User talk:Zipity11/Sandbox

Hello Zipity11, In general it looks great. I have some points, and will add more.

First one: the intro is too short, see the Manual of Style (biographies). You have to add something on Sally's significance. Random example: Cindy Sherman. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this? Zipity11 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does the trick. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really good! Another detail: use of capitals. E.g. section headings and "General Practitioner". More to follow. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up okay? Zipity11 (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Regarding "Later career":

"Mann’s fifth book ..." very long sentence. Split at ";"'s into new sentences (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th)?

"...includes 65 black and white images, includes landscapes..." 2x includes. Crowsnest (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Early life and education":

"... indeed his 5x7 camera is the basis of her use of large format cameras today." Especially the "indeed" makes it somehow sound as written by someone very close to her. Perhaps it is better to re-phrase this somehow. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikilink to Washington and Lee University. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Later career":

"In the mid 1990’s, Mann began photographing landscapes again using the same 100-year old 8 x 10 bellows view camera that she had used for all the previous bodies of work, but also wet plate collodion 8x10 glass negatives as well [see below]."

does not run smoothly, also quite long. Suggestion:

"In the mid 1990’s, Mann began photographing landscapes on wet plate collodion 8x10 glass negatives [see below], and again using the same 100-year old 8 x 10 bellows view camera that she had used for all the previous bodies of work."

and remove the (then) second wikilink to collodion.

"Personal life: I would leave the "425-acre" out. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Collections":

Aperture journals -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh…You agree with my wife about that long sentence. It is now five short sentences.

The "includes" and "indeed" issues have been corrected. See what you think about them.

I did not wikilink Washington and Lee in "early career" since I had wikilinked it in the preceding "early life" paragraph. Should I be wikilinking something every time it's mentioned, i.e. Corcoran Museum?

That awkward sentence in "later career" has been made clearer by your correction. Do you work as an editor in real life. Somehow, I thought you were a physicist.

The size of her farm has been deleted.

And the reference has been wikilinked and decapitalized.

Zipity11 (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not to much wikilinking for readability, I think. Leave it as it was, so not a 2nd link to Washington and Lee.

Yes, I am a physical oceanographer, but I also have to write for my work. And on Wikipedia I also learned a bit.

How to proceed further? When you are ready for it, I can implement the changes, on your behalf (will say so in the edit summary). You are of course aware that, while this sandbox can easily be atomized without leaving traces, once you put it in the article it is public domain. Others will edit on it (which edits must be verifiable; in which respect you, as an expert, have done an impressive job). -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue with it, and possible. I have made the changes already. I believe I can just cut and paste from the sandbox to the page.

I just realized, does this mean that you lose some editing credit in the wiki world? Do you want me to put it up in the original form, and let you edit it?

I am aware that others may edit it. It felt to me the best way to prevent inaccurate or inappropriate edits was to have an unassailable and accurate entry. Hence all the research.

It has been a lot of fun. I will be moving on to some other entry. Thank you for your kind comments. Maybe we will meet on my next page.

Zipity11 (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion with me now as well.

On second thought, please implement the changes yourself (by a copy and paste). I think this is neutral and very well cited. If there are complaints (which I do not expect), I will back you up. And in that case you can also refer to this discussion on the sandbox talk page. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it up, and references your oversight in the 'edit summary.' Thanks again.Zipity11 (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]