This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article was accepted on 18 January 2015 by reviewer LaMona (talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Hi there, I'm a new Wikipedia editor and this article came up in my newcomer feed. I'm a professional writer and editor, and have a special knowledge of photography, so I was thinking of taking on this article from an comprehensive copy editing standpoint. I can see all the problems with it that you point out--it's obviously a vanity page, but on the other hand, the guy may pass the "notability" test for his work with Texas Monthly, which is a prominent magazine. He has some references to prove that. What I would do is a major (and I do mean major) restructuring of the information that is there, make it non-promotional and non-autobiographical. I don't know if that is appropriate for Wikipedia editors at my level, but I know I could do it and make this much more Wikipedia-friendly, while also respecting the subject's accomplishments. He might not like it, because there are some things that would need to be deleted, such as descriptions of his more commercial work that has no chance of being cited/referenced, in spite of its interestingness, but at least he'd have a non-BS article in Wikipedia. Otherwise this is an article that really doesn't belong on the site. If he is editing it himself, can he not be sent a message that he should work on the citations and references or it will be deleted? I don't know if this kind of thing is done, being a Wikipedia editor newbie. All the best, JGJGlennny (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! As a new user, you're expected to enhance these articles on Wikipedia to ensure they adhere to Wikipedia's core principles. This is a great opportunity to contribute to a vast community of knowledge, refine your research and writing skills, and make a lasting impact by providing accurate and well-sourced information for readers worldwide. ProfilePerfectionist (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcoming message. However, it appears to be a generic auto-reply, rather than specifically responding to my previous message. Still looking for a response regarding whether I should take on this article like the lost puppy that it is. Thanks, JGJGlennny (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JGlennny, hope you're well. I'm a newbie too. So my newbie advice would be to first check if it passes the threshold for WP:GNG. If you believe it does, then go ahead and start writing it. If you read the small text at the end of my original post, my research suggests that it doesn't meet the threshold (as my research returned self-published or hyper-local news coverage). As such, I plan to put this article up for AfD. I already have one running and I don't like the idea me running multiple at a time, as this might come across as over-working the community. Svampesky (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, sorry to take so long to respond. Life intervenes... Anyway, the only reason I think this guy has a chance to be "notable" is because he claims to have been a regular contributor to Texas Monthly magazine, which is surely a notable magazine. Its name notwithstanding, it's not a local yokel rag, it's a national magazine that has won many awards. When I have time, I will try to do a little research and see whether this claim can be substantiated. If not, then I think it indeed falls into the articles for deletion category, although it is hardly the worst offender in Wikipedia, but as I understand, this purging of articles such as this has become a priority for Wikipedia. I'll let you know how I progress. Best, JGJGlennny (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(new username) No need to apologise. Have you read-up on the policy and essays? They've been of great help to me, Wikipedia is a WP:CHOICE. Life does indeed intervene. I plan to spend a couple of hours on some days in a library (when I've got a few things sorted) to work on Wikipedia, as I have the feeling it will take over because the project looks enjoyable to work on. Also I'd highly recommend contacting some admins through EmailUser for a few queries (don't spam them!). They'll give you the real advice on how things work, which may not be reflected in the letter of policy. I think having a good understanding will avoid a lot of issues for editors, which is why I've prioritised it.
Thought I'd add one more thing, have a read of WP:CANVASS if you haven't already. I'm not too sure about the extent of it... yet. If I've said I'd vote delete and you reply that you'd also delete, I don't think it would violate the policy. I think it only applies if someone runs a deletion then notifies people based on their expressed opinion. So if you run the deletion, don't notify me as I've expressed how I would vote. Svampesky (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Svampesky, Thanks for your note. I read the Wikipedia policy notices that you linked to, thank you. However, I must say, while I appreciate the necessity of things like that, they are very general and are hard to apply in specific cases (read: not all that helpful, tbh). This, I assume, is the reason for the reliance on consensus, which seems like a good way to resolve things in their specificities. The purpose of my previous post was to let BlueSharkLagoon know that I'm still thinking about this article and do intend to do some work on it. I'm not experienced enough to mark any article for deletion at this point. I'm a great copy editor and general editor, if I do say so myself, and I thought by doing some Wikipedia work, I could keep my pencil sharp and have some fun, since I like doing it. I rather resent Wikipedia's relegation of copy editing to the "easy" category. It's only easy if you can do it, and most people really can't with any degree of style, let alone élan and good judgment. I'm not a trained researcher, and that is really boring and hard to me, so I will probably stay with copy editing. But I saw this photographer and had some pity on his miserable little article, so I thought I would re-do it if I can establish his notability, as described above. I cannot follow the last paragraph of your note, but don't worry about it--it looks like it's way above my pay grade, if you will. Best regards, JGJGlennny (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am BlueSharkLagoon... well I was. I changed my username. It was just three random words and I didn't like it.
Have a read of the guideline 'WP:DONTBITE the newcomers'. It was sent to me and was a massive relief. Whilst we're still new, we don't have to worry about making little mistakes here and there. I was worried that I was missing some policy with every single thing I did. If we miss a policy but it's clear we acted in good faith, other editors will (hopefully) politely tell us the policy we should have followed.
If you don't want to copyedit, come join us over at the Orphanage. Click the button at the top and it will send you to a random page that has no incoming links. All you have to do find another article to link to it (and then remove the 'orphan' template from the original article when done). Svampesky (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I read the DontBite thing and it was reassuring, and pretty much what I was thinking the situation is. I've been a Wikipedia user and financial contributor for a very long time and it's fun to be on the other side of the curtain. I'll check out the Orphanage. I was saying that I do like copy editing, just that I find that it being valued as "easy" is short-sighted and just wrong. I mean, spelling, punctuation, and basic grammar are relatively easy, but correcting for "encyclopedia-style tone" is neither easy nor intuitive. But this kind of editing is more than just "copy editing," it is general editing for style, structure, and usage, as well as encyclopedic tone. In most of the "copy edit easy" tasks I've done, I work on the beginning of the article, like one does with a newspaper inverted pyramid-style: you have to get the lead right and that is a relatively rare talent, I've found in my professional life, hence my side-eyed view of calling this kind of editing "easy." That's all. I'll still do it.
And I'll still eventually get around to seeing whether James H. Evans is sufficiently notable. Thanks and best regards, JGJGlennny (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JGlennny and Svampesky, I wanted to ping you let let you know that the article has been cleaned up to Wikipedia standards. I think your instincts were correct: this was a promotional article on a questionably notable artist. It really was a toss-up of whether this article on a living person should be nominated for deletion. We established notability and then removed the fluff. I invite you to check out the difference here. I hope this encourages you to continue questioning and cleaning up fluff. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WomenArtistUpdates, Thanks for this. As a newcomer, I didn't know whether cutting something this drastically (which it no doubt needed) was within my remit, so I let it go. I appreciate the example, because I had put some thought about how I would edit out the puffery and kept coming up with something like what you've done, although probably less sharply cut due to my newbie timidity. I agree that this guy's notability is still rather an open question, and this edit puts this question in even sharper relief. I'm sure his page is old, so maybe he's more notable now and will take notice of the edit and update things. All the best. JG JGlennnyJGlennny (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
