Talk:Janette Kerr

Conflict of interest

This article was created by an employee of the Janette Kerr Gallery Cadogan Contemporary and has been edited by the subject of the article, per the tags in the box above. Those editors should not be editing this article directly, but instead should make "edit requests" - the bottommost section of the box above, has a link that will allow you to do that easily. Joseph2302 placed a "COI" tag on this article, as the article needs to be reviewed for compliance with our WP:NPOV and sourcing policies by an independent editor before the tag can be removed. Whoever does that, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC) (corrected Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

Jytdog.Could you link please to the Janette Kerr Gallery? I don't see this. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

Sources

[1] and [2] are primary sources, [3] is a dead link, [4] doesn't look reliable. Only reliable sources are [5], [6], [7] and [8]- not sure these actually show enough notability, per WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Kerr is notable per: WP: ACADEMIC "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society."

• 1 and 2 aren't really primary sources in my experience. Could you explain your position, please.
• I don't see that the Fan tag fits this situation?
• I'm not sure why these sources are too close to the subject. Could you explain that too. Per the tag.

Frankly I think we are making a mountain out of molehill. Kerr adjusted her biography slightly to update. She is not employed by the galleries and I don't see a Janette Kerr Gallery. Maybe Jytdog sees that. The article seems neutral and does not over rate Kerr in fact it may present a slightly diminished view.

If the article was written by an employee of a gallery representing Kerr, there might be a COI but first, such an article is not forbidden, and second it seems to me the article does not over state. I don't see a problem. There may be more sources and I hopel in the next few days look for them, but in the meantime the subject of this article is notable and the information and neutrality adequate in my opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

1. She works for both the Cadogan Contemporary Gallery and the RWA- therefore, they aren't reliable sources, but primary sources.
2. The article reads really puffy to me, loads of non-neutral phrases ("who currently divides her time", "Brian Fallon, the former Chief Critic of the Irish Times proclaimed Kerr to be “the best painter of the sea in these islands.", "Extreme Wave Theory is Kerr’s ongoing research project that explores the connection between art and science.[3] Kerr regularly visits the Shetland Museum to research, and the work pieces together the narrative of Shetland seas and meteorological data, gaining understanding of the interactions of natural elements.")- none of this is neutral.
3. For the reason explained in the first bullet point.

Also, it was disclosed elsewhere (WP:Help Desk I think?) that this article was written by someone from the Cadogan Contemporary Gallery, and has now been edited by the subject herself- that's more than enough reason for a COI tag. Thank you for clarifying the notability though.

I personally feel that you are undervaluing the importance of the COI in this article, and thus it does need a proper cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

little olive oil, as i noted above please look at the links in the connected contributor tags above - they exist to answer questions like yours. the COI is very clearly disclosed at the link. and per my correction, which I made 2 hours before you repeated my error, there is no "Janet Kerr Gallery". Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I noted a possible COI and discuss above but did not discuss the COI tag.

• Kerr does not work for either Gallery. She is represented by the Cadogen Gallery and the RWA galleries.

Where an artist works is not puffery, it is first of all back ground information about the personality, and second may be vital information about what impacts the artist.

• "Divides her time" is a simple statement about living environment and is neutral.
• Citing a review of an artist and her work is simple content.
• This, "Extreme Wave Theory is Kerr’s ongoing research project that explores the connection between art and science.[3] Kerr regularly visits the Shetland Museum to research, and the work pieces together the narrative of Shetland seas and meteorological data, gaining understanding of the interactions of natural elements." is simple statement concerning Kerr's work. It is completely neutral.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

little olive oil, as i noted above please look at the links in the connected contributor tags above - they exist to answer questions like yours. the COI is very clearly disclosed at the link. and per my correction, which I made 2 hours before you repeated my error, there is no "Janet Kerr Gallery". Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You made the correction after I asked for a clarification. Please check the time stamps. You state Kerr is an employee of the gallery. That is not correct. I have already commented on the COI issue. Until we have agreement on accurate information we can't really go much further. I will suggest again COI is meant to protect the articles. . All articles can use cleanups, and COI once identified is fine, but going overboard on the COI issues when an article is pretty neutral, and removing content as non- neutral that is merely information pertinent to understanding an artist is not something I would support.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

Parking until and if sourced accurately

Brian Fallon, the former Chief Critic of the Irish Times proclaimed Kerr to be “the best painter of the sea in these islands.”

60+DEGREES+NORTH+by+BRIAN+FALLON,+2012 I'll try and find the original article

And why exactly did you readd this with an aggressive edit summary, and then remove it straight away? It's clearly just selective quoting- there's probably lots of quotes about her from people, but only the one saying "She's the best" was added. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My edit summary is a simple statement of what happens with collaborative editing. If something is under discussion; one should probably not remove it in the middle of the discussion. Doing so shows a sense of WP:Ownership

Per WP:BLP unsourced content must be removed. I checked the source for this content and while its clear it is sourced I have yet to locate the original source which is preferable, so per BLP I am forced to remove the content until we do have the source.

Until we can find other sources that describe a response to Kerr's work this is the only one we have, and a short quote from that source is acceptable. but so is a summary of the Fallon's article. We don't remove content in case someone somewhere else has made negative comments. Remember this is an artist and its very possible that her work is viewed favourably across the board . So far we don't have anything that says she isn't viewed favourabley. NPOV means we acesss the sources available and add content per WP:WEIGHT and per those sources. Right now we one review that happens to be positive. We can note that. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

Yes I understand the process, which was exactly why I removed it- promotional, and not properly sourced. I'm not trying to own the article, but I'm trying to follow the standard cleanup processes for a COI article, which is to remove unsourced and controversial or promotional content. Never had a problem with other users when I've done this, so not sure why you have such a big issue with such uncontroversial changes. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What you removed was not promotional. Don't confuse positive, acceptable content with promotional content. Promotional content is content that is clearly added to project an unfair view of the topic or subject. To say an artist is the best in a certain area is not unusual. If it really bothers you, I would also think a summary of the review would be fine and maybe better than the quote, but total removal of the review isn't appropriate for the reasons you gave.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janette Kerr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402130742/http://www.citybathcoll.ac.uk/full-time-courses/art-and-design.html to http://www.citybathcoll.ac.uk/full-time-courses/art-and-design.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)