Talk:Stephen Eastaugh

neutrality and tone

On January 9, User:Rosguill [1] placed a neutality and tone tag on the article. The creator requested [2] help and requested clarification as to which part is at issue. I'll try to address some of those concerns. As an example of tone, for example He is represented in many of Australia’s leading art museums and private collections including the National Gallery of Australia, the Kerry Stokes Collection, the National Gallery of Victoria and Parliament House Canberra. Australia’s leading art museums and private collections is subjective and imprecise. What those "leading private art collections" are exactly is not explained, so it would be better to just say which in which collections his work is represented. Another issue Eastaugh follows a tradition of artists inspired by travel and foreign landscapes, including Claude Lorrain and J. M. W. Turner where it is not clear if this is the opinion of Jonathan Thomson, or a verifiable fact that can be unequivocally stated in wikipedia's voice. I mean, Eastaugh is hardly the first artist to be inspired by travel and foreign landscapes, not the most prominent example of a follower os Lorrain or Turner, so it needs to be clear why we say this. Is it in the source? Mduvekot (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC) @Artfartunkle:

I would add that currently a lot of the language in the "Artistic Style and Influences" section is more reminiscent of a puff-piece in a magazine than that of Wikipedia's encyclopedic voice. The usage of direct quotations from such magazines, such as in the first line of the second paragraph Referred to as a 'professional nomad', 'peripatetic', and 'geographically promiscuous', when not accompanied by additional text paraphrasing the statements in a more encyclopedic tone (in this example, the information could be roughly summarized by saying that Eastaugh's work is informed by travel, or that travel is a consistent theme in his work), causes the article to adopt the tone of those magazine pieces. Rosguill (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for clarifications and suggestions. Will follow. Do I just edit directly onto the wiki entry or run it past you first? @Rosguill: @Mduvekot: Artfartunkle (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a particularly controversial topic nor a drawn-out dispute, so feel free to just add your edits :). If I or another editor still have significant issues after that (not that I'm anticipating this scenario), we'll bring them up here and continue the discussion @Artfartunkle:. Rosguill (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks Artfartunkle (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

hi Rosguill and Mduvekot, changes made to entry. best Artfartunkle (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC) @Rosguill: @Mduvekot:

Lead section adjusted as per request. @Rosguill: @Mduvekot: Artfartunkle (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)