Talk:Ecological art

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

[Untitled][edit]

This article is unreferenced, poorly written, original research and should be redirected to Land art again.Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it has to go. Environmental art seems a slightly better target though. Eco-art too. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main contributer undid your change. See a discussion here, also here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?[edit]

This link seems to bear far too close a resemblance to this aricle: http://www.academia.edu/8749495/Environmental_art Unless that is copying us, we seem to be plagiarising them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Rigal DanielRigal - I believe you may be confusing the Ecological Art article with the older Environmental Art article - they are two separate articles, and two different disciplines (genres) of contemporary art. The academia.edu article you cite is very similar to the Wikipedia Environmental Art page, not the Ecological Art page. I would appreciate it if you would remove the multiple tags on the Ecological Art page, and assume good faith. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio detector is giving 74.6% confidence on this article.[1] There really does seem to be something odd here. The other tags are all valid. The article is written in a way that is somewhat promotional and also vague. That may or may not be the intent. I know quite a lot of writing about art can have this tone without any bad intention but it needs quite a bit of rewriting to bring it into our normal neutral style. The Environmental art article is not so bad for tone but that is scoring 97.6% for copyvio of the same source. It may be that the copyvio issue is bogus. If the link it is detecting was copied from Wikipedia in the first place then that would suggest that the plagiarism is the other way round. If we are confident that this is the case then we can put that aside and focus on the other issues, i.e. the tone of the article and the overlap between this and Environmental art. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response DanielRigal - it is appreciated. I just left another message for you on your user talk page, as I was not sure where you prefer to discuss these matters. If you have the time to help with this, I would like to know what can be done in terms of improving the page, so that the other tags can be removed. I am a fairly new editor, committed to the aspirations of the Wikipedia project. If you have a moment to cite a few examples of the violating language, or objectionable writing style - and any other problems with the article - please let me know, and I will work on it (the Ecological, not the Environmental art article.) Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Critique of Writing Style[edit]

I do not know who has placed the tags at the top of the ecological art page but I am requesting that they be removed. I have been an editor of scholarly journals over the last twenty plus years and there is no "one" style that is used across APA, Chicago, MLA and so on. The tagging of this article as "essay like" and "peacock" are not backed up with any evidence as indicated in the entry. I am writing this strong request to remove these tags or ask for a senior member of the wikipedia editorial group to reassess the tags. The whole idea of deletion-ism goes against the very philosophy on which Wikipedia was originally created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkrug (talk • contribs) 01:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Rigal, DanielRigal Significant progress has been made on the Ecological art page, addressing all of the issues you were concerned about. It contains no personal reflections, opinions, feelings or subjectivity. I kindly ask that you remove the tags you placed on the article. Thank you in advance for your help an in anticipation that the tags will be cleared. Netherzone (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of tone that may have seemed awkward, essay-like, or not to your (taggers) personal liking have been resolved. Tag will be removed in compliance with standards.Netherzone (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]