He's the one who deleted it this time. Ironically, he's usually the one arguing that I want to delete too much! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, lose all the quotes from reviews and all the "so-and-so praised this book for being absolutely fabuloso"; those absolutely reek of positive selection bias. Lose phrases like "to this day" and the like. Wikilink terms like "green": green in what sense - is he verdant of plumage? Unlike resumes, Wikipedia articles go in chronological order; his earliest activities should be first, his most recent activities last, just like in real life. Read articles about the career of a historian like Hermann Pundt or a writer like Wilson Tucker for examples of how to do chronology and biography. Read the article Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms for some hints on phrasing to avoid. Keep the bibliography modest; a minor figure like this doesn't get the exhaustive treatment. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the quotes seem to not come from formal reviews. As OM says, they are the sort of blurb that is best omitted. What you need is reviews, from formally published sources, academic and non-academic. Cite every one you can find, for each book. Include only a key phrase from it, probably in the reference, not the article. The number and source of the reviews show academic notability of the book. Look for citations to the books, in at least Google Scholar. Do not list them all, but give some idea of the number. This should be checked in Scopus also, and I will do it if you do not have it available.
I agree with OM about the wording. Try to write as concisely as possible. Adjectives re a danger sign in this sort of article. OM is right that a modest article gives a better impression, and I see he has already done a good deal of editing in that direction. I disagree somewhat about the bibliography of other work, & I'd put part of it back. I think it highly appropriate to cite all important articles and similar publications, but not book reviews written or lectures delivered, unless very important and prestigious. List them, not say a great deal about them. Use cite journal, not cite book. Include the exact page count. Include a link to the online version if available. Do not include publications in trade magazines and the like. Do not include anything that is only 1 or 2 pages.
People known as journalists, or essayists or commentators, usually have a difficult time showing notability here, as there are usually no specific work about them unless they become very famous. We need to think out criteria here, but I have no proposal at the moment. Therefore I think it best to concentrate on the books; we do have criteria for the authorship of books. I'll add some library counts. Remind me in a day or two. DGG (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What did we say about pull quotes and blurb content? "According to Edmund White's review in the Washington Post, “The vivid story of the first half-century of the city is splendidly told in Suddenly San Francisco. The author . . . is interested ... not only in architectural styles and evolving neighborhoods but also in social history. ... The copious illustrations come from many sources . . . Quite a few of these photographs have never been published before.”" is not encyclopedic content, and has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just removed that quote. Please let me know if there's anything else. 'truly appreciate your thoughts/help. Jxc5 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that one, all of them. (And it's San Francisco, by the way.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the quotes from the books, Mike. Also adjusted/modified how the books are cited which I hope I did in the approved manner. What else is needed to improve this article please? ... Thank you very much for your time and guidance. Jxc5 (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
restoration of Legendary Estates of Beverly Hills[edit]
I have moved it to User:Jxc5/Legendary Estates of Beverly Hills. This was the second time the article was deleted for reasons of advertising. This time you can request for peer review so you get feedback on the language and content before you decide go live. Best of luck! Jay (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need not add a hangon tag as the page has been userfied for you. Jay (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what is needed here, is a reference to every published review of the book--and it is needed for the article on the author also. If you have only the two listed, the article will probably not be supportable. To find more start with Google Scholar and Google News Archive--and then consult a library for specific indexes to book reviews The book itself does not appear to be widely held in libraries. I counted only 25 in WorldCat, which is trivial for something on a topic connected with the movies. Frankly, unless there is something unexpected, I suggest not trying to have a separate article; just add the reviews as references to the article on the author. . DGG (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'm afraid I didn't get what you mean here. Are you talking about the Lockwood's article or this page? - Legendary Estates. I'm also not sure if I understood what you suggest me to do. I really am just new here, and still picking up on things. Jxc5 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that if you want an article on that book, or any book, you need to show multiple specific major published reviews of that book, with sufficient other information to prove it a notable work. . DGG (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, David. I've fixed the duplicates in internal citations. The phrase "corporate sustainability strategist" is actually a term to provide a "professional label" for Lockwood's work so I've attached one reference coming from an online periodical like Green Business Quarterly to support that, plus one more. Are those acceptable? Kindly check the other references as well for the statements that you advised me to embed some . There were some sections that needed citations I thought I'd just rewrite. Jxc5 (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{helpme}}
I've been adding references and citations to Jeffrey Hyland to hopefully support the needed verifications of the material. I am not also sure about which substance greatly contributes to its "advertiness". Please guide me through it. Thanks a lot. Jxc5 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just taking a brief look over the page, I'd say the biggest area where it could be improved is the second section, namely Jeffrey Hyland#The Legendary Estates of Beverly Hills. That whole section reads essentially like one large advertisement for the book. I can even imagine someone going so far to say the article reads as an excuse to talk about the book, especially given the multitude of references for other areas. The main issue with that section is the language; you'll want to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more information. Here are some suspect phrases imho:
a comprehensive' history of 50 famed estates
The extensively researched 428-page book includes hundreds of photographs and historical images of these estates’ mansions
The book also includes an in-depth history of the neighborhoods
The final chapter, “Gone But Not Forgotten,” pays homage to great estates that have disappeared forever.
The larger subsection as well seems kind of like a blurb one might find on the sleeve of a book. I hope that helps, lemme know if you have any other questions, either here or on my talk page. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for giving me these tips - been very helpful. I've removed those phrases and a few more I thought were needed to be left out as well. Do you think the LEBV (Legendary Estates of Beverly Hills) section still has that tone of "advertiness"? I'd very much appreciate your thoughts or any suggestions to improve this article. Jxc5 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's a lot better, but still needs work. That whole section talks about what the book has in it, not why anyone cares, or why any of it is noteworthy. For example, why do people care about the oil tycoon (tycoon is a sketchy word in of itself)? What about the phrase "from movie stars and studio czars, to oil tycoons, industrialists, and to the idle rich?" Tell us what the impact the description of the planning of communities was, not that he wrote it. In the end, remember that the article is NOT about the book, but is about the person. The section on the book, if to be kept and noted, has to be within the realm of the individual, not a WP:COATRACK attempt. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely looks a lot better - the content added about the subject is excellent. It could still use some work on the notability of the book; that is, why is it worth mentioning on Wikipedia? Until that question is answered, it will come off like an advertisement. The rest of the article could use work as well - taking a look at the first section (Hilton & Hyland) it appears to have some of these same issues. The lead is also very praising. Still, it's a huge improvement! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm currently still working on the fixes. That lead as you said is very praising. Perhaps you can guide me through that as well - phrases that made it sound like it? Will removing the part that said "he's frequently quoted on..." help tone it down? Also, if it's not too much to ask, can you please also take a look at this other article: Charles Lockwood (author)- it has the same issue - "advertiness", needs to be "wikified" ... You might also want to check its discussion page? Your inputs will be greatly appreciated. Jxc5 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so, taking a look at the lead... The most glaring thing to note is all the references. Take a look at a section on the link I gave you, WP:LEADCITE. What it boils down to is that the lead should never (okay, extremely rarely) have information that isn't repeated elsewhere in the body of the article. As such, one rarely needs to reference material in the lead because it will be elsewhere. Almost all of the stuff in the lead isn't repeated elsewhere, although the other content does refer to it. So, you'll need to move a lot of the material out of there. Biographical articles usually use some sort of "Early life" section or some such to get some of that stuff out of the way. Try moving a lot of that material to other sections - that will help flesh out the article, and reduce the load on the lead.
Things like "...and authority on Southern California real estate," as well as the "he's frequently quoted on..." bit you mention make it seem praising. Most of the details don't belong there, as I said, which will hopefully help as well. What would also help would be more sources that say more about him than a mention in someone else's interview on the NYT. Hope that helps for now, I'll check out the other one in a bit! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: you need to italicize magazine and newspaper titles like this. You also need to stop capitalizing Green like it was a religion; just wikilink the first references to green building and green energy. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the images on the Jeffrey Hyland page, where did manage to find all those?! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same issue as before - what is the copyright for the images from the Charles Lockwood article? Did you yourself take File:Charles Lockwood Jacket and Tie.jpg? If so, great. However, I know you don't own the copyright on File:LockwoodTheGreenQuotient.jpg. You may have taken the picture of the cover but the cover itself is copyrighted, and that does not belong to you. You would have to provide a fair-use rationale for its use, but fair-use rationales are very tightly regulated and the cover of a book is usually only allowed under fair-use on an article discussing that book. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LockwoodTheGreenQuotient.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
