Talk:Edith Diehl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Thanks you for creating the article about Edith Diehl, and thank you for taking the time to include references and citations. There are a couple of places where the article could be improved:

  • It is not necessary to quote Edith about a plain fact such as the length of her study; a regular citation would be more appropriate. A quote from her about the science of bookbinding might be more appropriate.
  • One of the things that makes Diehl notable is her published book. A reference to its notability would be in order; for instance a review, or evidence of successful sales. (try www.worldcat.org)
  • The section near the end about Diehl's papers: It isn't clear what kind of papers these are. Are they samples of her work? Articles she has written? Letters?
  • Blog postings are not considered reliable references because no editor oversees the content.

That's all for now! Good luck with your editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Diehl edits[edit]

Hello Anne,

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions, they are all great prompts for expansion. I am curious about these points you make:

  • It is not necessary to quote Edith about a plain fact such as the length of her study; a regular citation would be more appropriate. A quote from her about the science of bookbinding might be more appropriate.

- I thought providing the quote from an primary source (a published interview, cited) that quantifies her studies in her early career would show a long path. Otherwise how do we know her knowledge as put forth in the book toward the end of her career is valid? Because she was published and edited?

  • Blog postings are not considered reliable references because no editor oversees the content.

Even if the blog is by a trusted expert in the field who references primary sources when explaining usage of an obscure tool, describing its provenance and how it was used by that person? ED's tools (a way by which one can trace the work or lineage of a bookbinder and their students/workshop) are otherwise uncatalogued by public/museum sources, just by this informal reference until others may appear. I agree that a peer-reviewed or a library/museum reference would supercede, but its all that's out there for now. Would this be better placed under External Links, not References? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nora Lockshin (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Nora Lockshin (don't forget to sign your posts, Nora):
About the quote: Facts about the person subject of an article should be supported by independent sources. Here's an example: If Mohammad Ali said in an interview, "I am the greatest!", this would not be real evidence that he was the greatest boxer that ever lived; it would only be evidence that he said he was the greatest. So, it's not wrong to put in the quote, because she really said it, but just saying "Diehl studied for five years" and adding an independent reference is more encyclopedic. On the other hand, the other quote about her love for books is more interesting and helps characterize her career.
About the blog: I have been through this conversation with senior Wikipedia editors. Anybody can make a blog, so in general they are not reliable sources. If your expert had published a book instead of a blog, an editor would have checked all the information for accuracy. However, your point about the blogger being an expert in the field is a good one, so here's my suggestion: find and include an independent source declaring the blogger to be an expert in the field, and then word the article, "Jeff Peachey, recognized expert in the field of bookbinding (or whatever), <add reference to his expertise here> writes the following ..............". That will be absolutely true and obviously backed up by the blog because he did write it. Does this make sense? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Delong, that indeed makes good sense! I see how that blog ref is kind of just hanging out there now. Like: "hey, this dude said this". Just because I know his expertise and find his view on the subject helpful, doesn't substantiate it as such. I have to step out of my own head more. Thank you for clarifying!noranoodle (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edith Diehl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edith_Diehl&oldid=1196423506"