Talk:Charles Alton Ellis

Why?

Why is this redirected? The Golden Gate Bridge also has a link to this potential article, so IMHO, this should be left either as a redlink or with something about the man. - Denimadept (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DONE. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The article should be mostly about the man, not the bridge. We talk about the bridge over on the bridge's article. This is a bio. - Denimadept (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotefarm?

A recent edit has just about doubled the article size by adding quotes from a single source, a PBS website about one of their shows. While the WP:Quotations guideline recognizes that properly attributed quotes can be placed in an article under the fair use doctrine, the edit raises some concerns.
First, the amount of material quoted in the article may be excessive. Summarizing this material would be better suited for the article and better meet the encyclopedic tone required for Wikipedia. If the article has a substantial amount of quotes, it may be considered by some editors to be a Quotefarm.
Second, the quotes were not sourced within the text of the article. WP:Quotations says "A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is."
I'm going to give opportunity for these concerns to be addressed. If they are not, I will likely revert the edits. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This article should be revised; criteria should be importance of information, not length. The facts, circumstances, and background concerning the principal design and designer of the bridge, why Joseph Strauss was attracted to and selected Ellis, Strauss' own failed designs for the bridge, and the revolutionary work of Leon Moisseiff (theory of design of suspension bridge) and Ellis (laborious and creative application of theory in practice--including extensive work in physics and calculus, involving three years of effort and ten volumes of calculations) are not even discussed. All revisions reverted. The article is in skeleton form only. In sum, the bio of the man is sorely lacking even though more of his contributions to the bridge are in the article about the bridge 74.88.196.81 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was not saying that the information you added was not of value. I had tried to make it clear that it was the format in which you did it. Adding wholesale block quotes of text is what I considered to be bad form. In my ever-so-humble opinion, the quotes you added included too much emotion to be "encyclopedic" tone. I admit that the text I added to the article about the dispute between Ellis and Strauss was very short, but it was also very factual. There is definitely room to add material to this article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)