User talk:SeagoComment

If a third of Seago's works were destroyed and approx 20 000 were left, he must have created about 30 000. If his approx working life was 30 years, that makes about 1000 works a year, about 3 a day. Somewhere, something seems wrong. All this is simple arithmetic. So what is wrong with my comment, please?

Wikipedia articles are not the right place to editorialize - that's for personal blogs, papers read to learned societies, comment pages in newspapers, wherever, but not in a global encyclopaedia. It's very possible something is wrong with the statement; the right solution is to challenge it on the article's talk page, inviting other editors to fix it, or better, to find better sources which say what the right number actually was. Hope this helps make it clear what the issue is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seago

I suppose you're right. My calculation depends on the original 19,000 figure, which just seems crazy. I have access to several Seago biogs, so will look it up. Thanks. SeagoComment (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward Seago

I checked. In his will, he requested that a 1/3 of the paintings IN HIS STUDIO were destroyed, not 1/3 of the paintings in his estate. This was presumably to weed works in progress etc from his heritage. I'm making the correction. SeagoComment (talk • contribs) 07:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh good. I've tidied the article a little. (Remember to sign your postings, ~~~~ to insert your signature.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)