Hi Netherzone,
Hope all is well with you.
I have bee looking at the artists included in the exhibition Making Their Mark: Works from the Shah Garg Collection, currently at NWMA. I spent some time with the article Haegue Yang. I lost steam after cleaning up the Collections section. I have read through the article several times and it seems to be overly detailed and showing the hands of multiple editors. I feel like it needs to be tagged as "not written in an encyclopedic tone" ({{tone}}. Would you provide a second opinion please? I feel like I have lost perspective. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates, I had a short look at it and saw there are issues with it. It may be an AI creation (based on formatting clues), some unsourced sections and claims, possible original research. I don't mean any disrespect to the artist who is distinguished, but the way it is written reminds me of an application for a tenure and promotion application in academia (or a job applicant), having sat on dozens of those committees in the past. This is something I've seen on WP several times in the past for artists who also happen to also be academics. Or perhaps because one of the past-editors was part of a WikiEd class? I'm traveling now but will l have a deeper look soon. Thanks for reaching out! Netherzone (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WomenArtistUpdates, sorry that I completely forgot about this conversation and never followed up on it. I just had a quick look and the promo tool I have installed flagged these words: "Promotional words: dynamic, extensive, globally, inspired by, more than, numerous, ranked, spanning, transform", yikes! Thanks for the gentle nudge, I will read through it and do some work on it.
As to the Tuchner it really seems like a TNT situation even if notability checks out. I haven't checked all the sources, but those I did seemed connected or paid-placement, sponsored content/native advertising or user submitted. Lots of puffery.
If you find a moment, can you look at Larry Day? He is absolutely notable, however I've had to do a lot of promotionally-toned clean up, and it needs more work. Too much excessive detail. The article was paid for by his wife/widow and submitted by a paid editor who was not following all guidelines correctly.
A lot name dropping in the Day article, it is hard to know what to keep and what to trim. So much is sourced to an offline reference, ref # 2. Makes it hard to verify. Netherzone (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates, thanks for doing the source analysis table for Tuchner; I know it takes a lot of work.
Re: Yang, I've started to clean up the article for tone, verbosity and excessive detail. I've gotten as far as the beginning of the "Light and visibility" sub-section. Do you think it's necessary to have so many subsections and sub-sub sections? To my way of thinking, alot of this belongs in a book chapter on her work, or in an academic paper. I think most encyclopedia readers may lose interest in so much excessive detail. I think it can be pruned quite a bit without losing integrity as an encyclopedia article. BTW, she's a really interesting artist. Netherzone (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that there is too much information. All three article we are looking at right now seem to be more of an "artist statement" than an encyclopedic article. Excessive quotes to do not add to our understanding of the notability of the artist. Excessive quotes in a BLP does not do the artist any favors. The problem I have is that I cannot figure out if that is a style preference on my part or, if indeed, these aren't encyclopedia articles. In an encyclopedia more space is given to more important subjects. That said, can we remove sourced material without violating Wikipedia guidelines? The articles that survive AFD because drive-bys think the article looks "OK" without parsing the quality of sources is disheartening. So, yes! Yang is very interesting, but in my opinion, the page should really be stubified down to brief bio and collections/exhibitions that establish her place in contemporary art. The article has academic assignment malarkey all over it (alas, another peeve of mine :) ) Any article with an exact birthdate raises a red flag for me. I am going to stick to the de-orphaning event over at WIR as I get perspective back, but would certainly like to know if that is how you see the issue too. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
100% in agreement with you. Articles should be written in summary style, not in a long hagiography spelling out every this-and-that someone has done. I have no problem further trimming to the Yang article or even stubification, and I can help you with that. To my mind, articles should focus on the most important key accomplishments of the person.
I do think that sourced content can be removed especially if it is sourced to a COI source, marginal source, primary source or personal website, or is simply trivial content. (As I've done in this removal of the "Other activities" section [1].) That section seemed to me like what someone puts in their academic application for tenure and/or promotion, or in their academic annual report. Then there is the problem of student editors from undergrads to grads to PhD students "publishing" parts of their dissertation on WP.
BTW, a keep voter on the Tuchner article just got busted for socking. I also created a Source Analysis Table on Safari for all the sources used one time (all useless for establishing notability), but when I clicked on "generate" it disappeared! Darn! So something is still not right with my settings. A while ago when I was able to make one on Firefox.
I just moved a bunch of stuff to the talk page for now to help with clean up and trimming. Relevant content can be added back without all the excessive detail. Netherzone (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women.
On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.
After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.
2024 and 2025 NPP Awards
JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.
Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.
The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.
An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.
Thank you for improving article quality in May! - Today: Felicity Lott. If you have little time, just give me a click ;) - If you have more, see her story. If you have more, listen to her singing Friendly Vision. If you have more, listen until she sings the word "peace" (Frieden), floating up high, serenely. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
News and notes: Offline: Osama Khalid still in prison He has been imprisoned since 2020 for his Wikipedia edits. A fresh campaign is calling for his release.
Recent research: WikiLambda the Ultimate Does Abstract Wikipedia help fight "One ring to rule them all" solutions for knowledge access - or does it implement one itself?
Hi Bearian, thanks for the heads up, this totally fell off my radar. Will add what I can find in the next week or so, I recently returned from overseas travel so I'm doing real life catch-up, but will get to it, promise. Netherzone (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! Added a few citations that demonstrate he meets NARTIST, there's a lot out there about him, will continue to improve. Thanks again. Netherzone (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at St. Martin, Idstein, our church, you encounter three recent pics, on top of a concert that Franz Josef Hamm arranged for his 90th birthday (and invited everybody), a new one of our conductor giving us last uplift before the second concert of Forrest's Jubilate Deo, and at the bottom us (three choirs, soloists and orchestra) taking standing ovations (with our conductor still at the keyboard at that time). The music is quite breathtaking, and the organist (my choral conductor for decades) said we were better than what he had heard on the internet. No youtube upcoming, though, for copyright reason, but I chose one for my story that day. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
