Talk:Tom Hardy (designer)

CADC 100

Regarding the issue of citing project companies for the article 'Tom Hardy (designer)', I clearly understand your concern with using a reference document whose data may originate simply from a self-serving form. However, the reference cited was a special, high quality Auburn University one-time external publication distributed to alumni, government and industry commemorating the 100th anniversary of the College of Architecture, Design & Construction (CADC) in 2007. The "fact sheets" were actually descriptive pages written by a third party who profiled 100 alumni that have distinquished themselves in their professions. Due to the external audience for the publication, it is my assumption that the university would want to ensure the content was correct to avoid any issues, especially with industry. Furthermore, the publication also included photographs of alumni work and a number of those 100 people were invited to present case study examples of said project work to students, faculty and guests. Mr. Hardy was one that made such a presentation of work from various companies on November 2, 2007. Therefore, given the aforementioned conditions regarding a verifiable source, it is my view the reference provided is adequate to substantiate the citing of project companies in said article and does not violate Wikipedia guidelines. It should be understood that inclusion of such information is not intended to be promotional, but is used in a pedagogical context to illustrate the breadth of professional contribution made by the article subject. I look forward to your response.

Dezignr (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at other biographical articles, you won't see such information, mostly because of WP:SOAP. In general, I think that lists of clients are inappropriate. In the case of someone like Hardy, what matters is the work he's produced and it's reception, not who the work was for. Also, have you looked at WP:RS? --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This confirms that the additional project client list of Mr. Hardy cited by the third party CADC 100 publication from Auburn University (2007) was removed on 21 August 2008 by its contributing editor. While the inclusion of multiple cient references was not intended to be promotional, the content was removed to avoid any misperception of advertising. Dezignr (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Resume

I edited the first paragraph piecemeal to show the types of problems this article has. [1] Much (most?) of the article has similar problems and needs to be trimmed back accordingly.

Puffery, tangential (and highly promotional) information, and questionable use of references are regular problems in this article. There is also the problem of the use of primary sources to verify promotional information that requires third-pary sources to determine if and how the material should be presented at all, if at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Copied discussion from user talk

(Copied from User_talk:Dezignr#.3D_3): --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for outside review to see what others think of the content in general before we go into specifics. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Before seeking a review, we need a discussion on the talk page. I've started one, using the first paragraph of the article body as an example of the problems in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ronz - I could not locate the talk page discussion you started. Please advise as to location. Meanwhile, I studied other Wikipedia pages of similar notable individuals in the design field, such as Jonathan Ive, Karim Rashid, David M. Kelley and Bill Moggridge, then reorganized the Hardy page to be what would appear to be more encyclopedic. Dezignr (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing the improvement template. Even if you had found the discussion and responded to it, removal of the template is inappropriate. It's there to identify that there is a dispute requiring assistance.

The discussion is here: Talk:Tom_Hardy_(designer)#Resume.

(Could you link the articles you reference in the future?) Jonathan Ive is a class C article, so probably not something that will help much if at all. Karim Rashid is stub-class, and looks to be a mess. David M. Kelley is unreviewed as of yet. Bill Moggridge is stub class.

If you want to find articles as examples to follow, look through the lists linked from WP:GA. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ronz - Thanks for the discussion link + guidance for benchmark articles as examples to follow. As a result of reviewing this material, I significantly revised the Hardy article for improvement in context of being more concise, neutral and encyclopedic, rather than resume-like. This revision should justify removal of the 'improvement template'. Dezignr (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to quickly get some other editors involved that can help you understand what is and is not encyclopedic. Given the lack of accessible references, I don't know what progress we can make though. Most editors are going to look at the references and decide it's not worth their time. Whatever we do, we need to get the discussion happening on the article talk page rather than here, so others can see what's been going on. I'm going to copy the last few comments from this discussion to the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Without having read the references supplied, I believe Ronz's content removal is justified. The disputed content comes across as coatracking. In other words, it offers the article's subject "borrowed glory" through his association with a "prestigious place of study"; entirely fitting for a resume but not for an encyclopedia article. I hope I've made myself clear; but in case I've not (and I often don't) let's just suppose we've an article on someone who attended Oxford University and has since acquired an international reputation for excellent scholarship, teaching, and publications in the field. Would we go into detail on the merits and reputation of Oxford University? No. All we need is the bare bones and a link to Oxford University. PS: and in this case, the subject has no direct connection to the University in question. He didn't attend it. Two of his teachers did, and neither seems notable - or at least, they don't have Wikipedia articles. So it's coat-racking twice removed. Haploidavey (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the perspective of the article being "coat-racking twice removed". Rationale: Whereas the article subject did not attend Ulm School of Design, he was educated following the 'Ulm Model' taught by his teachers who did attend. The 'Ulm Model' taught at the Ulm School of Design (1953-1968) is considered a pioneering design education approach that transformed international design education. The aforementioned fact can be verified by numerous credible published reference sources. Example: [2] In summary, (1) the article subject has a connection to the Ulm School of Design in terms of learning the 'Ulm Model' directly from former Ulm School of Design graduates; (2) the article subject's verifiable accomplishments in the field of design correlates directly with the interdisciplinary user-centered, systems-thinking approach of the 'Ulm Model'; (3) the correlation between the article subject's accomplishments and the Ulm School of Design's 'Ulm Model' provides encyclopedic context for the article reader; (4) whereas the article subject's teachers do not have Wikipedia articles, they are cited in credible published reference sources about the Ulm School of Design. Furthermore, in the field of design it is considered "notable" to have graduated from the highly influential Ulm School of Design, not to mention their "notable" creation of a reputable academic industrial design program at a major university in the United States that fostered a new design approach for responsible product development. Dezignr (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

All of which is perfectly rational, informative and acceptable; I'm not disputing anything you've said here as non-factual or irrelevant. What matters, however, is what's in the article; none of what you've said is evident (as yet) in the article itself. You can't rely on readers to make the necessary connections and thus draw conclusions. It's an article's job to explicate, as clearly as possible. Haploidavey (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. As I mentioned to Ronz, I'm going to work on developing an encyclopedic draft of the article after conducting more in-depth research into reference sources....and plan to post the revised article draft here for review / discussion and look forward to your assessment. Dezignr (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Even without that material, some of the article's language seems overtly promotional. "Honored" stands out as promotional; as does "distinguished designers". Haploidavey (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the perspective of the article's language being "overtly promotional". Rationale: (1) It is an "honor" to be appointed to the United States Presidential Design Awards jury in that the Federal awards are presented in the name of, and directly by, the President of the United States. Therefore, the article subject was honored as one selected to make decisions reflecting on the office of the President; (2) the use of "distinguished designers" to describe Paul Rand and Richard Sapper is not "promotional" but factual and provides encyclopedic context for the article reader. Both are considered preeminent designers who had a profound affect on their respective fields and their Wikipedia articles and credible reference sources substantiate that fact. It can be validated through credible reference sources that the article subject interacted directly with these two notable designers at IBM for many years and was directly involved in collaborating with them on successful design accomplishments for the company. Example: ThinkPad. Dezignr (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's an "honor"; but when all's said and done, it (the thing itself) is an important award; that surely speaks for itself. And "designers" would be sufficient; their being "distinguished" is neither here nor there; it's not factually relevant. They're notable, and that's enough. Just on a more personal note, please understand that I'm far from nit-picking here. I'm trying to help this article find its encyclopedic feet. Haploidavey (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Your insights will be taken into account as I tackle the encyclopedic draft of the article. Dezignr (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Making the refs accessible for verification

Most of the refs published in the past decade are likely to be available online in some form. It would be extremely helpful if links were added to online versions of the article references. For those that aren't available online (if anyone takes the time to find hard-copies), page numbers and specific edition details would be helpful for others looking to verify information. No matter the case, quotes from the sources verifying the information can be added to either and are supported in all citation templates. See WP:CITE and the specific citation templates. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I located several links to reference sources / related information and added to article for verification accessibility. Will continue to search for more links + hard-copy details. Dezignr (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

With the help of others in the design community, I was able to add page numbers to hard-copy publication refs + add two new reference sources. Dezignr (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

All reference sources now have page numbers and/or links to aid verification accessibility Dezignr (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments moved from my talk page

(From [3]): --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ronz - Your latest undo of an explanatory sentence related to the Ulm School of Design is unwarranted. The text is not a "resume-like expansion" but rather provides the reader with knowledge of the Ulm School of Design. Wikipedia Style Manual states that the article writing should "Provide Context for the Reader" and goes on to state: "People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully." ...and furthermore the Style Manual states: "Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article." Likewise, your undo of the term "distinguished" is unwarranted. The term "distinguished" is not personal opinion but a factual descriptor of the Ulm School of Design which is referred to as one of the most progressive and influential design schools in the world by multiple verifiable reference sources. Dezignr (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ronz - Your undo of the following reference source text: "Some of these early personal computing concepts by Hardy are highlighted in the book DELETE: A Design History of Computer Vapourware." is unwarranted. The inclusion of said text is not "pure advertising" as claimed. The book is by an independent British author with no financial ties to the editor of the article text being discussed. The purpose of the text is to provide the reader with a published, accessible source that can provide detailed knowledge and images of early concepts in the history of personal computing cited in the article. The reference source text provides context and knowledge for the reader. (see previous Wikipedia Style Manual comment) There are examples of references to commercial publications, films, videos and other communications materials in what are considered to be good Wikipedia articles. For example, the WP:GA link you provided to find good Wikipedia article examples to follow includes one on actress Angela Lansbury, which includes the following text: "In 1988, she released a video titled Angela Lansbury's Positive Moves: My Personal Plan for Fitness and Well-Being, in which she outlined her personal exercise routine, and in 1990 published a book with the same title co-written with Mimi Avins, which she dedicated to her mother." Dezignr (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

See and participate in the above discussions to start. Then, if it's not clear why the material was removed, we can go into more detail. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)