User talk:Morgan martin/Edward Colver

It looks like it's coming along. A couple of points:

1) The pic of EC is going to run into problems on the license. You say "permission granted to uploader" but then below, say "I, the copyright holder" = something's not right, especially when one sees that (C) ji.. in the bottom corner. Correct procedure is to get the copyright holder to send a permission in to Wikipedia. See details here: WP:PERMISSION. In essence the author has to send in the WP:CONSENT form, which permits commercial share-alike usage. In this case - with the file on Wikipedia Commons , it's similar - details: Commons:OTRS.

2) The flip photo may be difficult to justify as fair use. Best argument I guess is that it is the best representation of his work and thus irreplacable, it's iconic, and that a text description doesn't do it justice. Might go thru. Otherwise you'll have to do without and just link to it in a ref.

3) I understand that this is a work in progress. As you do progress all those external links should be turned into inline references.

4) If you are going to put notes into the refs section, perhaps rename it "Notes and references".

Looking forward to seeing the next iteration.

Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thx very much indeed, this is my first article, I'm very excited to learn the ropes here. Its a most worthy article by any standards or from any perspective so I'm not worried about being impartial, the facts will speak for themselves here. Remember, this is a VERY early draft, and I'm not saying its done or even close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan martin (talk • contribs) 08:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"emerged from the art world to become a real pillar in the Los Angeles punk scene" and "His photographs... include many of the most striking and iconic covers of the late 20th century" - these are not phrases used by impartial editors, these are advertising or near-advertising language. If you don't see the problem, that is itself the problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI and request for feedback

Because you have a huge COI (as the subject's representative) you are strongly advised not to create this article. If you press ahead, it will be subject to heavy scrutiny for inter alia notability, neutral point of view and spaminess. I would suggest that when you think it is ready for mainspace you request feedback from other editors at Requests for feedback. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]