Talk:Edna Woolman Chase

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Fashion High‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Untitled[edit]

It should be noted that the above section heading "Untitled" was retrofitted by a 'bot 5 years+ after the two 2007 contribs in the section were made.
--Jerzy•t 04:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a paper someone wrote for class right now. It needs to be cleaned up. Daniel Case 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article seems biased, then it is because it's main source is the autobigraphy of the subject, always a tricky source of information to deal with. But despite this I found the article informative and a good starting point for further research. ~~Gemma Bates 22:36, 23rd June 2007~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.155.104 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2007‎

Effective use of talk pages[edit]

In the preceding section on this talk page may be seen the first two talk contributions that arrived. The first is vague (or dare i say silent) about in what way(s) the article is (or was) wanting. The second is vague about whether it is intended to respond to the first (as i would infer it the second were indented), or is just an independent assessment.
That said, diffident discussion is often the fate of an article that (as perhaps with this one so far) may not be getting as much editorial attention as it deserves -- or may be getting improvements that don't need much explicit interaction (beyond the per-edit summaries that may be seen via the article-history page(s): (hx stats) for piecemeal improvement to be made.
--Jerzy•t 04:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Edna Woolman Chase/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

~~As noted, this reads like a school paper dumped onto Wikipedia. Since she did a lot to shape Vogue into what it became, this needs to be rewritten into something more like what we expect, at least.~~ Daniel Case 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC) & Jerzy•t ~~03:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

It's clear that the unorthodox placement of the above discussion contrib, here on Talk:Edna Woolman Chase/Comments, duplicated your and my mutual colleague's similar but orthodox contribution on Talk:Edna Woolman Chase, around 7 to 9 weeks earlier. Thus i am striking it thru on this sub-page only in order to reduce any future confusion. Please make any further comment regarding the two contribs' (similar, and i'd guess identical) content, in the section Talk:Edna Woolman Chase#Untitled, below the (earlier) version there.

(And also, probably, both below, and a tab to the right of, the newest comment that your response takes into account.)

--Jerzy•t 03:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 14:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)