Talk:PINK de Thierry

Dear Ruston2010. We have made corrections on the notability question made by ‎Theroadislong in the first section of the article. So we ::wonder if the whole notability question is now cleared. If so, we would like to hear if there are any other queries of the reviewing ::editors. And we will react a.s.a. we can. Yours sincerely, Donald Donald.louw 16:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

Please could you explain what you mean by "We have made corrections" Wikipedia accounts are strictly for use by individuals and not groups. If you are connected to Pink you may also have a conflict of interest.Theroadislong (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

We installed some interlinks to the article PINK de Thierry and will be keen to install more. So we think that the orphan status can be removed, isn't it?Donald.louw 21:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

I started to classify the article and researched which interwiki links could be developed to escape the orphanage. The NL governmental webpage on PINK de Thierry has installed a link to the Wikipage on PINK. Later today I review the content which we will insert in these articles with one of the authors (of the books we will publish on PINK's oeuvre). As I am a Wiki beginner I am very cautious in adding to someone else his or her article. I am aware that one must avoid (sudden) change of style in an article.

Question: Can I i.e. also upload a photo into another article which illustrates the added text?

Donald.louw 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

17 March 2013

Wikipedia Basic Notability guidelines are:
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." See WP:BASIC

The subject is covered by a range of both online and published sources (books and magazines), which are independent of each other; These sources comply with Wikipedia's variability criteria (they don't have to be available online or even for free, they just have to be available; ease of access is secondary WP:SOURCEACCESS).

The subject also meets the other more specific guidelines, so yes I would agree that it meets notability guidelines.

With regards to Conflict of interests.... Wikipedia says:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

I don't believe you are breaking these rules. You're writing a book about the subject and are using what you know to improve the wikipedia article.
You are not

• advancing outside interests
• using the page for self promotion
• your not being paid to edit
• you are not being paid to advocate anything
• you are not covert advertising
• you are not writing about yourself or people you know personally
• you are not using your own work as citations
• you are not using the page for self-promotion etc. etc. etc.

I can see why you were accused of COI but so long as you are not breaking Wikipedia's rules then it's ok.

I will remind people, however, of Wikipedia's fundamental rule: 'Assume Good Faith

• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Don't bite the newbies

Rushton2010 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I am nominating this article on behalf of User:Donald.louw, who is a relatively new user and was unsure how to do it.
Many Thanks
Rushton2010 (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:PINK de Thierry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one. More in a minute. Thanks to you both for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

While there's a lot of good information here, after a first pass, this article unfortunately appears to still need a great deal of work before meeting the Good Article requirements. For that reason, I'm not listing it at this time.

• In the lead, this article appears to need some citations for words like "ineffable" and "famous" to avoid an appearance of non-neutrality/original research.
• It's confusing that all the artwork titles are in bold; normally the English convention for artwork titles is either quotation marks or italics.
• The giant paragraph in "Early years" should be broken up into medium-size ones per WP:LAYOUT (a GA requirement).
• Bare links in the references should be given fuller citations.
• Per WP:EMBED (a GA requirement), it's probably better to move away from having each section be a list, and put more of the content into prose. Some very basic facts about these works could use more explanation--for example, who are the performers in MWC? Is it a man, woman, and child? or PINK herself?
• Discussion of PINK's artwork by secondary sources is notably absent. Has she received no reviews at all of her exhibitions? Critical responses assessing the quality and importance of these artworks would be a help. Surely her Los Angeles show got some reviews from American press, for example. If she's as famous as the lead claims, it should not be difficult to turn up sources about her.
• Copyediting is perhaps the article's biggest problem. A few issues I see at first glance:
  • Article varies between parenthetical citations and footnote citations for no obvious reason
  • "Early years" and "Formative years" sections waver between past and present tense (should all be past)
  • "and, subsequent, with Peter Brook/Yoshi Oida" -- should be "subsequently"
  • "metaphor of mankinds cultural transference in general" -- should be "mankind's" (or better yet, the gender-neutral "humanity's")
  • " PINK became known with her meta performance art projects, At Home - living 100 days in a painting -, Et in Arcadia Ego Sum - entering Arcadia in Germany - and Checkpoint to Dutch Arcadia - commanding the Royal Dutch Army to build this artwork -." -- I'm not sure I understand the punctuation of this sentence-- are the phrases in dashes subtitles? Why are the dashes being combined with other punctuation, like commas and periods?

Thanks for the work that's gone into this one so far--I hope you'll see this list not as discouragement, but rather as encouragement to keep improving it! Best of luck in revising and renominating, and keep up the good work, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've made a start on cleaning up this article, I have to say I'm VERY surprised it was nominated for GA status.

I've been looking for reliable third party mentions in the news [1] but they just don't seem to exist. The article appears to have been translated or created by someone with English as a second language which doesn't help it's readability. I've removed a couple of captions because they simply didn't make sense, it needs a LOT more work though.Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Meeting the GA criteria

To meet the GA criteria will take some time but it will be good sports to match the scope of the article with GA requirements. Donald.louw 08:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

Elucidation on meeting the GA criteria My criteria for the article are: (1) to give - in short! - a factual overview of the artist which is focused on her works. (2) since the book on Mass Moving (Leclercq, Labor 2004) and the film on MM (Francoise Levie, Memento Productions 2007) the early period (1963-1971) can be treated as a BIOGRAPHY. (3) About the works after 1980 books are being prepared to be published in the near future, so a factual record is preferred as LIST . (4) I started to add notes and critics by independent sources in the footnotes, some more will see light in the article in the coming weeks. (5) User:Khazar2 questioned the use of 'mankind' vis a vis 'humanity'. I prefer 'mankind' for it feels more substantial, mankind as one of the species on our earth. Substance is very important to artists. Cc User:Rushton2010:: So far, Donald.louw 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

Good article nomination

I renominate this article for Good Article status. Donald.louw 20:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:PINK de Thierry/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The article seems pretty in-depth about the topic. However, many of the issues in Talk:PINK de Thierry/GA1 have mostly not been fixed, most notably the references. I will look at it later and see if the issues have been resolved. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 16:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I really believe that I'll need a second opinion on this. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 16:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside opinion: Of the issues brought up at the first GA review, issues 1-4 have been fully resolved. Issue 6, about notable independent sources, has been largely fixed; the article now references multiple independent reviews of the artist's work. Issue 7 (regarding copyediting) has been partly resolved, though there are still many copy-editing problems. Issue 5 (WP:EMBED) has clearly not been resolved.

If it were me, I would fail this nomination, while still congratulating the nominator on the progress the article has made in the past several months. I would recommend that the nominator request a peer review (following the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review) or request a copy-edit (following the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests). All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Quadell: I've failed the article due to the points that you have brought up. Obviously, this article needs a lot more work in order to be a Good Article. However, the nomination has been improved compared to the first GA Review. Epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Support for tagging files

Please can I have assistance from an editor who knows all in the jungle of appropriate licences for diverse uploaded files? Donald.louw 15:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

== Repeated request for support in tagging files, see before ==Donald.louw 10:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Repeated request (3rd time) for help in properly licensing uploaded files

The differences in licenses available aren't very clear to me. So I look for an editor who is specialized in file licensing. I dispose over the precise restrictions of each of the uploaded files. This is the third request I ask for. So you may understand I am not very pleased that the help forces seem to be overthrown by the control forces within Wiki. To make my stand clear I will undo the recent changes made by Wiki editors.Donald.louw 07:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs) To undo the recent changes by a Wiki editor doesn't work in restoring the file. I want a decent solution to my repeated question!Donald.louw 07:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs)

There seems to be a language difficulty here, for example "I dispose over the precise restrictions of each of the uploaded files." makes no sense to me? Do you own the copyright of the photographs in question? Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You must also understand that we are all volunteers here and yours is a single purpose account. Have you tried asking at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Theroadislong (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)