Talk:Julian Hatton

Created article Jan 2, 2009

Needs picture of the artist; if anybody has a photo of the artist or the artwork to upload, please write a message here on this talk page and I'll help get the pictures uploaded. What's neat about this artist is that the landscapes sometimes look edible (my POV) but of course the critics say it a lot better. Category = abstract landscape painter. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

too promotional

This article reads like an advertisement. It unceasingly promotes the work. Just because a critic said something is no reason to quote it at length. There is too much name dropping. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel it's "too promotional" but it's not what I'm saying but critics. They're the ones who get quoted, not me; they're pros whose business it is to evaluate art, to say what they think; if critics goof up, they get fired. I'm not an art critic; I'm a Wikipedia volunteer. I go by what the critics say, not what I think. If critics say art X is lackluster, I'll put that in, but in this case, they didn't say it. It's not my fault if critics happen to like a particular artist. If you don't want me quoting critics, who am I to quote? Am I to make stuff up? Sorry, that's against Wikipedia's rules of WP:VERIFY. And, about the so-called "name dropping" -- again, not my doing, but again critics in published sources comparing the artist to other artists. Artist X is like Artist Y. No big woof.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An excessive amount of the article is occupied by quotes. This is against Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Nfc#Text_2 "Unacceptable use": "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts." These amount to copyright violation. It is furthermore not the way articles are written. They should consist mainly of the facts about an artist's life and career. There is a site dedicated to quotes at WikiQuote. The footnotes are also far too long and again contain unacceptable amounts of quotation. If material in them is important, then summarise it and put it in the article. If it's not important, then leave it out. Ty 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Checked policy which says: --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're right. Too much quoting. I'll reduce. I had not been aware of this policy; I figured anything quoted was fine as long as it was attributed. Will fix.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But I really think that judgment is needed here. Out of fairness, I've reduced most of the quotes. But I notice on articles worked on by User:Tyrenius such as Georgina Starr, in which a majority of the article is quotations, I don't see any "COPYVIO" tags or notices. If articles I create keep getting flagged with obscure rule violations which require judgment, and in which the tagger, themselves, don't apply to their own creations, I'm going to think there's some kind of double standard in effect. I'm trying to be reasonable and fair, and I ask others to be similarly reasonable and fair, and please exercise good judgment and with a sense of presuming good faith.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, indeed AGF - and even better, check the facts![1] Georgina Starr has far too much quoted material: do trim it. I didn't add those quotes: they were added by another user in August 2008.[2] Here's the article as I created it in February 2006[3] with just one quote. If I was creating it now, it wouldn't even have that much quotation in relation to the rest of the text. I would mostly paraphrase the quote.

When you worked on the article in 2007 here the article was 50% quotations, 50% text, and yet you didn't raise objections or try to fix anything. My hunch is you're monitoring this article since you worked on it both in 2006 and 2007 as well as are currently listing a wikilink to it on your user page. And it seemed, from my viewpoint, that you are applying a lenient standard to articles about some artists like Georgina Starr and a tough standard to other ones like Julian Hatton. And I think you're trying to be reasonable and understand the importance of applying the rather-difficult-to-understand and often-confusing Wikipedia rules with some measure of consistency.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "work on" the article. I simply added a template[4] as I did to about 35 other articles linked on that template. I'm afraid your viewpoint is somewhat partial and selective of the facts. If you have a problem with Georgina Starr, then edit it. I've already explained about it above. Two wrongs don't make a right. Ty 14:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But perhaps you may see why I felt I was being picked on. Generally, let me say that I think that a great many of the articles about art have an exceptionally high caliber, and I think part of the reason is the excellent contributions of persons such as yourself, and I thank you for raising the bar. My two favorites that I've come across so far are Landscape art and Abstract art -- they're just beautiful to look at, and I appreciate contributions by yourself as well as the excellent User:Modernist and User:Bus stop who have done a marvelous job with the whole category.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is being tagged with "obscure rule violations". The points raised above are fundamental to good article writing. You seem to perceive this as negative. I would have thought you would be appreciative that experienced editors are providing guidance so that the article can be improved to meet wikipedia writing requirements, while you are in a position to amend it. Otherwise, some time later, another editor is going to come along and simply remove large amounts of the content per Wikipedia:Nfc#Unacceptable_use. We all want to see good articles, and to see input as some kind of personal interference is completely counter-productive.

By the way, the lead section should provide an overview/summary of the main article text and not introduce new material which is not in the main text. It certainly shouldn't consist mainly of critical quotes.

Ty 12:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your excellent counsel and try to learn at every opportunity. At the same time, I'd like to share with you my viewpoint. After creating what I had considered to have been an excellent article, I got virtually no positive comments or "well done" or "nicely referenced"; rather, I received a slew of criticism above (reads like advertising, quotes too long, too much material within references, copyright violations, lead paragraph has problems etc etc etc). When I tried to add wikilinks of Julian Hatton to what I thought were related articles, the material added in some cases, just a line or two, or even just his name, was removed summarily without explanation, despite there being references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the response has been a bit negative. Wikipedia can be a harsh environment sometimes, and editors get tired with having to correct other users' material. However, well done on constructive efforts with the article. It was removed from elsewhere, I noticed, because it really wasn't appropriate to cite him as a major example of the genre. Ty 14:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. We all get grumpy from time to time on Wikipedia, don't we? But sometimes it's REALLY FUN being grumpy, n'est-ce pas?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your accusation of "copyvio" was unsettling to me, because I've always tried to observe Wikipedia's rules, and from my perspective, I thought I had been obeying the rules by using the quotes, by attributing sources, and such. My sense of this whole "copyvio" thing, on further reflection, is that it's a judgment call requiring us to choose how much to quote. I had not known about this Wikipedia rule (Wikipedia's rules are extensive, sometimes contradictory; some suggest Wikipedia's rules can even be misused to bully people around, and invented the term WP:WIKILAWYERING). But the rule says, in effect: you can quote sources, just don't over-quote them. This is a tough call. How much is too much? The other extreme is equally bad: not quoting at all, or making stuff up (which can bring in WP:NPOV issues). See what I mean? And, then, from my perspective, looking over articles that my accusers had created or were probably watching like Georgina Starr, I found no copyvio messages or alerts, but extensive quoting, few references, numerous problems. So, for me, this was evidence of WP:WIKILAWYERING since it looked to me that you really didn't value the AGF rule, since you didn't observe it yourself, but were willing to accuse others of violating, like there was some kind of double standard in effect: a tough one for me, an easy one for yourself. But now that you've suggested that the Georgina Starr article's problems weren't your fault, I'll accept that as a sign of your good faith.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs pictures by the artist

This article could use a picture of the artist and pictures by the artist. If anybody is in contact with the artist and has permission to upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons, please do so and give the filenames here. If details are needed about how to upload pictures, please ask here on this talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julian Hatton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624004057/http://www.artsandletters.org/awards2_search.php to http://www.artsandletters.org/awards2_search.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)