User talk:Lakirkpatrick

Wikipedia exercise: adding a few lines and citation

I saw you added a line to the CMoA page: "The museum has an array of programs that are specific to one's age group as well. There are some for children, teens, adults, and there are even some dedicated to school educators." However, the exercise also require adding and appropriate CITATION. Please cite this material and leave a comment on my talk page when this is complete. I'll review it again. Thanks! Aolivex (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source for CMoA

I changed the source that I used for my 1-2 sentence edit on the Carnegie Museum of Art's page. I changed it since I had used the Carnegie Museum of Art's website and I realize that is a primary source. I was able to find the same information on a valid website that was simply about the different museums in Pittsburgh. I believe this is a good secondary source. Let me know if there are any further issues.--Lakirkpatrick (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit confused about this. The original Revision as of 02:22, 26 February 2015 includes

"Kids & Families." Carnegie Museum of Art. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2015. While the site currently lists
School of Rock, Art" at http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/section.php?pageID=55

I'm having trouble understanding how this is a "valid website" about "different museums in Pittsburgh." Both appear to be from the organization's website, which is a problematic source. It is still acceptable, but is problematic in two ways, both because it is self-published and because this verges on primary research. It is still acceptable because it is uncontroversial and it appears in an article about itself, but in general, when demonstrating your knowledge through a technical exercise, it is easier to avoid borderline cases. Check out WP:Reliable for more details. Hope this clarifies! Let me know if there's something I'm not understanding. Thanks! Aolivex (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working Bibliography

Boucher, B. (2012, April). ANTONI TÀPIES 1923-2012. Art in America. p. 136. C., M. (2013). THE PASSIONS OF ANTONI TAPIES. Modern Painters, 25(6), 61. Glueck, G. (2003, Mar 14). 'Antoni tapies at 80'. New York Times Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/432345174?accountid=38069 Johnson, K. (2000, Feb 04). Antoni tapies. New York Times Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/431373612?accountid=38069 OBITUARIES; PASSINGS; antoni tapies; prominent spanish art figure. (2012, Feb 13). Los Angeles Times Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/921122857?accountid=38069 Lakirkpatrick (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Edit

Hi Lauren, just letting you know my article is not live yet and the most updated draft can be found on my talk page. Thanks! Erick.bittenbender (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Antoni Tàpies page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another Peer Review

I think that this article is shaping up quite nicely, and is an interesting read! I see that you have made significant contributions to the "Life" section, which is great. To improve the article even more, I think that perhaps changing the "Exhibitions" and "Recognition" sections into bulleted lists would make it easier to read. If possible, the "Legacy" section could be built up to further explain what the Tàpies Foundation is and how it currently runs. This would be interesting to know! My last comment is, in the realm of "Graphic Work" and "Essays," the latter in particular, I would be interested to know what Tàpies was writing about. Including a few main themes from his essays would help the reader to get a better sense of what his papers were about, and perhaps even encourage readership. Great job so far, and I am excited to see how the article continues to shape up! Abbeykobrien (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]