like "prestigious" "famous" that are not properly cited or cited at all. I've made changes to those and left detailed edit, but it has not been a productive engagement with My Beyond My Ken and I would like additional inputs and edit.
" This designation stems from the Los Angeles area's producing a group of the most influential postmodern architects, including such notable Gehry contemporaries as Eric Owen Moss and Pritzker Prize-winner Thom Mayne of Morphosis, as well as the famous schools of architecture at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (co‑founded by Mayne), UCLA, and USC, where Gehry is a member of the board of directors.[citation needed]"
"Gehry is known for his sometimes cantankerous personality. During a trip to Oviedo, Spain, to accept the prestigious Prince of Asturias Award in October 2014, he received a significant amount of attention, both positive and negative, for publicly flipping off a reporter at a press conference who accused him of being a "showy" architect." (this is unsupportable for sources provided within the article)
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Re. images, I wouldn't describe them as excessive. I count 27, including the gallery, which happens to be the exact number in William Burges, an Architect FA. I think there is now a clear consensus that articles on the visual arts need images and, as BMK says, Gehry's work can be quite hard to render in prose! It is also the case that Gehry has designed a large number of major buildings. In a comprehensive article, I'd expect them to be covered, and illustrated. For me, the acid test is whether they assist/interest the reader - in my view, they do here and the article would be poorer without them. As to direct quotes, I personally like them, they are properly attributed, and they convey useful information. It is worth knowing, for example, that Philip Johnson called the Guggenheim "the greatest building of our time". On puffery, I think there may be more of a point, although a small one. I personally don't think it is necessary to introduce Johnson as "legendary architect Philip Johnson", or to embellish the "phenomenal success" of the Guggenheim. Phrases such as "vaulted to a new level of international acclaim", have a slight air of journalese - "reputation rose further"? More significantly for me, the lead could do with a bit of a re-write. Its core is a straightforward list of buildings; I'd look for more of an overview of Gehry's life, career, works and reputation. Hope these comments are helpful. KJP1 ( talk) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
input from you, Graywalls, justify your edits, You continue to re-insert them as if thay have been approved by consensus (they have not been) with your offering anything but the most superficial of explanations. That is not sufficient. Please post here any section you are concerned about, explain what you think is wrong with it, and allow other editors to discuss your concerns here and nto in edit summaries. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
To editor Beyond My Ken: Where did you get the idea that consensus is required to remove unsourced text? Read carefully, this is core policy: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. And that is not even the BLP policy, which says that All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source (my emphasis). The only way to get unsourced content back into the article after someone has removed it, even if you don't like the removal, is to source it. You and Graywalls both are millimeters away from an edit-warring block. Both of you, stop it right now. Zero talk 09:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)