Revision as of 20:57, 1 March 2013 editCrtew (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,823 edits →Assessment: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:15, 1 March 2013 edit undoCrtew (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,823 edits →Copyright Vio: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
How is this article still a stub-class? Please explain using the standard assessment. ] (]) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | How is this article still a stub-class? Please explain using the standard assessment. ] (]) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Copyright Vio == | |||
The new material that replaced my citation needed template and added later today is a clear copyright violation. First, the source is not independent. Second, the paraphrase is so close and the extent so much that it violates WP policy outright and has to be stricken immediately. ] (]) 21:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:15, 1 March 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Biggart article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Bill Biggart be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
Notability
Delete this minor footnote in the September 11th story. He's not notable enough to merit an entire article.Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
- The sources cited would suggest otherwise. Nightscream (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
IF that's true, then the article should contain their attestations, rather than just pointing to them. Seemingly, his only significance, is once having taken photographs (of an unknown quality) in an interesting place at an interesting time.
'notable ... for being the only working photojournalist to perish in the attacks' Why is that remarkable?Beingsshepherd (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
- "should contain their attestations, rather than just pointing to them..." I don't know what you mean by this. Can you clarify?
Currently, one has to explore external sources to appraise Biggart's noteworthiness; which should be conveniently evidenced within the encyclopaedic article.
- "Why is that remarkable?" It simply is, in itself. Nightscream (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Are they the rarest people in the world? Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
- "They" who? Nightscream (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
working photojournalists (obviously). Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
- This conversation doesn't seem to be improving the article. BS, you may nominate for delete if you think this. And please leave a person a message when you revert as a courtesy and as way to track changes. Crtew (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- working photojournalists (obviously). Well, it wasn't obvious, otherwise I would've known what you meant. No, working photojournalists are not "rare", but that's irrelevant to the issue, since notability for Misplaced Pages's purposes isn't determined by rarity, as you should know. It's determined by coverage in secondary sources.
- This conversation doesn't seem to be improving the article. It wasn't intended to. It's a notability discussion, not a content discussion. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, the mystery of the "only working" photojournalist should now be clear to one and all with the most recent expansion of the article. There was another photojournalist who was killed in the attacks but he was a passenger on the AA flight. I have listed his name as well as the 6 TV engineers to add perspective. Hopefully readers in the future will have this point clarified (although a rewrite up top at the lead will still need to happen first). I know you're having a different conversation but if BS is not seeing how the person is notable (and we both believe he is), then perhaps the article itself (from that start point) was at fault. I hope the additional edits since your conversation began helps. The article now 1) includes notable exhibits of his work both discussed at the top and detailed below, 2) clarifies through additional context the significance of his death, 3) provides more background material about his career and creative work, and 4) uses an infobox to help readers discover Biggart quicker faster than before. Peace, Crtew (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Context
I've reverted the deletion of section called "Context." Let's talk about it first and see if we can come to a consensus!
If you want to retitle it, I have no problem with that (please feel free to do so), but the information is relevant to Biggart's case. He was neither the only photojournalist nor the only media worker to die in the WTC attacks. This information, therefore, offers readers perspective and clarity. This is a section and does not diminish from the focus of the article. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to create articles about them as they are not notable. Yet sources at the time mention them in relation to Biggart. Therefore, they properly belong mentioned in this article. Crtew (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Lists are also appropriate within articles when additional articles would not be suitable as per WP policy.Crtew (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Assessment
How is this article still a stub-class? Please explain using the standard assessment. Crtew (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright Vio
The new material that replaced my citation needed template and added later today is a clear copyright violation. First, the source is not independent. Second, the paraphrase is so close and the extent so much that it violates WP policy outright and has to be stricken immediately. Crtew (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- C-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- Misplaced Pages requested images of journalists
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in the United States