User talk:Academic 12345
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Academic 12345! I noticed your contributions to Panos Cosmatos and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Please be aware that citing secondary sourcing is fine, there is a thin line between doing that and promoting someone's work. Also, your edits in the Sir Gawain article--that article is an Featured article, and your edits were not at that level in terms of style, formatting, and sourcing (we need proper secondary sourcing). And I found the same name in there that I found in the other article, with a person's resume linked as a reference: that is not acceptable. An article in Arthuriana can of course be used to verify content, but this went well beyond that. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- You have deleted the entire section or I would have altered it? Academic 12345 (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can you let me know if you would like a section on art which draws on the Arthuriana text and associated site, of course this could be done by somebody else? It seems odd that there is no section on this? Academic 12345 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you do create a section on art I suggest that it begins with a brief outline of Braby and Hicks-Jenkins works, in the case of Braby her works are praised in Lupack, B. and Lupack, A. (2008) Illustrating Camelot. Cambridge, D.S. Brewer. Hicks-Jenkins created works for a popular translation of Simon Armitage and has exhibited those works many times, they are much praised by critics. The Eden text and website funded by UAL and Middlesex Uni deals with all the major illustrators including those two and contemporary artists, all which created work for that project, one purpose of the text is to address the lack of 'fine art' responses to the poem by commissioning works by artists https://www.representing-sir-gawain-and-the-green-knight.com/ Academic 12345 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, IMO the entire section failed the FA criteria in terms of content and sourcing. The Eden article, for instance, is fine, and Lupack and Lupack are great (I cite them in a chapter I just sent off for publication), but the Eden website is not a peer-reviewed secondary source. That doesn't automatically mean it can't be used at all, but it should be used with care, and sparingly. That one-woman show, for instance--that's not noteworthy IMO, since it's not written up (made noteworthy) by strong secondary sources: the link is to Eden's "Sources" page, which cites no secondary sources for that bit but does include what looks like a promotional link. Plus, and this may seem small to you, the title of the play should be italicized, the reference done properly, etc. But this is an FA and it needs to be super clean. Again, this is my opinion and I don't speak for all editors; I do some maintenance on the article, so to speak (I see I made 27 edits), and the editor who brought it to FA status is not active anymore, but Casliber, one of the FA reviewers, is still here, and he might disagree with me, which is fine. No, I'm not going to write up that section: it's likely that you know that subject matter better than I do. You can do it, and you don't need my blessing but you have it--as long as you do it in keeping with FA guidelines, which basically are the "regular" rules (neutral writing, stick with the existing citation system, keep to the Manual of Style, use good sources, etc.) but applied as rigorously as possible. Sure a section on illustrations would be great, but don't source content to the website: source it directly. Lupack and Lupack aren't cited, and "Armitage, 2007:11" is not a correct reference. I don't know what that long block quote with those names is supposed to be--a citation from the website? But there are grammatical/punctuation issues also. In other words: go for it but do it carefully and cleanly. You could write that section up in a sandbox, and open that for review by placing a note on the article talk page. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight 'Art' section I have put additions in my sandbox and submitted these for review if you would like to check these, they cover Hicks-Jenkins, Braby and Howe, in each case the supporting literature is to peer reviewed texts in which these artists works have appeared. Academic 12345 (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh. Look, edits like this, they are excessive and they make me think that you are here to promote the work of this Eden. Besides, that blockquote is so long that it might well violate the conditions laid out in Wikipedia:Non-free content--Diannaa, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok noted, I have tried again for the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight section, see what you think. Academic 12345 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the Cosmatos text, it is the only substantial academic work on Cosmatos who is previously only mentioned in none peer reviewed journalism and short mentions in Marcks (2018) and Valero (2019). However, if you wish to change this please do so. Academic 12345 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- In both cases I leave this up to you and wont make further changes to either page :) Academic 12345 (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Drmies I have removed the quote, as it is rather long, as well as being too technical for the average reader to get much out of it. — Diannaa (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight page, 'Art' section, I do feel that Clive Hicks-Jenkins, Dorothea Braby and Jhon Howe should be mentioned, please note I am not Hicks-Jenkins or Howe, and Braby is deceased, also all three of these have existing Wikipedia pages and there are texts that are linked to them which are not the website 'Representing Sir Gawain and the Green Knight', which for some reason is being ignored (though all the work mentioned in the existing post is displayed there, funded by two UK universities and listed on Lupack's own website (The Camelot Project, Lupack being a world famous authority), there is some indication that mentioning this is somehow benefiting me? While I recognize your concerns and even the need to change the way I mentioned the project, not allowing people to see these works is not beneficial to the interested public. The website is fully in compliance with all the estates, artists and illustrators that require permissions. In the case of Braby and Roy Morgan (RCA) it is the only place where their work can be seen. Furthermore, it seems odd not to mention the contemporary artists in the Arthuriana text, all of which created work for the project and text specifically and which literally attempts to address the lack of attention paid to the poem by contemporary artists, they did this for free and out of there own passion, Roxana Halls has a Wikipedia page and Treloar and Evans are both graduates of Royal Collage and the Royal Academy respectively, Adam Dix has exhibited internationally and all the artists are prolific and exhibiting contemporary practitioners the work again is all shown in the Arthuriana text and is on the website, that text is peer reviewed by the journals expert peer reviewers and is in one of the most respected Arthurian publications. I recognize your concerns and I am not writing this in a confrontational tone, but there is also no recognition that had I not made two failed attempts to create this section it would not exist at all, it now does in a contracted form because I have persisted with this process. The references to Herbert Cole and Diana Sudyka which are attributed to the Arthuriana text are fine but why not at least mention Braby, Hicks-Jenkins and Howe all of which are far more influential then either Cole or Sudyka. I can try to work out the sandbox feature and create a paragraph that addresses those three, regarding the Arthuriana text and associated website I now feel uncomfortable mentioning this so I leave that up to you but know this, there is no financial gain or extra kudos for me personally it is simply a kosher site that houses all relevant works and yes of course I would like people to be able to see that. Academic 12345 (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight 'Art' section I have put additions in my sandbox and submitted these for review if you would like to check these, they cover Hicks-Jenkins, Braby and Howe, in each case the supporting literature is to peer reviewed texts in which these artists works have appeared. If included it would make sense to me if they were inserted chronologically with what is already there :) Academic 12345 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, IMO the entire section failed the FA criteria in terms of content and sourcing. The Eden article, for instance, is fine, and Lupack and Lupack are great (I cite them in a chapter I just sent off for publication), but the Eden website is not a peer-reviewed secondary source. That doesn't automatically mean it can't be used at all, but it should be used with care, and sparingly. That one-woman show, for instance--that's not noteworthy IMO, since it's not written up (made noteworthy) by strong secondary sources: the link is to Eden's "Sources" page, which cites no secondary sources for that bit but does include what looks like a promotional link. Plus, and this may seem small to you, the title of the play should be italicized, the reference done properly, etc. But this is an FA and it needs to be super clean. Again, this is my opinion and I don't speak for all editors; I do some maintenance on the article, so to speak (I see I made 27 edits), and the editor who brought it to FA status is not active anymore, but Casliber, one of the FA reviewers, is still here, and he might disagree with me, which is fine. No, I'm not going to write up that section: it's likely that you know that subject matter better than I do. You can do it, and you don't need my blessing but you have it--as long as you do it in keeping with FA guidelines, which basically are the "regular" rules (neutral writing, stick with the existing citation system, keep to the Manual of Style, use good sources, etc.) but applied as rigorously as possible. Sure a section on illustrations would be great, but don't source content to the website: source it directly. Lupack and Lupack aren't cited, and "Armitage, 2007:11" is not a correct reference. I don't know what that long block quote with those names is supposed to be--a citation from the website? But there are grammatical/punctuation issues also. In other words: go for it but do it carefully and cleanly. You could write that section up in a sandbox, and open that for review by placing a note on the article talk page. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 23)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Academic 12345/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- Sorry, this is for the 'Art' section of the page on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I think I resubmitted these with that info Academic 12345 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- These additions are simply on the page now, as I have said each artist mentioned already has their own Wikipedia page and each example is supported by a peer reviewed academic text that discusses the artwork as noteworthy. Academic 12345 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- As it was Drmies that had the difference of opinion on your first edits I would ask them. It's not really my area on knowledge/interest. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- KylieTastic, thanks. Academic, I suggested writing it up in a sandbox and I think I mentioned peer review--but submitting it as a separate article is a very different thing. You can work on this sandbox and then start a discussion on the talk page, linking to that sandbox, and asking other editors what they think. Plus you can invite the more recent active editors to that discussion by pinging them in the way I just pinged KylieTastic (using "[[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]]"). Drmies (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @KylieTastic, @Drmies @Diannaa This should not be too difficult to resolve, I think that the three short write ups of Braby, Howe and Hicks-Jenkins which follow from the existing section make sense according to the initial feedback, let me be clear those artists are all already noteworthy as they have their own Wikipedia pages that have nothing to do with me and each work is discussed in a peer reviewed text. If this is taken down please give a full explanation for this I am a published academic and Dr specializing in this area of study, it really should not be this hard... Academic 12345 (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK this is really a matter for the talk page, for the editors who are knowledgeable in that field and have worked on the article and/or in the field. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- As it was Drmies that had the difference of opinion on your first edits I would ask them. It's not really my area on knowledge/interest. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- These additions are simply on the page now, as I have said each artist mentioned already has their own Wikipedia page and each example is supported by a peer reviewed academic text that discusses the artwork as noteworthy. Academic 12345 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Hello, Academic 12345!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
|