Talk:Coxwold Pottery

Hope this article on Peter and Jill Dick, UK potters, is now complete enough to be considered for Mainspace. Please note that it is hugely moved on from the first version, which was moved to Draft, see below. Much more complete descriptions of their work and contributions to UK studio pottery have been added, as well as many references. Many thanks to those who take the time to look at it. ArchaicW (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DragonflySixtyseven

Hope you're still there!

Just noticed that you made edits on the 28th and 29th January. I got the email notification of changes for the 28th - but not for the 29th. Wonder what happened to it?

Anyway, main thing is I have changed the last paragraph to what I hope will seem to you a much more neutral statement.

Regards ArchaicW (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear DragonflySixtyseven

Many thanks for your contributions to this draft article - I'm grateful for your help. Thanks for putting in the Content box - did wonder if it should go further up, after the introduction but before the 'Peter Dick' section?

The section on Pottery Marks seems to have got changed from the stadard typeface, not quite sure what has happened here?

Re the last para on 'Appreciation', yes, I've not been entirely happy with that content and have been wondering about re-wording it, I think it was a bit subjective. Not sure if all of it should go out, but no matter! Anyway, I'm working on a shorter revised para. Propose to put this up, then grateful for your comments. (NB Could you take out the 'Citation needed' tag? That goes back to when there were no references.)

I would like to put the article up for Review quite soon, but I've been waiting for a colleague to put up a photo of an excellent example for inclusion. After that, I hope you might help with having the article put up for review.

Many thanks ArchaicW (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

‘Multiple Issues’ Template I have taken the liberty of removing this template, as I believe that the issues raised have been fully addressed, or possibly were not relevant in the first place. . . may not meet Wikipedia's ‘notability guidelines for companies and organizations’. This article is about two artist craftsmen potters. It was never about a company or organisation. I regret that the very first draft may have made it sound like that, but the article has moved on hugely and I hope it is now clear that it is not about any business ‘per se’. . . relies too much on references to primary sources When the article was first presented, there were only a few references in place. Now there are twenty references from a wide variety of sources, only one or two of which could be described as ‘primary sources’. . . tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. This referred to the fact that the original short draft had several subjective descriptions. These have all been removed. ArchaicW (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...

The Coxwold Pottery was completely closed in 2012, following the death of the potter, Peter Dick. Peter Dick and his wife Jill were well known figures in the Studio Pottery world. There are many articles on modern studio potters on Wikipedia, many of them living and still producing pottery (see List of Studio Potters page), so in no sense could this short article be said to be promoting the sale of the Coxwold Pottery products.

Indeed, the reason I have written this short article is because remarkably there is no entry for the Coxwold Pottery/Peter and Jill Dick. They are almost the only potters listed on the 'List of Studio Potters' page NOT to have an entry concerning their role in the modern studio pottery world. As an example of the contradiction, the Winchcombe Pottery (where Peter Dick trained in the 1960s) has a substantial article, but it is still in business and selling pottery!

I am not quite sure which part of the article triggered this auto-deletion suggestion, but I hope the Editors will review this and it will be seen that this is an absolutely 'bona fide' article which helps to elucidate the history of the modern Studio Pottery movement. ArchaicW

Hi. In an encyclopedia devoted to the dissemination of neutral point-of-view, objective information about the topics it covers, the article you wrote includes subjective evaluations and personal observations such as:

• "they produced a beautiful and distinctive style"
• "It was fairly heavily potted, as befits the medium"
• "gave the glaze a wonderful mottled effect"
• "An excellent article by Peter"

It certainly sounded like advertising to me. Even if the shop is closed, one could construe it as promoting the crafts that they've produced.

Also, even though I didn't say so, the article seems to meet speedy deletion criterion A7 as well, not giving any indication of the significance of this particular pottery shop. Ideally, the article would also have sources to make its notability clear, as article topics must be considered notable (which is determined by factors outside the article), though speedy deletion doesn't apply to a lack of notability, as long as there's an initial, credible indication in the article itself of its subject's significance.

If you'd like, the article can be moved to draft space for you to work on it and have it reviewed before it's moved back to the main article space. What do you think? Largoplazo (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

In addition, the name of the article should just be "Coxwold Pottery". "Coxwold Pottery Peter and Jill Dick" isn't the name of anything! Largoplazo (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

The tone of this draft is not appropriate it reads more like a eulogy..."Dick's position in the field of UK Studio Pottery might well be best summed up" " major figures in the Studio Pottery world" "Peter’s skill and artistry" "remarkable technical skills" "pieces were quite generously potted" are not acceptable, we need the dry sourced facts only no trumpery. Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

COXWOLD POTTERY DRAFT

Hi Theroadislong

Many thanks for having looked at this draft article, and so promptly.

Also very pleased to note from your User Page that you clearly have a great interest in pottery, as shown from many images of pots, so your advice is invaluable.

I'll be very pleased to re-word the various sentences which you have highlighted. I can assure you it was never intended to be a 'eulogy'! But I guess it is a bit difficult to avoid some subjectivity - I shall try to eradicate it. Thanks ArchaicW (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchaicW (talk • contribs)

EDITS BY 'Theroadislong'

Dear Theroadislong

That is great, thank you very much. So pleased to have an expert in this area involved. I've read through your revised version, and I agree - I think I've spent too long on the draft article and ended up putting in far more detail than was really necessary or relevant! Simplifying it has improved it. I do hope other 'Admins' looking at this article now will recognise and appreciate your involvment with your background in pottery. Many thanks. ArchaicW (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)