Talk:Americo Makk

Conflict of interest

At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The contributor (1) has no pecuniary interest in this article (i.e. will not receive any financial gain from this article), (2) is not employed by or related to the subject or any organization related to the subject, (3) was/will not be paid with money, service or barter/trade by anyone in relation to the article and (4) no conflict of interest exists. The article is about a notable painter. All statements in the article are verified with independent reliable sources and can be provided upon request. The COI tag applied is not appropriate, does not belong and should be considered resolved.

Cstein99 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Problems in this article

So, Cstein99, a new editor, keeps removing maintenance tags from this page. The page does however seriously need cleaning up, though Cstein99 may perhaps not understand why. I'm having trouble understanding why SwisterTwister accepted this page in its current state. This is not what an encyclopaedia article looks like. Among other problems:

• much of it seems intended to promote Makk Studios – "the book Makk Family, A Vision of Life, … , with special help of Cathey Harrison and entire Makk Studios staff, was published by Makk Studios in Honolulu". Given the large number of photographs apparently supplied for this by the studio, there is – despite the denial above – some grounds for thinking that there is some connection between the editor and the studio.
• it's written in poor, sometimes incomprehensible English – "Americo and Eva became synonymous with each other’s work and the Makk family brand", "presented the charm and allure of Brazil’s growth to Eva’s father"
• it is grossly promotional in overall tone, with endless pointless puffery and name-dropping: "On October 19, 1989, Makk Studios expanded its reach to California and celebrated its Beverly Hills, CA gallery opening with Casey Kasem, best known for his show “American Top 40”, presenting the opening speech with wife Jean Kasem. Later that month, on October 26, 1989, the gallery held a reception and unveiled a portrait of Eva Gabor commissioned with Americo. The event was hosted by Merv Griffin, who reportedly invited a few hundred guests including Roddy McDowall, Mary Francis, Carole Wells, Marvin Davis, John Astin, Suzanne Pleshette, Audrey Meadows, Casey Kasem, William French Smith, Anne DeSalvo, Gloria Allred, Waldo Fernandez, Steve Allen, Gary Lieberthal, and Buddy Ebsen". In an encyclopaedia, that would read "The Makks opened a gallery in Beverly Hills in 1989".
• it contains a mass of irrelevant detail: "In 1984, Americo was commissioned to paint Dr. Edward Teller, a Hungarian born theoretical physicist, colloquially known as “the father of the hydrogen bomb”, who was also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (2003)". In an encyclopaedia, that would read "Makk was commissioned to paint Edward Teller in 1984".

And so on. The whole page needs radical copy-editing to make it suitable for inclusion here. I'm inclined to suggest that the best place for that to happen is draft space, and that this should be moved back there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Although there were a few concerns, and I at least fixed them initially, I accepted alone because of the museum collections. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The original tags placed on the article involved COI. I reported per the guidelines that I had no employment, contractual, pecuniary interest in the article or Makk Studios. I am not in the business of art, selling it or promotions. Understandably, I cannot prove a fact that does not exist and only confirm that I am receiving nothing in return for the article. All statements are supported by independent reliable sources. The guidelines allow quoting and paraphrasing those sources, which are referenced. The guidelines further permit the removal of the tag, since the COI claim was misplaced. There is absolutely no self promotion. The criticism then changed. The nature of the comments above are more personal in nature and are not appropriate per the guidelines.

Cstein99 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Source

Commentary on a couple of the paintings is sourced to "Editorial Notebook, Artists in Paradise From the Islands of the Pacific, Spring 1984". What is this source? It's not in Worldcat. Ewulp (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Artists in Paradise, From the Islands of the Pacific was a quarterly newsstand periodical in Hawaii that sold for $1.50 an issue. The article was "Editorial Notebook" pages 6 and 7 in the Spring 1984 edition. The article is available on request. It might not be in Worldcat.

Cstein99 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)