User talk:Severy

In order to assist you, I need more information; see my response to your question at EA. Adrian M. H. 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this discussion is about Severy's effort to create an article on Jann Haworth. I can't find any evidence in the deletion logs that there ever was an article named Jann Haworth or JANN HAWORTH. EdJohnston 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed, and I couldn't find anything either. He replied at my talk page, but still wasn't very forthcoming. Adrian M. H. 00:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your protocols and procedures are extremely confusing. I followed the procedure for submitting an article on the international artist Jann Haworth, which clearly established her notability and cited references to her work in 6 verifiable sources in published books of art history. I pointed out that there are 12 references to her in existing Wikipedia articles and that she was, inter alia, the co-designer of the Beatles Sgt Pepper record cover for which she received a Grammy. Since the article was instantly deleted when I first submitted it on 17th September i attempted to propose it as a requested article on 7th October. However all I have received is a comment by Ed Johnston who apparently can find no reference to the deletion. May I please have some substantive guidance on this.Severy 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, let's start by asking once more for the exact title that you used. I asked you this at EA, then again on my talk page, and still I had no proper answer from you. Which naturally makes me less inclined to help you. As I stated on my talk page, I looked in the deletion log for Jann Haworth and found no matches; so what case and/or spelling did you actually use?

Secondly, since I am not an admin, I won't be able to view the deleted content (assuming that I even get the correct title anyway) so you would be helping me to help you by listing your sources here. Full details please, but keep it pithy. Whether online or in print, it does not matter as long as they are both reliable and independent of the subject herself. And for notability's sake, they must provide a non-trivial treatment of the subject, OK? An article about the Sgt, Pepper cover that mentions her name will not cut the mustard for notability, only for verifiability. I hope that some of the last few weeks have been spent reading some of these key guidelines and policies. They are neither complex nor confusing; most of them can be (and indeed are) summed up in one sentence. Adrian M. H. 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, sorry you are annoyed, and thank you for clarifying the problem. I did not realise that the title was case sensitive. It would have been nice to have been told that. The title I submitted was Jann haworth with a lower case h on the last name. I hope you can now locate it on the deletion log. But I don't understand why you can't view the proposed article. I thought you had a system whereby a prospective article could be viewed by editors and assessed according to your criteria. I will send the sources ASAP.Severy 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, am not an admin; therefore, I cannot access deleted articles. Admins can; regular editors cannot. The WP logs and search system have to be case sensitive so that we can differentiate between redirects, errors, and correct titles. It works purely from a database. The log shows that it was speedied for failing to assert notability, which is step one on the notability ladder, so to speak. You have to assert notability and you have to prove it. Articles that do neither can be speedied. Apart from suggestions from anonymous editors at WP:AFC, the only other location of that nature is the drawing board. Registered editors are generally expected to have done a bit of reading first and to have picked up the basics in terms of inclusion thresholds. Most editors create articles off-line or in sub-pages of user space. Adrian M. H. 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. My original article did assert notability. However I will, as requested, repeat the sources which I cited. References to Jann Haworth in Books: Image as Language by Christopher Finch, 1969, Pelican Books. London, England. Goodbye Baby and Amen by David Bailey and Peter Evans, 1969, Coward-McCann Inc. New York. p 44 Pop Art Re-defined by J Russell, S Gablick, L Alloway, J McHale and R Rosenblum, 1969. Art in Britain 1969/70 by Edward Lucie-Smith and Patricia White, 1970, J M Dent, London, England Pop Art; An Illustrated Dictionary by Jose Pierre, 1977, Eyre Methuen, London, England. The Brotherhood of Ruralists by Nicholas Usherwood, 1981, Lund Humphries, London, England. pp 42, 49/50 and 65. Pop Art by Tilman Osterwold, 1989, Cosmo Press, Cologne, Germany. p 42. Pop Art: A Continuing History, by Marco Livingstone, 1990, Thames and Hudson, London, England. pp 166, 168/9, 257/8, 236-238. Blinds and Shutters by Bryan Roylance, 1990, Genesis, Guildford, England. pp 53, 55, 58, 114, 188, 238/9, 262/3 and 267. Walker Art Center - Painting and Sculpture from the Collection by Martin L Friedman, 1990, Rizzoli International Publications. Summer of Love by George Martin, 1994, Macmillan, London, England.

She is referenced, inter alia, in the following Exhibition catalogues which are available on line: Sharp Focus Realism, Sidney Janis Gallery, New York, 1972, p 13 Pop 60's, Transatlantic Crossing, 1997, Centro Cultural de Belem, Portugal, pp156/7 Pop Art UK 1956-72, Modena, Italy, 2004, essay by Robert Melville, text pp 102 and 179, ill. pp103 and 105. Art and the Sixties: This was Tomorrow, Tate Britain, 2004 pp 13, 25, 137 and fig 24. British Pop, Museo de Bellas Artes, Bilbao, Spain, 2005, text pp 422, 466, images pp163, 167and 171. Artist's Cut: Jann Haworth, Mayor Gallery, London, England, 2006, essays by art historians Christopher Finch and Marco Livingstone.

She is also referenced in numerous magazine, newspaper and journal articles, details of which can be supplied if it is thought necessary. And as I said before, there are references to her work in 12 Wikipedia articles. I trust this will suffice to establish her notability.

Most of that looks very promising, actually. Assuming that the coverage is indeed non-trivial in terms of focusing on Haworth and her work. Presumably, most of these books write about her in much the same way as a book about Der Blau Reiter would write about Paul Klee, his life and his work? If so, that makes good sourcing and demonstrates notability. Any links and mentions in WP articles, however, are irrelevant, as I probably mentioned before. That's because we do not judge notability by that criterion (if we did, every no-hope indie metal band or unpublished author would insert their name into related articles and claim notability. It's hard enough to fend off that kind article!) and the other reason is that WP must never act in a self-referencing way. But your sources look promising, certainly. The important thing is to make best use of them, which requires properly formed footnotes that demonstrate exactly which source supports each statement.

If your original article genuinely succeeded in asserting a good degree of notability (guesswork from my viewpoint, of course) then the editors who nominated it for Speedy Deletion and subsequently deleted it may have been better to opt for proposed deletion or take it to Articles for Deletion. That's not to accuse anyone of not following the guidelines, though, because I am not in a position to know either way and I always try to assume good faith of all admins. Sometimes, admins will go ahead and delete obvious CSD candidates if they stumble across them without waiting for a nomination, which is integral to effective recent changes patrolling and is permitted, but does halve the number of editors whose judgment has been applied to an article. Sometimes, marginal articles fall into CSD; I'm sure I must have nominated a few marginal ones over time.

You have, as I see it, three options. You could contact SchuminWeb and ask him if he would be willing to retrieve a copy of the deleted article and either e-mail it to you or post it into a sub-page of your user space (call it User:Severy/Sandbox or something like that). Tell him that you have the necessary sources available now and you want to see if you can bring the article up to a good standard. If you get nothing out of that, take a look at Deletion Review and consider that avenue. Lastly, there is the (normally) least favoured option, which is two just go ahead and write the article again, trying to improve it. I say "normally" because uploading previously deleted content is a good way to see it lost to CSD again (there is a criterion on the CSD page that mentions this). Anyway, I hope that all helps. Adrian M. H. 23:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for those suggestions. Much appreciated. I'll try SchuminWeb first. Is that an admin person?Severy 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is one of many administrators, or editors with extra tools as they are often known. The process through which they are selected (RFA) means that they have been deemed to be trustworthy and experienced, though they are otherwise no different to any other editor. Adrian M. H. 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your help. I'll let you know how I get on.Severy 18:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and put the article back as was in the main namespace and then made some fixes, though I'll be the first to say that it needs a lot of work. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for re-instating the article. Very much appreciated. I've been through it adding page numbers and sources, but I wasn't sure how to footnote. I've just put the sources in parentheses after the relevant statement in the text. The quotes from art historians Chris Finch and Marco Livingstone are with their consent from articles specifically written about the artist and available in her Catalogue. I'd appreciate any further advice you can give about the article. Severy 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist, so I will make some contributions to it when I get the time. I can look at sorting out the refs as well. For instructions for footnotes, see WP:FN. Use the layout examples at the templates page to guide you. The templates themselves are entirely optional and tend to involve a bit more typing than forming the refs yourself. I don't tend to use them. Adrian M. H. 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'd like to put some images of her work on the page. How is that done and can you suggest how many would be appropriate. Severy 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images – or rather, the copyright requirements – need a bit of care. Uploading images gives instructions on the procedure. Image copyright tags describes the tags that you need to use. You will also need to read Image use policy and probably Non-free content as well. If the images can be freely licensed and might be of some use to other projects, consider uploading them to Commons instead. If they are fair use, look carefully at the non-free content policy first. Any images that are incorrectly licensed, tagged, sourced, or in some way missing crucial information will get deleted. Image use and licensing is one of the more complex areas of WP, so take your time and feel free to ask any questions about it at either the Help Desk or Media copyright questions. Adrian M. H. 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Adrian (if I may make so bold as to call you that). I'll make sure the images conform to your guidelines.Severy 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to; most people use just my first name and I prefer it. Good luck with your uploading. Adrian M. H. 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian. I managed to upload an image and will put more up. I was wondering whether the statement at the top of the page that the article needs editing for grammar etc could be removed. I am a professor of English and have published 9 books, so it is a little insulting to suggest that my text needs editing for grammar! Also could you advise me on whether it would be improper to create links to Jann Haworth's galleries in London and Paris?70.56.100.172 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sort of thing usually makes a good external link. Don't take too much notice of the wording that some of the maintenance tags use; some of it is not always entirely accurate or applicable, but is designed to be quite generic. Tags are chosen to indicate at least the general essence of the shortcoming in question, but the finite range of tags available are not always 100% appropriate and the nearest match may be used. Those tags were added by voyagerfan5761, so you could ask him what he thinks needs to be done to improve the article. The tone of the prose may be the thing that prompted that particular tag. I think that the third tag is actually the most relevant, since the article does not currently meet MOS guidelines. More references would be welcome, certainly, but I recommend that you concentrate on the cleanup first of all and then it will be easier to work out precisely which statements need citations. This is about things like structural layout, order of facts, visual style, prose style, and so on. Adrian M. H. 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adrian. Very helpful. How do I contact voyagerfan5761? I'm still puzzled about the deficiencies. The article gives the bio facts in chronological order and I think the tone is impartial. I based the style on similar articles about artists in Wikipedia. 71.36.75.237 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave a message on his talk page. The above link goes to his user page, then click on the discussion tab. Adrian M. H. 17:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian. I have created sections for the article as suggested. Would it be possible to remove that tag now?Severy (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Thankyou for removing the 'sections' tag. I have also added the citation where indicated so could you please remove the 'needs citation' tag also. Many thanks. Sorry, forgot to sign.Severy (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Hi Adrian. Could I presume upon your no doubt busy schedule to ask a couple of questions. I noticed that the Sgt Pepper entry refers to Jann Haworth as the co-designer but her name is not high-lighted to indicate that there is an article on her. Could you do that or let me know how to do it? Also the tag about possible conflict of interest put on by voyagerfan5761 is still there. He said it could be removed after a while if nobody objects to the content of the page, which as far as I know they haven't. Is it possible for you to remove it? I have added more citations so wonder whether the citation tag could also be removed?Severy (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Old_Lady_1962.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]