Ed Rembrandt

COI?

Please be aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. Deb (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with the Author or the publication in question, beyond having met him at the Sydney launch in April, 2017. I also have no affiliation with the Australian artist Anthony Lister whose wiki entry I edited. I will not be making any articles with COI - COI is an ethical component of my honours thesis.

Hi, and thanks for this message. We find that people who post on a single subject often have an acquaintance with the subject outside Wikipedia. Usually they are not aware of the COI guideline and it's not fair to reprimand them if they don't realise they are doing anything wrong so I always tell them about it. I'm more than happy to accept that you haven't got one. If you need any help getting the article into shape, I'll be happy to help.Deb (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

But take care to remember the neutral point of view rule. Deb (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Deb. Would appreciate some advice on how to sharpen this article so that you may consider removing the fan review tag. I was worried that the article is more dominate in the negative criticism aspect. What needs to be edited/removed? Thanks in advance. - Ed Ed Rembrandt (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

ps. Deb, how do I attribute novel covers correctly? The cover for 1st ed. Praise by Andrew McGahan I uploaded for the article on the book I wrote was deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise_(novel)

Hi. Go see Wikipedia:Images and that may help. If not, ask at Wikipedia:The Teahouse.Deb (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Style, Technique & Genre

This whole section reads like an essay. If it is the result of your academic studies, you should read Wikipedia:No original research. It's a rule we haven't always had, but we have had for a long time. I found it frustrating in the early days, but I quickly got used to it. Deb (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Deb. All of the content in the section is attributable. I shall study 'No Original Research' and rework taking care to redact any personal opinions. I'll rewrite and notify you so that when you have time you might have another look. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if you don't delete the article. I had that one in my sandbox for almost a year before I thought I had it right. Ed Rembrandt (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you delete it from your sandbox instead of copying it then? :-) Seriously, though, the article seems to be coming along and I don't delete articles if I know that people are making a sincere attempt to improve them. Deb (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's still sounding very promotional at the moment. Although you've added citations, this section is very much phrased as your opinions rather than the comments of critics. It would be better to say something like "Mr X describes the prose as 'richly sensorial' ", rather than to describe it as "richly sensorial" - which is essentially complimentary and thus not NPOV - without giving a reference where it is actually described in those words. See also Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. It's always very tempting to write an article in elegant prose that you think will be helpful to students; unfortunately this is not the place for it. Deb (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Deb. I'm very grateful for your insights. I'm worried reviewing this article is taking too much of your time, I hope that's not the case. I intend to add and contribute to articles about important Australian art/lit that lacks representation due to what is known as 'the cultural cringe' here in this country. For example - I created an entry for Andrew McGahan's first novel Praise (novel) and a wiki-ed while fixing the title noted that they are 'unsure of the notability' of the novel. Praise represents a very *very* important period in Australian contemporary literature and the fact that the film adaptation had an entry but the novel did not represents a considerable gap in the knowledge map that wikipedia aims to build. I spent ages figuring out the formatting and am now (thanks to you) learning a lot more, but there is definite bias at work in the back-end of wikipedia, way worse than COI or NOR. I guess it's the flip-side of any open access experiment. Because one editor has no idea about the notability of a book/subject they just wade in and hack up the entry.

re: next edits on the Scoundrel Days entry, I took the 'richly sensorial' quote from citation [6] but the audio has expired http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/nightlife/nightlife/8282280 - I can't find a transcript, so I'm going to have to rewrite that section and the other sections which cite [6]. I'll fix it and message you when it's worth looking at again so you don't waste any more of your time.

Thanks again, Deb. Ed Rembrandt (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they did that. You are meant to make a claim of notability within the article, but you had done that by mentioning that it had won a major literary prize. BTW, you can't use Wikipedia or IMDb for citations, though you can put IMDb in the External Links section. I'll put in a better reference for you. Deb (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviews of Scoundrel Days

At the moment the Review section is reading like a paean of unadulterated praise. I found less glowing reviews, such as this one, which says "The shame is that Frazer’s childhood in The Truth is so teasingly dismissed, as he chooses instead to chronicle the most boring decade of a young literary hoon’s life, aping, for the umpteenth time, the tired old conventions of a movement whose toxic influence still lingers." No doubt there were others who didn't like it. This is the section of the article that reads most like an advert. Personally I would remove all those quotes whose authors are red links. It won't do the book any harm and it will improve the article. Deb (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

More wonderful insights :) Thanks, Deb. So you recommend I delete the whole 'Individual Reviewers' section? Is that what you mean by "quotes whose authors are red links"? Ed Rembrandt (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean that I wouldn't include the reviews if they are by people who haven't got a Wikipedia article. It's only worth mentioning the ones that are by notable critics, Australian or otherwise. Deb (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks Deb :) Have rewritten the individual reviews section for synthesis and recited, and removed the red reviewers. When you have time it'd be wonderful if you could have another look and determine if the article is getting close to removal of the promat tag. Ed Rembrandt (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that it is, but I'd try and get more input from other editors. It might end up with a different tag because it still reads like an essay. I was thinking of nominating it as a potential collaborative effort.Deb (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey a collab would be fantastic - and it's too long also, which lends it that essay feel, I think. I'll leave the article be and see if anyone else can be encouraged to have a go at it. Thanks, Deb Ed Rembrandt (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb. No interested editors have contributed to the Scoundrel Days entry, which is a shame. I went to update the citations for the character descriptions as they are all citable by page number in the google books preview, and I noticed that the creation of this article has changed the search results in google. As you know google defaults to wiki. Previous to the article google pulled it's google-books entry and the book had a knowledge panel etc., and now this article is the dominant, but with a ADtemplate flagging the article as an advert the book has fallen out of search results for everything but the publishers and commercial sites. If you think the article is still an advert and the template remains I'm going to have to over haul the entry from scratch or delete it entirely  :/ Ed Rembrandt (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's fixed, but I do think it needs a bit of an overhaul. However, we can continue looking for assistance from others. I'll see if I can get anyone interested. Deb (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)