Talk:Thomas Darnell (artist)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

COI & Refs

Quoting User:Oshwah: "The Master doesn't have any close or personal motivations or ties with the subject, COI isn't violated." That being the case, it seems the problem is whether what has been written accurately reflects the sources and whether or not it is neutral. It would seem the best course of action would be to go through the references and compare to the current content of the article. Since there are a number of vested parties, dividing and conquering seems appropriate. I'm willing to take a look at refs 4, 5, & 18 since I know a little French. If @The Master: documents specifically which news paper clippings he got from the artist, that would greatly help double checking them. 35.1.160.134 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is potentially a new reference: http://www.lindependant.fr/2017/09/20/petite-caminade-pour-le-patrimoine-local,3053366.php 35.1.160.134 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "French newspaper L'Indépendant describes his work as being influenced by modern painters Gerhard Richter and Ross Bleckner, but also by Caravaggio and Rembrandt.[5]" accurately reflects what the source says; it a decent translation of it. 35.1.160.134 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The place where ref 4 is used is also accurate to the source. 35.1.160.134 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link for ref 18 is broke. Here is a working one: http://www.lindependant.fr/2015/12/08/la-remise-du-fada,2125635.php Again, it is accurate. 35.1.160.134 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 appears fine as well. I cannot find an online version of 7 or 8. The magazine cited in ref 8 exists, but the digital content only dates to 2016. Plus "The Haute Couture" seems to be a regular column; so, might be tad hard to pin down the exact article TD is mentioned in if the column is published more than once per year.
  • All in all, it appears this article is in need of improvement, but it does reliably reflect the resources. I highly doubt there are COI or neutrality issues. Then again, I only looked through a portion of the refs. 35.1.160.134 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be scant information about this fellow from reliable secondary sources. Here are a few refs for the community to sort out whether or not they should replace some of the contested sources in the current version of the article.
Welp, I've poked around as much as I care to. Hope this helps settle things. Maybe someone with public library access in Austin TX can check the statesman refs. 35.1.160.134 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the PDFs of the offline sources anymore, but here is a link to the AboutUS Magazine piece [1]. And a link to the ppaper piece (cover only) [2]. The Austin-American Statesman stuff is available on newspapers.com, but I can't upload the copyrighted clipping per their TOS. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 20:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Master: (sorry if the ping is not needed) Hmmm, a bit of the challenge then! I have university library acess; I will poke around to see if I can dig up copies of the offline things through interlibrary loan, etc. Thanks! Sudden Someone (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huge props and a big thanks to you both for setting frustration aside and working together here. Doing what you two are doing right now is something that experienced editors and even admins have failed to accomplish at times - I want you to know that it's huge, and it's highly appreciated. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No probs! Sudden Someone (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's really great that someone turned up so suddenly to conduct a through and helpful check of the references. However as detailed at ANI the proper tag is COI, for the connectedness of the contributors. I restored that tag, which had been place by myself and another editor. User:The Master should stay out of the discussion as they are the one who declared a connection to the article subject in the first place.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only voice I see saying the COI tag is proper at ANI is yours. 35.1.160.134 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked The Master to chime in. So responding was appropriate. 35.1.160.134 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the COI tag is the proper one. I placed it, as did User:ScrapIronIV. The user John from Idegon at the ANI seems to agree with my interpretation when he says "I agree completely with the IP" or somethigng like that. This is really basic stuff, not personal at all. We place tags when there appears to be a problem, as there is here. We remove them when the problem has been resolved. So it should be left, in order that we can do an orderly examination of the article.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Won't bother arguing, but I will remove the tag I placed as two seem redundant. Btw, account created (name inspired by your comment "someone turned up so suddenly" ) because while you have a stable IP address, I'm editing from a public place & so do not. Be much easier to keep track of what I do here. Sudden Someone (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, apparently I can't even remove the tag I placed! Sudden Someone (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

It appears the COI tag will stay for now. So, how do we go about improving the article such that it is not needed? I'm going to attempt to dig around for additional sources and try to access the sources given to The Master. As the people who placed the tag, I'm going to ask @104.163.147.121, John from Idegon, and ScrapIronIV: what the specific content/wording that is problematic so I can better focus my energies on resolving this. Also going to ask them to keep watch of progress so we can agree on when it is right to remove it. Sudden Someone (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some editing and cleanup. However more things have come up. The article image was provided by the article subject and his wife, via email, and uploaded by The Master. There are still unanswered questions here about COI.104.163.147.121 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. And O.o yeah that image complicates things. Sudden Someone (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I remove COI tags from an article if there is no obvious promotional or non-neutral text left, regardless of how much COI the editor had. It's not meant to be a permanent "badge of shame". However, there is a more subtle way that the text can be non-neutral, i.e., claims which are not really verified by the references or have been exaggerated from what the texts can actually verify. For example, I just changed "Throughout the 1990s, Darnell exhibited in New York City in SoHo and Tribeca" to "In 1993–1994, Darnell exhibited in New York City's SoHo at the Foster Peet Gallery." The two references were for one exhibition in a SoHo gallery that ran from December 1993 to January 1994.
The article needs to be checked for more instances of this, especially use of the word "featured" in various magazines, when actually he wasn't. Scans of all the magazines mentioned are available on Darnell's website here. An example is Brigitte. It's an article about interiors and happens to show one with what I presume is one of his paintings on the wall, but doesn't mention him at all. Likewise Tatler. Others like Atlanta Homes do credit him for the painting on the wall of a living room in a house they were writing about, but that appears to be the sole mention. That doesn't constitute a magazine "featuring his work". All the claims in the first paragraph of the "Career" section need to be cross-checked with the magazine scans on Darnell's web site. Some of them do seem to write about about him or his work, although they seem to be the less famous ones. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch and thanks for pointing toward the scans on his webpage. Saves me the trouble of looking for such scans! I'll try to give a better look over some of the other refs this weekend.
  • Fixing the text I'm not too worried about since, as what you did above, one just needs the sources. I am a bit worried about the photo and whether or not it is COI and whether or not it has to go. Sudden Someone (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason whatsoever for that photo to go. It's quite commonplace for people to ask article subjects if they have a photo they could release. The artist is notable. If he's worthy of an article, then the article is worthy of an image of the subject. A picture can't have COI, only an editor. There is no reason to damage this article simply because its creator has been in communication with the subject. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@104.163.147.121, John from Idegon, ScrapIronIV, Voceditenore, and Theredproject: I've gone through the sources the best that I can and made some changes to the article. Is the clean-up sufficient to remove the tag? Sudden Someone (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fine with removing the COI flag. --Theredproject (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favour of removing both of the remaining tags. I have edited the article today for coherence, added a bit more detail, and provided the link to the rather lengthy feature on him in AboutUs. I also removed "His work has been featured in the Taiwanese design magazine ppapaer." From the scan on Darnell's site, this does not appear to be a "feature", plus this is hardly a sufficiently notable magazine to merit its inclusion. Voceditenore (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
:) Sudden Someone (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Darnell_(artist)"