Talk:Sheila Sri Prakash

Untitled section 1

I am looking for feedback regarding this article about Sheila Sriprakash. She is referenced on a wikipedia article as the chief architect and founder of Shilpa Architects.

(Rasikar (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)) Is this Sheila Sriprakash a famous indian architect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.0.110 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up and improvement

Article is a mess at the moment. There are 48 citations in the lead introduction and, really, they should be moved to (and used in) the main body of the article! The verry long section about public speaking engagements is really far too long. We can't expect to list every speaking engagement for a prominent architect. It would be better to highlight the important ones that have been reported in secondary coverage. I'm also perplexed that the sections about her architecture are so small in comparison. The section about "Current projects" is poorly cited and probably out-of-date. Far better would be a section about her "Notable works" that have already been built and received coverage/awards etc. In all honesty, there's no need for all the citations to prove she is 'pioneering' or 'preeminent' - her pre-eminence should become perfectly clear from her achievements. I've added back the "Peacock phrasing" cleanup template, because this issue hasn't been addressed/corrected yet. Sionk (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the peacock tag was removed a few weeks later. There is a glut of fishy editing here. The WP:CITEBLOAT is about as bad as it gets, and many of these sources are clearly unnecessary, while some are also unreliable, but it's a major project to weed out the good from the bad. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Promotional language

The article contains far, far too many WP:PEACOCK words. "Pioneer", for example, means different things to different people, and is flattering without being especially informative. If someone describes her as a pioneer, that should be attributed, not merely stated in Wikipedia's voice. That there are 16 references (!) in the first sentence is a very, very big red flag that there are other problems here, as well. At a glance, this source does not meet WP:RS guidelines, and I can see that there are many, many more which do not belong in this or any other Wikipedia article. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you list the problems in the article or remove so called unreliable sources, such that it can be addressed by the community, instead of merely referncing Wikipedia templates and using subjective opinions such as it a "very, very big red flag" to justify your actions. I fully understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability and not original research but I fail to understand how you can make the determination about the quality/notability of resources. Does it have to be from American and European publishers only? Given your repeated edits to this article, it appears that you are keenly watching the article but yet, you are not willing ot be constructive about topics that find relevance and basis within Asia and other parts of the world. 103.14.185.67 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool it with the personal accusations. I've made two batches of edits, and the most recent was because you posted on my talk page about it, so how is that "keen"? I've posted two explanations of the problems I have with the article on the talk page, one of which explains that cleaning it up will be a major project. How is that not productive? Why are you implying that this is some sort of anti-Asia bias? You have no basis for saying that, and insulting me is not going to improve the article. See WP:NPA before you make any more edits.

Sources can be from anywhere, but they should meet WP:RS guidelines. Blogs, listicles, and passing mentions are very poor and unlikely to be acceptable, especially for a biography of a living person. Press releases are also poor, as they do not neutrally demonstrate significance. I am not saying that she doesn't deserve an article, but I am saying that she deserves a much better article than this, because it's a mess which looks like it was written by a publicist or paid editor. Nobody who is at all familiar with Wikipedia is going to be impressed by this article. Do you really think cleaning this up will be undermine her somehow? Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not my intention, in the least, to attack you personally. I am an academician and the outcome of this debate has no direct impact upon me. I am however frustrated about the deep bias that exists across Wikipedia WP:Systemic_bias that favours the dominant opinions of the majority of editors sitting in the Western world, who have clearly assumed the right to tag or determine the notability/verifiability of topics pertaining to Asia. As a female researcher and professor of Architecture in this part of the world, I have empathy for those who are able to achieve within our male dominated profession. It is my opinion that sweeping tags at a supercilious and seemingly heavy handed level are not constructive. Unfortunately, it reeks of a lack of willingness to apply oneself towards the low level specifics that could lead to a resolution towards improving this article. I do sincerely believe that the future should be a denouement of healthy dialog and collaboration. It is the only way for our species to move forward constructively, given all that is happening in the Western world. I request that we work together to remove any sources that may not meet Wikipedia standards on this article and others, where I can help. If you would highlight the specific things that need to be addressed, I am willing to contribute to the extent possible from my end, to support those edits. My apologies in advance, if the tone in my written posts come across as abrasive or as personal attacks. As you may well appreciate, that is a limitation of the medium through which we are communicating, as a result of which I read your repeated high level tags as a callous affront upon a celebrated and accomplished woman in my field of expertise. 103.14.185.67 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You cannot say my behavior is supercilious and "reeks of a lack of willingness to apply oneself" followed by a "apologies in advance, if the tone in my written posts come across as abrasive or as personal attacks" and expect me to accept that. I don't accept apologies in advance for being insulted; why would I accept that? Why would anyone accept that?

Wikipedia does have a systemic bias problem, but spam isn't the way to solve it, and neither is pretending its not a problem because someone isn't from a Western country. Yes, there is more room for forgiveness, but that isn't a license to use Wikipedia as advertising. If more work is needed, then so be it. Pretending the article is just fine because she's Asian is extremely condescending, and that's what removing the tag seems like to me.

As a bit of background, Sheila Sri Prakash's son is Bhargav Sri Prakash, who's article was almost certainly created by a paid editor or editors. Multiple articles on his businesses were also likely created by a paid editor or editors. This is against Wikipedia's polices and guidelines, and I strongly believe that misuse of Wikipedia like this makes the cultural bias problem worse, not better. If articles on Indian people are held to a lower standard than Western people, this fosters the subconscious impression that Indians are less worthy of decent articles. This is, of course, a garbage attitude that needs to be fought. There is overlap in editors between those articles and this one, as well, and the article's history needs to be judged accordingly.

If you want to start improving this article, you should remove unreliable sources and redundant sources. If you don't know what qualifies as a reliable source, review WP:RS. You should also read WP:WTW and critically assess the large number of peacock words in the article. Any conference appearance should be removed unless both the conference is notable itself, and there is a reliable independent source for the appearance. This article is not intended to be a comprehensive list of everything she's done, and independent sources are the proper way to determine what belongs. As I said above, this isn't a trivial project. If it were, I would've done it myself already. There are two editors commenting on this problem on this page, and this is the main issue which has been raised about this article, but tags have been removed multiple times anyway. If I start removing these sources myself, what assurances do I have that they won't be reinstated by you or another editor who accuses me of being biased and incompetent?

I encourage you to also consider editing one of the many other areas of your expertise that needs attention. Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red may be useful as starting points. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I will continue contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, etc under this account that I just created. I am not an expert in the field pertaining to Bhargav Sri Prakash and hence will refrain from commenting about your observations about that article. I do however see that some of the references on that article point to Stanford Medical School, which I think most will agree, holds a fairly high standard for peer reviewed innovations in the field of Medicine. I do however want to clarify that I never suggested that "If articles on Indian people are held to a lower standard than Western people, this fosters the subconscious impression that Indians are less worthy of decent articles". Such tangential comments expose the underlying presumptions leading to WP:Systemic_bias. I believe firmly that articles of people around the world, must be subject to standards that are relevant to local conditions and realities. The assertion that such a "different" standard is somehow "lower", is the core reason there is a glaring prevalence of WP:Systemic_bias. How can we expect more Articles about notable people or topics from parts of the world, where journalistic standards are simply different from the West? India and Singapore are countries where such an issue is not as acute but it is still very real. In fact, in my home country of Myanmar, there is little to no foundation for secondary sources that would meet the standards that you assert. In any case, I will focus my contributions based on my expertise. Other notable female architects, who deserve recognition in my field, would be Brinda Somayya, Anna Heringer, Olajumoke Adenowo Farshid Moussavi, etc, all of whom probably have sub-par references (primary, non-verifiable or non-notable) per such standards. Ellazinko (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said, nobody is saying that she doesn't deserve an article. Cleaning up the garbage here is not a threat to her, and conflating "different" with "lower" misinterprets what I'm saying. Are you really saying all these sources are just fine the way they are? They are not. Wikipedia does hold all sources to a certain standard, and sources are already judged by their context. That's not the same as giving a free pass to bad sources just because they are about non-Western countries. Regardless of problems with sources (which are real, but not insurmountable) the content of the article itself should not be held to a lower standard. Besides, many of the worst sources in this article are English-language puff-pieces published out of the U.S., which suggests that the problem is deeper than just a lack of reputable journalism in India. We don't rely on spam/listicles/clickbait/PR at all on Wikipedia anywhere. That's the line we need to draw otherwise the integrity of the project will fall apart. Spam damages that integrity no matter where it's from, and there is a difference between questionable sources and outright abuse of Wikipedia for advertising.

The Stanford MedicineX link is a routine event listing of little-to-no encyclopedic value, and the only purpose it serves is to promote him by linking his name to "Stanford" because it's recognizably prestigious. It's a cheap PR trick I've seen too often to fall for. Context matters and not everything from the Stanford domain-name is automatically brilliant. That article also cites The Next Web and VentureBeat, both Western outlets, both of which produce a prodigious amount of PR crap. Should we let that slide because it's relevant to local conditions? Grayfell (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with the original sentiments of this discussion. The article needs a clean-up. The introduction is particularly problematic because it should be a summary of the article, and citations in this part of the article should be kept to a minimum. While I completely agree she is a widely respected, successful architect I'd really want to know what she pioneered, what thought she 'globally led', what she 'socially innovated', rather than a vague claim she is a pioneer, global thinker or social innovator.

To be honest, I understand why people sometimes stick all their miscellaneous citations in the lead paragraph (e.g. the 8 citations currently used to prove she is an architect, or the 8 used to show she is an Indian urban designer), because it sometimes means the author wants everyone to know these articles exist, but they aren't quite sure how to incorporate them better into the article. It just needs a bit of positive work to make better use of these citations and occasionaly, where they are not from trustworthy sources, to remove them. Sionk (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Way too many unreliable/self published/primary sources

There are a bunch of non-RS or WP:SPS in the article. Many sources are also primary, giving undue weight to certain aspects. I will try and see if I can weed out some of them. From the looks of it, extensive WP:COI editing has been going on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)