217.21.225.53 (talk) Template questioned again |
|||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
== Tone & Verifiability == |
== Tone & Verifiability == |
||
I have now done my best to rewrite this article for tone and verifiability. I feel enough has been done, though it is obvious that every little detail of such a lengthy and entertaining encyclopedic article cannot can be verified through sources published in major media. [[User:Fiandonca|Fiandonca]] ([[User talk:Fiandonca|talk]]) 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
I have now done my best to rewrite this article for tone and verifiability. I feel enough has been done, though it is obvious that every little detail of such a lengthy and entertaining encyclopedic article cannot can be verified through sources published in major media. [[User:Fiandonca|Fiandonca]] ([[User talk:Fiandonca|talk]]) 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | This article is well written, entertaining and educational. It has now been expanded and improved and appears to be finished. Wikipedia should encourage contributors to write articles of this kind, which, though somewhat unusual in style, are not unthinkable in an enclyclopedia which would like people to read what they publish. The photographic material contributed makes the article valuable. I have adjusted the layout for wide screen viewing. It has an unusual amout of source references now. If any editors may continue to have verifiablity or tone issues, might I respectfully suggest they put tags into the |
||
==Article issues== |
==Article issues== |
||
Line 31: | Line 29: | ||
==''Peacock'' Terms== |
==''Peacock'' Terms== |
||
I have addressed those terms of this kind of which I have been advised. If anything else needs to be addressed in that regard please specify here or tag the word in the text! I also question whether or not an unidentified (i.e. unnamed) person in a text can be considered to be a victim of BLP issues, but I have also adjusted that spot anyway, in the interest of the opposite of negativity (positivity?). [[User:EmilEikS|EmilEikS]] ([[User talk:EmilEikS|talk]]) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
I have addressed those terms of this kind of which I have been advised. If anything else needs to be addressed in that regard please specify here or tag the word in the text! I also question whether or not an unidentified (i.e. unnamed) person in a text can be considered to be a victim of BLP issues, but I have also adjusted that spot anyway, in the interest of the opposite of negativity (positivity?). [[User:EmilEikS|EmilEikS]] ([[User talk:EmilEikS|talk]]) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Template tags justified?== |
|||
⚫ | I have moved my previous comment here from a section above: This article is well written, entertaining and educational. It has now been expanded and improved and appears to be finished. Wikipedia should encourage contributors to write articles of this kind, which, though somewhat unusual in style, are not unthinkable in an enclyclopedia which would like people to read what they publish. The photographic material contributed makes the article valuable. I have adjusted the layout for wide screen viewing. It has an unusual amout of source references now. If any editors may continue to have verifiablity or tone issues, might I respectfully suggest they put tags into the text at specific places where they would like to see improvement? Wikipedia has too many templates at the beginning of articles questioning the quality of what has been submitted, many of those articles are about very well know people and things. Many have been there for month after month. The amount of templates all over tends to make a generally bad impression of Wikipedia. I suggest editors should either mark such texts with specifics as per the above, or remove anything they feel consensus definitely would find unnacceptable. It is easy to smack trial templates all over, much more commendable to actually work on the articles. When someone goes to this much trouble to give us a good article of this kind, we should be as supportive as we can. I am removing some of the trial template again in this case. / Thurgood Rosewood. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.21.225.53|217.21.225.53]] ([[User talk:217.21.225.53|talk]]) 12:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 13:58, 27 November 2008
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please take a moment and read our content policies of verfiability and no original research. If you have any questions, drop me a line on my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
"Wild Side Story" References No Good?
Are the extensive references given for my articles Wild Side Story and Jacob Truedson Demitz no good? Please explain to my talk! Thanx! EmilEikS (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Emil, I have commented at Talk:Wild Side Story. Let's continued the discussion there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Jossi: Can't find a new comment here from you, if there was supposed to be one. I probably should have added what now is reference #1 before. Have also done my best now to clarify re: all the pictures. Thanx for checking this for me until the article gets done (from this end) during the coming week or so. EmilEikS (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- The article reads well but it requires verifiable sources in third [party publications. Please become familiar with our content policies, in particular WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- For example, this reference you placed in the infobox: <ref> Lars Jacob Prod. (Stockholm), extensive documentation, photography, film, audio and video on file re: all details of manuscript, production, performances, cast and crew, celebrities encountered and various adventures </ref>. is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Reliable/verifiable sources are those which have been 'previously published in a reputable publication. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Tone & Verifiability
I have now done my best to rewrite this article for tone and verifiability. I feel enough has been done, though it is obvious that every little detail of such a lengthy and entertaining encyclopedic article cannot can be verified through sources published in major media. Fiandonca (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Article issues
The template tags on this article were removed because someone thought it was overtagged. That does not mean the issues have been addressed. The article is largely unsourced, and the references that actually have a link are almost entirely to other Wikipedia pages on the English or Swedish WPs which aren't permissible as references. The article needs solid copyediting for tone and neutrality (it has numerous peacock terms like "Show-goers were jolted", "A sensitive reinterpretation", "This is done, in questionable taste", "evening job behind the front desk of luxurious Doral Hotel", "had done themselves up so convincingly and attractively that the staid general-reader publication had no idea (or didn't care?)", "it turned out sadly", "A strikingly handsome “Tony” (called Magnus the Beautiful even by his high school teachers)" and a closing of "With everything properly kept and put away, a hustle here and a hustle there and you never know… somehow… someday… somewhere… a walk on that side might be taken again." This goes on and on). It reads as if it someone's personal anecdote or a fansite for what is essentially a low notability cabaret show with few to no Google hits, the lead is one sentence long for a 58 kb article (much too short), two references are noted to be "certified in Lars Jacob Prod. publicity files", it contains an unverified quote from Max von Sydow that is completely out of context for the article. Mae West was seen to pull up and then leave - Lehman Engel and Boz Scaggs were seen enjoying it - is there confirmation of this? Some BLP issues concern comments about participants, one said a participant "was handsome enough but could not sing". These things can't just be stated, they must be referenced. As it is, this article has major issues and I have returned some more prominent maintenance tags that need to be addressed. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with that. I did thought it was excessively tagged first but I can understand these tags. Especially when you read sentences like "With everything properly kept and put away, a hustle here and a hustle there and you never know… somehow… someday… somewhere… a walk on that side might be taken again." Garion96 (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
No Fancruft Here
These is no fancruft (as defined under Wikipedia:fancruft which the template links to) in this article. The very fact of the large amount of people involved in the production, a few of them subsequently highly notable, and how many venues it has played for over 30 years in three countries rules out fancruft as defined by Wikipedia. Also, I am asking that we cut down on anything potentially contentious such as (quote Wikipedia on fancruft) "it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's [my] judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." Lastly, Wikipedia regulations require that articles found containing fancruft be recommended for deletion within 5 days. As admin. Garion96 has suggested I may feel free to remove tags I feel are overtly incorrect even if I am the contributor. Thus I am removing the fan site part of the tag on this article. I hope my good intentions in that can be identified. EmilEikS (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Peacock Terms
I have addressed those terms of this kind of which I have been advised. If anything else needs to be addressed in that regard please specify here or tag the word in the text! I also question whether or not an unidentified (i.e. unnamed) person in a text can be considered to be a victim of BLP issues, but I have also adjusted that spot anyway, in the interest of the opposite of negativity (positivity?). EmilEikS (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Template tags justified?
I have moved my previous comment here from a section above: This article is well written, entertaining and educational. It has now been expanded and improved and appears to be finished. Wikipedia should encourage contributors to write articles of this kind, which, though somewhat unusual in style, are not unthinkable in an enclyclopedia which would like people to read what they publish. The photographic material contributed makes the article valuable. I have adjusted the layout for wide screen viewing. It has an unusual amout of source references now. If any editors may continue to have verifiablity or tone issues, might I respectfully suggest they put tags into the text at specific places where they would like to see improvement? Wikipedia has too many templates at the beginning of articles questioning the quality of what has been submitted, many of those articles are about very well know people and things. Many have been there for month after month. The amount of templates all over tends to make a generally bad impression of Wikipedia. I suggest editors should either mark such texts with specifics as per the above, or remove anything they feel consensus definitely would find unnacceptable. It is easy to smack trial templates all over, much more commendable to actually work on the articles. When someone goes to this much trouble to give us a good article of this kind, we should be as supportive as we can. I am removing some of the trial template again in this case. / Thurgood Rosewood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.225.53 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)