 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tagged issues
editIt is difficult to know precisely why the wikify tag was added, but there are a couple of minor issues. Ref 12 is a bare url. It should be expanded. So use <ref>[http://jennycowern.co.uk/home.asp Jenny Cowern, official website]</ref> or use a cite web template. Also the Links section should be External Links, and should be placed after the Bibliography. However, it is essentially redundant, since the only entry has already been used for ref 12, so I would delete it.
I think the morefootnotes tag is caused by the fact that there are 4 books listed in the bibliography, but only one of them is cited. The assumption is that some of the material may have been drawn from those not cited, but it is impossible for the reader to say. One option is to move the uncited works to a Further reading section, but I think that is nit-picking.
The cleanup tag may require a bit more work. So: "A subject she would return to years later, where, using first oils and then pastels she produced equally stunning but differing representations." is not a sentence. "She would return to the subject years later, ..." is. "Indeed this flirtation with varying media's became one of her many strengths; for after choosing..." has further gramatical problems. Media acts as a plural, and so does not normally need an s, and it is used here as a plural, rather than something belonging to the media, so would not need an apostrophe even if it did need an s. The "for" after the semicolon if superfluous, or the semicolon needs to be changed to a comma.
The sentence "Using the structure of the existing brickwork she proposed (a?) shimmering screen which would have made (a?) decorative mural, but Stockton Council (did not like the idea, so?) this was never realised, and it remains a design" seems to have several words missing, and I am not sure what to add to make it make sense. The bracketed bits are suggestions, but without the sources this may not be the meaning intended.
Statements like "Had she lived, new challenges lay ahead, new media’s to explore, new techniques to overcome, and new audiences to enthrall." need to be cited, or they appear to be your personal opinion.
One other possibility is that most sections are a single paragraph. Some sections could be amalgamated or paragraphs split. The lead also needs to introduce and summarise the article, but does very little of the latter.
For the lists at the bottom, I think I would add some text for context. So explain a little what a one-man exhibition is (particularly when the artist is female), what a group exhibition is, and all those dates need some references. How do we know that she had an exhibition in 1988 at Van Mildert College, Durham? Could it have been 1984? Have you made it up? These sort of facts need to be cited. It may well be that the list comes from somewhere, and so a single ref could be appropriately added to the text above the list.
I hope this helps. The motto of Wikipedia is assume good faith, so just assume that the tags were added to be helpful, and with a little attention, the article can be improved. I have seen articles with a lot more problems than this one, but it depends who looks at them as to whether tags are added. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I got the format for the expanded web ref wrong - it needs a space after the url, not a pipe. I have added an infobox. There are several additional fields in it that you might be able to populate. Place of death is an obvious one. I have removed the citation tag on the dates, as both are referenced further down. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
unclear tag
editI've just used an 'unclear tag' and as per recommendations am adding something on talk page about that. It's the use of structure - not clear to me what it means, and the use of quotes makes me think it may be being used in a specialist way.Icarusgeek (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the 'unclear' tag. I hope the explanation given removes the ambiguity. Terry Carrick (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think it does :-) thanks Icarusgeek (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Is 'oven crudeness' correct in the quote on felt? It looks wrong, but I don't have access to the source. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC) That is the quote direct from the web site Terry Carrick (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)