Talk:Artmajeur
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources references
editResponding to comment by --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
•Footnote 6 contains a reference to an advert
The source references how the gallery participates in international art fairs. https://www.artshopping-expo.com/info_galerie/599/artmajeur.html is not an advert, it is the exhibitor profile of the gallery on the official ArtShopping Art Fair at Carroussel du Louvre website.
•Footnote 7 contains a reference to an editorial
The source references how the gallery participates in international art fairs https://artelagunaprize.com/network/artmajeur/ is not an editorial, it is the partner profile of the gallery on the official ArteLagunaPrize Venice website.
•Footnote 9 contains a reference to a source that is not independent
The source references how the gallery was featured in 2020 in a series produced by TV channel Museum TV, can you please elaborate how they are not independent? https://www.museumtv.art/artnews/articles/ma-collection-dart-en-10-clics-la-nouvelle-serie-pour-tout-savoir-de-lachat-dart-en-ligne/
•Footnote 10 contains a reference to a source that's offline
The source Femme Actuelle is a major national magazine, the article is online, I just verified and added the retreive date on the source. May be you cant access due to a VPN ? https://www.femmeactuelle.fr/actu/news-actu/aidez-les-artistes-en-vous-offrant-une-oeuvre-a-moins-de-200-euros-sur-artmajeur-2095192
•Footnote 11 contains a reference to a source that includes sponsored content
The source Paris Match is a major national newspaper and Agence France Presse is an international press agency. All newspapers/journal in the world contain advertisements. The advertisements are always well indicated on the pages. The article referenced in this source contains advertising zones for other contents, that are displayed with an indication. The reference itself is not a sponsored content, it is a regular article in the newspaper. https://www.parismatch.com/Culture/Art/Confindement-Quand-des-artistes-recreent-des-tableaux-celebres-1683104#9
•Footnote 15 contains a reference to baidu, a deprecated source
Ok I wasn't aware Baidu Encyclopedia was deprecated, I removed the reference 👍
•Footnote 17 contains a reference to the gallery, (shouldn't be cited as a source)
I though providing the profile URL of the artists cited was a good reference of theses artists actually being presented on the gallery. Should I remove "all" such references, or can we keep for example articles in the magazine that mention a given artist (as a reference source for this artist)?
Sylphidre (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please make sure that the sources you have cited are independent, i.e. that, the sources are neither some sort of collaboration with the gallery, nor that they have been created in conjunction with them. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I understand, then the MuseumTV source needs to be removed as it looks it is indeed a partnership or collaboration (MuseumTV is still a very trustworthy source in the art world).
- Can you please advise if the sources for art fairs citing the gallery exibitor profile on the fairs website should be also removed for the same reason? Sylphidre (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Sylphidre, the issue isn't that you can't use many of these sources, but that they didn't help to count for notability. I find that it is obviously notable, so I've accepted the draft. I did, however, just pull a few more spammy links before doing so. -- asilvering (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see, so may be its more appropriate to cite and reference ONLY the most notorious sources, rather that adding a number of less reliable sources (the project has really a lot of theses). Sylphidre (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, fewer is usually better with AfC, since reviewers are likely to give up if they get through several citations that are not good ones, and just assume the others are also poor. (By the way, "notorious" is pretty exclusively a word with negative connotations in English! I can't really think of an exact equivalent in French but it basically means "famous, in a bad way". Like a notorious criminal or philanderer.) -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oops! 😅 I also noted your precisions on the text/sources, thank you for your guidance Sylphidre (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, fewer is usually better with AfC, since reviewers are likely to give up if they get through several citations that are not good ones, and just assume the others are also poor. (By the way, "notorious" is pretty exclusively a word with negative connotations in English! I can't really think of an exact equivalent in French but it basically means "famous, in a bad way". Like a notorious criminal or philanderer.) -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see, so may be its more appropriate to cite and reference ONLY the most notorious sources, rather that adding a number of less reliable sources (the project has really a lot of theses). Sylphidre (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Sylphidre, the issue isn't that you can't use many of these sources, but that they didn't help to count for notability. I find that it is obviously notable, so I've accepted the draft. I did, however, just pull a few more spammy links before doing so. -- asilvering (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)