User talk:Elist

Sources

Hi, I've replied to you over on the Teahouse but to add to what I said there, you're starting to get into slightly murky waters once you start going too far away from the mainstream art publishing world. Anyone decent should appear in one of the main biographical dictionaries, so if they're not in one of those then you have to start questioning whether they're notable enough for a Wiki article. It also depends a bit on what you're trying to source, subjective stuff like "he was influenced by...." needs a better source than basics like "he went to school at". Public accessibility of sources (to ensure verifiability) and credibility of their authors/publishing process (for reliability) are the big things to think about - you may want to have a read of WP:Identifying reliable sources and ask about specifics over on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Le Deluge (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As a tip, use your watchlist freely - any time you start a discussion somewhere, click the blue star at top right. Then you can just look at your watchlist for updates. It's also worth keeping an eye out for various shortcuts you can use in URLs or as wikilinks - for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:T/Q or WP:T/Q gets you to Teahouse/Questions, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPVA or WP:WPVA takes you to WikiProject Visual Arts. Just as a further clarification based on what you said over at the Teahouse, don't get carried away on the whole archive thing. The heart of Wikipedia is all about secondary sources, so especially for your first article you should be thinking in terms of "something with an ISBN" for want of a better shorthand. See WP:PRIMARY - "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy. It gets complicated - as I say, you're probably best being a bit cautious and talking to WP:WPVA or WP:RSN before putting too much work into an article based on non-ISBN sources. Le Deluge (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)