Talk:Ways of Seeing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

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

This article is written in part in the first-person. See [1]Waldon 20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article: put it in 3rd person and cited references. It's still a stub. Can I get rid of the "tagged" box, or do I need to notify an administrator about that? Thanks!--Susiebowers 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag. If I have made a mistake by doing that, please let me know!--Susiebowers 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the chronology wrong: didn't the tv series come first?Notjim 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the TV series came first. The book came later. Incidentally the TV series had a massive impact, which is diminished by the sole and rather mean-minded quote in the article, which is so unrepresentative of the generally positive tone of the critical reception of the programme that I have removed it. Unfortunately the only source I have which testifies to the TV series' positive influence on people such as Marina Warner, Geoff Dyer and Michael Ondaatje is a 1991 TV documentary about Berger by Mike Dibb which I have on videotape, and which I therefore can't use as a source. This is nevertheless a pathetic article for such a massively influential show. A great deal more thought and work needs to be put into this. Lexo 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I have did a little tidying on this (Михал Орела 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Class assignment[edit]

I have no idea what, specifically, the class assignment was in regard to this article, but it's clear that the instructor who assigned it has been misled by the general tagline "The encyclopedia anyone can edit", and has very little idea of what, exactly, is an acceptable edit to this encyclopedia. In this respect, he or she is doing a disservice to their students, because their edits have not been within Wikipedia policy, and have been reverted by a number of editors.

The very most basic concerns are:

Verifiability - any editor should be able to verify the information in the encyclopedia, and they need to be able to do this through
Citations from reliable sources - we need to be able to go to a reliable source to verify the information, this precludes
what is called here "original research", which means personal analysis or interpretation which is not supported by a reliable source.

It does nobody any good to simply tell one's students to "go edit Wikipedia", any more than it would do them any good to tell them to "go publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal." In both cases there are standards to be met, and requirements to fulfill, and it is the instructor's job to inform the students as to what those standards and requirements are. By allowing them to edit willy-nilly, the teacher oin this case has abrogated their responsibility, and needs to take upon themselves the task of bringing their students up to speed, since none of their edits will be accepted here if they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. I hope that's a clear explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Robert Hughes criticised this books fairly comprehensively. I am sure others have too. There should be acknowledgement of this in the text.

Original research ?[edit]

An I justified in saying that the entire article appears to be original research, and therefore should be disallowed ? Not a single one of the assertions made is referred to previously published material. Correct me if I am wrong. G4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.58.212 (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]