 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Sources
editThe sourcing in this article is wretched. I haven't checked all of the (ostensible) sources that are provided, but the great majority of the links I did click on (while preparing for this edit) were useless.
In this edit, I mark the uselessness of various links. But I go beyond that. I remove links to kraszna-krausz.org.uk and rps.org. Why so? Because not only are they useless, but from looking them up in the Wayback Machine and comparing the dates on which this article was edited, it was pretty clear that they had always been useless. That is, one editor or other had (i) wanted to assert something, (ii) realized that it needed a "source" (or anyway what the careless reader would assume was a source), and (iii) provided the URL of a website or web page that was more or less related.
I might just as easily assert any kind of nonsense, such as:
- The British publisher of photobooks most popular among members of the ruling elite in North Korea is Trolley Books.
with a reference to the top page of Trolley's website.
As it happens, I find the assertions in the article pretty credible. It should be possible to source them. I understand that Trolley wants more coverage in Wikipedia; perhaps one of its employees could work to increase the credibility of this article. Certainly Trolley merits a good, neutral, credible article. (I for one am happy to possess several of Trolley's books.) Unfortunately most of Wikipedia's articles on photobook publishers are wretched and should not provide models, but the awards sections of the better articles on photographers (example) should provide inspiration. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)