Talk:Dinh Q. Lê

(Redirected from Talk:Dinh Q Lê)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by KateKabob in topic Rewrite and removal of tags

Name

edit

What does the "Q." stand for? And shouldn't "Dinh" be spelled with a "Đ"? Badagnani 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is his real name Lê Quang Đỉnh? Badagnani (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

That seems to be the case, but it seems that he prefers "Dinh Q. Lê" since his exhibits are credited this way. DHN (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dinh Q. Lê. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rewrite and removal of tags

edit

I rewrote some sections of the article fairly heavily today to add sources and remove subjective or promotional language. It was a tricky line to walk because Lê does appear legitimately important (lots of good reviews in major US newspapers, at least), so I tried to still include praise/explanations of why people like his work but keep it closely sourced to specific people or newspapers. I also was able to find at least one mixed-to-negative review in the NY Times, which I quoted.

I'm still not sure how well I succeeded, though (and I'm still newish at this), so please feel free to undo some or all of my edits if I've overstepped. Thank you! KateKabob (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply