Talk:Martha Wilson

Untitled

My name is Douglas brown and i am helping to create, expand and change this page on Martha Wilson for my module for university . if i do anything wrong, please let me know so that i can redo and create something in line with wiki quidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.D.J.Brown (talk • contribs) 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

this page isnt as finished as we would like yet, but i have decided to save what is complete so far just to make sure its safe, and to get feedback which is always welcome. - i understand that the references need to be completed and they will be done so by 27 oct. more information will be added to sections lacking substance.

Overlinking

In my opinion, the article is now dramatically overlinked. It is not necessary and is distracting to link to words that are easily understood by most readers of English. When it is useful to link, standard practice is to link just at first usage rather than every time. A second link might be appropriate if there is a long body of text between two usages. Please also check that links lead to the best page for the usage, as opposed to a disambiguation page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

hi, yes i though that it was over linked too, my co worker seems to have got a little carried away with it. im sorry about this and i will change it. --Mr.D.J.Brown (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

It seems that much of the first sentence is a copyright violation from Stanford University, reference 46. Please remove all copyrighted material from the article immediately. Brief quotes are OK but must be in quotation marks, and must be referenced to the original source. This is an urgent legal matter of the highest priority. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Because of Cullen's comment at WP:BLPN, I reviewed the article. It quickly became apparent to me that most of the text in the article was taken verbatim from other sources. This is not permissible at Wikipedia. We cannot violate the copyright of other people's expression. After I confirmed this was true for many paragraphs, I decided to stop checking and assumed it was true for the remainder of the article. I therefore removed pretty much all of the material from the article except the lists of her works (usually, lists are not copyrightable). If you want to reinsert material into the article, you're going to have to write the material yourself as a summary of what the sources say, not copying them. Also, please note that close paraphrasing of sources is also generally not allowed on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I do think it was wrong of you yo assume all was wrong as some of information wasnt written by ourselves, and their work didnt need to be deleted. however i have hopefully made something that complys. Please, if anything else is majorly wrong, please help, but dont delete huge sections, just let me know what is wrong and what it needs to be. as i have said i am new to this and still learning all the guidelines that are in place.--Mr.D.J.Brown (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations are taken very seriously on Wikipedia, and the very first sentence contained a copyvio from Stanford U. When widespread copyright violations are visible, the best solution is to trim the article to a stub and rebuild from scratch. Prompt action against copyright violations is non-negotiable here. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Just make sure that future additions comply. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

i understand that now, i suppose if it is serious it is best to get rid of everything. i hope i have done everything right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.D.J.Brown (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice

thank you for this feedback, it is very useful to me in helping me to produce a page of that is up to the standers of wikipedia.

i will rectify all this points immediately. so is it acceptable for me to summarize and re-write the information i have taken from sources that i have referenced, but to still reference them at the end to show the source they are from?

also concerning the picture, even though i have Martha Wilson's permission to use the picture of her, i MUST get the photographers permission also? is this correct.?

thank you for your help, i am new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.D.J.Brown (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, references are for facts. You can report on those facts in your own words, but not in the words of the source. You should then cite for each fact the source. More cites are better, even if you are citing to the same source. You should use the name parameter in the reference so as not to have multiple footnotes for the same source. See WP:REFERENCE. Inline cites are a GOOD thing. As for the photo, the copyright of a work belongs to the author of the work, not to the subject, so you need permission from the photographer in keeping with Wikipedia policies on images. There has to be an acceptable license relinquishing the photographer's rights. See WP:IMAGE.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

this is very helpful and i am currently working on creating the page again to make it better. once again, thank you for your informed feedback and help. --Mr.D.J.Brown (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Licensing of photo

Please remove the photo until it is 100% verified that it has been released by the actual copyright holder under a valid Creative Commons license accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

i have the license now from Martha Wilson and the authority to use her pictures, however every time i attempt to put the pictures up and still get that 'text:' and 'frameless' surrounding the text. i have looked on help pages, but im unable to figure it out.--Mr.D.J.Brown (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You had added the syntax used for images in articles. When using an image in an infobox, all you need is to add the image file name to the proper place in the template. I've cleaned it up for you. However, you say that you have the license. That is not enough. The license needs to be provided to the Wikimedia Foundation, otherwise it is quite possible that the image will be deleted. Please provide additional details about the form in which you received the license, and whether or not it has been submitted properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The photo has been removed from Wikimedia Commons, and is no longer in the article. I cautioned you a week ago that this matter needed attention. What is the status of the Creative Commons license?Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article relies way too much on primary sources, such as the artist's website and articles about her work published on her own website. Please read WP:PRIMARY. It was a mistake to restore large amounts of content that is either unreferenced or referenced to primary and self published sources. Bbb23 did you a favor by trimming the article back to a stub and asking you to rebuild it based on policy. This article must comply with Wikipedia's standards about sourcing and verifiability. In my opinion, the New York Times article is the best reference I've seen so far. Please rebuild this article using the highest quality reliable, independent sources. Make an effort to find top-quality sources and do not add low quality sources. I will remove all assertions of fact that are not backed up by reliable, independent sources. I am sorry to be tough on this, but it is essential for the authors to comply with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to write an acceptable Wikipedia article, especially in the case of a biography of a living person, which are subject to the most stringent standards. There can be no exceptions to these rules. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen, for taking the laboring oar in this. When I looked at what Douglas had done, I pretty much threw my hands up because I could see the work involved in revisiting all that poorly sourced material. I wish he hadn't added so much back in. Incremental changes would have been easier to deal with. On the positive side, he did combine references, which, admittedly, isn't the most important thing, but at least it shows he read some of the Wikipedia material.

Douglas, it's very hard to come into Wikipedia cold and write a lengthy biographical article. Perhaps you're being too ambitious. Maybe you should focus on just one aspect of Wilson's life/work and write a much shorter article. Once you get a Wikipedia model down that complies with policy and guidelines, you could then expand the article ... slowly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23 and Cullen, in a perfect world i would take it slower and create a smaller page, but as this is for a module at university i have no choice in the word limit i have to achieve. i hope you understand this. that is also why i ask if things arent deleted straight away i need something to show for my assessment. therefore, by telling me what is wrong rather than immediate deletion is better as i can rectify it in smaller chunks between other univeristy work. thank you for your co-operation. i will start rebuilding this later today when im free. --Mr.D.J.Brown (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am handing these to you on a platter

Here are some possible reliable sources for this article. Some are free. Some are behind pay walls and may cost you a buck or three to read, and I apologize for that. However, Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, and its sources like these that we need in this article:

• NEA Denies Grants to 2 Groups Arts: Rejected applicants claim that their projects were turned down because of sexual content rather than artistic values.
• CONTROVERSY AT NEA Group Accuses Council of `Flagging'
• And Now, From the Commissioner of Acronyms: TriBeCa
• For an Avant-Garde Center, An End and a Beginning
• A CONTROVERSY IN TRIBECA: IS IT ART OR AN EYESORE?
• Inside Art: Modern Buys Collection
• Inside Left Jabs; Used to Conservative Attacks, the NEA And NEH Face New Criticism From Allies
• Highways, Franklin Furnace Receive New NEA Grants

I hope these help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

this is extremely kind and helpful of you. thank you very much, i can see what you mean for the citations. i didn't realise that every single statement needed to be sourced. thank you for the heads up. i will source everything and look at those links you have given me later. --Mr.D.J.Brown (talk) 11

04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

eNotes.com

eNotes.com is not acceptable as a reference in a Wikipedia article, because it is a mirror that copies Wikipedia articles. In effect you have used a version of the article as a reference for the article. This is circular referencing and must be removed. Examine your other references and make sure they meet the standards of reliable sources. Those that don't will be removed and unsupported factual claims will also be removed. I understand that this is a class assignment and that is fine. You can write a nice long article if and only if it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. All Wikipedia editing must be toward the primary goal of improving the encyclopedia, and we don't make that a lower priority just so a student can pass a class.

Is your class a part of the Wikipedia in Higher Education program? What is your professor's Wikipedia user name? Do you you have a Campus Ambassador, and if so, who? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

to cullen, i will change this now concerning the enotes.com, i was unaware something had been referenced as this. i understand that i need to comply with wiki guidelines and i am not trying to get around this fact just because i am student. this assignment isn't part of the wikipedia education program. i am unsure i am able to give his details away like that, can i ask why you would need them. --Mr.D.J.Brown (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I'm the person whose user name you're after. You'll find the answers to most of your questions (about the work students in my class are doing) on my user page, including how we're integrating this work into the Wikipedia in Higher Education program. Thanks for all your support. It's greatly appreciated! --ToniSant (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Toni, i was unsure whether you wanted your details being passed around. --Mr.D.J.Brown (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.D.J.Brown (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Feel free to spread the word about our class openly. I understand that this whole experience has a relatively steep learning curve...but you're very luck to have engaged such a gracious and generous Wikipedian as Cullen. Keep it up! --ToniSant (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Martha Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111026233827/http://www.artnet.com:80/magazineus/reviews/spivy/martha-wilson-10-11-11.asp to http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/reviews/spivy/martha-wilson-10-11-11.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martha Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707015628/http://www.moca.org/wack/?p=251 to http://www.moca.org/wack/?p=251
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ppowgallery.com/about.php.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101135547/http://www.moca.org/wack/ to http://www.moca.org/wack/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)