Talk:Danny Lane

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.sculpture.org.uk/artist/54/danny-lane and/or http://www.stylepark.com/en/designer/danny-lane. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources for possible expansion

This short article was recently over-written with a large text which removed seven of the nine references in the article together with some of the text they supported, and was in my opinion unencyclopaedic and unduly promotional in tone; there were also some copyvio and close-paraphrasing problems. I reverted to the previous version. While some of the sources added with that over-write are clearly not WP:RS, others may be helpful to anyone thinking of expanding this, so Im listing them here:

• 21st Century British Glass, Daniel Katz Limited, 2005, p.45, ISBN: 0 9545058 2 4
• Blueprint, In His Element, Vicky Richardson, September 2006
• Challenges of Artists Vision, Glass Age, May 2006, p.16
• Clearly A Genius, Helen Chislett, Financial Times, How To Spend It, February 2008 p.20
• Danny Lane: Breaking Tradition, Jennifer H Opie, Mallett, 1999
• Glass Theatre, Katrina Balmaceda, PALACE, January - March 2013, p.101
• Glassy Looks… Danny Lane, Leader of the Stack, Dinah Hall, House & Garden, May 1998, p.129
• In His Element, Vicky Richardson, Blueprint, September 2006, p.44
• On Edge, William Ganis, Glass, Summer 2007, p.51
• Clearly A Genius, Helen Chislett, Financial Times, How To Spend It, February 2008
• Danny Lane: Breaking Tradition, Jennifer H Opie, Mallett, 1999
• http://brand.hyundai.com/en/art/interview/danny-lane.do
• http://howtospendit.ft.com/art/95993-sculptor-danny-lane-day-two
• http://www.building.co.uk/challenges-of-artists-vision/3066629.article
• http://www.dannylane.co.uk/media/_dlane_cv06.cbf523c2.pdf
• http://www.dannylane.co.uk/media/cv_danny_lane__201.780acab5.pdf
• http://www.racns.co.uk/sculptures.asp?action=getsurvey&id=916
• http://www.theguardian.com/money/2004/dec/05/alternativeinvestment.observercashsection
• Sarah Greenberg, Glass Acts at the V&A, Artnews, May 1995, p.102
• Tanya Weaver, Making Waves, New Design, 2006, p.29

Ive removed a few (gallery websites nd the like) that are obviously not useable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Your 2016 review here seems directly relevant again; The account that subsequently carried out the fourfold rewrite has now been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing, while much of the expanded structure and sourcing remains in the current article. I have opened a new discussion below with several specific source and due-weight issues I found in the present version. As you reviewed the original expansion and distinguished between problematic material and sources worth retaining, I would particularly value your view on whether the article now needs a broader source-led reduction or reconstruction. Thanks in advance!

Aequoratlas (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid-editing block: review of fourfold 2016 article expansion

The 11 April 2016 rewrite by Ljs90 increased it from 4,590 to 19,507 bytes of wikitext, more than quadrupling its size in one edit. Much of the resulting client, commission, studio and process material remains in the current article. @Ljs90 was indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing on 22 September 2026.

Morever, there were concerns at the time. After reverting the first expansion, @Justlettersandnumbers wrote on 3 April 2016 that it had removed seven of the previous nine references and was "unencyclopaedic and unduly promotional in tone", also raising copyright and close-paraphrasing concerns. They identified useful sources worth retaining, rather than opposing expansion altogether. @Ljs90 subsequently said they had addressed those concerns before submitting the replacement rewrite under what was an undisclosed paid edition.

Most importantley, upon a quick check most of the quadruplication on size as well as references remain. On a quick look i spoted unenciclopedic errors sucha s:

• Danny Lane's own FT diary: references 22 and 39. Both cite Sculptor Danny Lane, Day 2, written by Danny Lane and published on 25 November 2015. Neither bibliography entry identifies him as the author, and reference 39 gives the archive date instead. Pls correct the authorship and date and consolidate the citations. The diary also does not establish the 1996 date given for the Wembley commission. It may support appropriate first-person information, but it is not independent reporting about Danny Lane.

• Repeated bibliography entries. Richardson's In His Element appears as 15, 29, 36 and 44; Ganis's On Edge as 8 and 28; and Cousins's 20th Century Glass, p. 113, as 40 and 43, alongside the duplicated FT diary. These should be consolidated.

• Ruskin School: reference 9. The cited Hyundai webpage mentions Patrick Reyntiens, Byam Shaw and Central, but not Ruskin or Oxford.

• Aether: reference 38. The cited post names the work and its materials, but does not supply the 2013 date, Marble Arch House location or British Land commission.

• Borealis: attribution and dating. The 2006 Glass Age report does describe the work as believed to be the largest glass sculpture, yet I have doubts about the validity of such reference and a simple google search proves this is not the case.

Beyond these individual corrections, could the corporate list in the lead and the extensive commission-by-commission coverage be assessed for due weight? The lead's list cites reference 6, not Danny Lane's CV. Elsewhere, some project descriptions rely on his CV (16), gallery material (17 and 24) or commissioning organisations (27 and 30). Those sources can establish basic facts without necessarily justifying the amount of space devoted to each project.

Would the shorter version preceding the rewrite be a useful comparison when considering a more concise structure? I am not proposing an unchanged restoration: well-supported additions and subsequent corrections should be retained. The comparison could also recover useful earlier sourcing, such as the citation to Jonathan Glancey's 1994 Independent profile removed in the rewrite.

Thanks!

Notification: A neutral notice of this discussion has been left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Aequoratlas (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Aequoratlas, and for starting this discussion. I need to apologise for not having noticed the further page over-write (only a week or so after my last edit here); if I'd seen it, I'd have reverted on the grounds that WP:COI editors are expected to refrain from directly editing the article but are free to propose changes on the talk-page – but I didn't, my apologies! Reverting ten years after the event is not so straightforward IMO – there've been a good number of good-faith edits in that time. However, the text is still a blatant puff-piece after all those, and reversion is probably the only viable alternative to a complete sentence-by-sentence rewrite (hours and hours of work for whoever takes that on!). My suggestion is: segregate all refs (there's a script for this); revert to this revision; manually add back all recent header and footer material; manually add back all WP:RS references in a Further reading section. I'd be prepared to help with that if a consensus for it develops here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems the cleanest course. I’ll leave this open for a few days to see whether anyone else comments, and would be grateful for your help if a consensus develops. Aequoratlas (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

: Hello again, @Justlettersandnumbers. I asked at the Help Desk whether an RfC or some further process was needed, and the advice was essentially to proceed with the remedy already suggested rather than add another layer of procedure.

: I don't know the ref-segregation script, so if you are willing to run that and make the initial reversion to the version you identified, I can then spend some time tomorrow working through the later material and restoring anything genuinely worth retaining, with the sourcing cleaned up and the article kept properly biographical rather than catalogue-like. Much appreciated. Aequoratlas (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

For reference, the Help Desk discussion is here. Aequoratlas (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, Aequoratlas, I've now done that. As proposed, I've added the references from the recent COI version as Further reading, but without any sort of evaluation or verification. I've done nothing about images (of which there were far too many); some of those in the recent version may be preferable to those that were in the 2016 page. Over to you, if that's OK? ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that so promptly. I’ll go through the references first, so we have a solid basis for adding to the article. I’ll begin with the duplicates such as Blueprint which appears four times, while On Edge, Cousins’s book and Lane’s FT diary each appear twice. I’ll then look at self-published material such as his CVs / his FT diary, and review the auction and gallery listings in a second pass. I’ll bring anything doubtful back here. Aequoratlas (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

For the record: I have removed the Jonathan Glancey quotation and citation after making a fairly extensive attempt to verify it. The reference gave The Independent, 16 July 1994, under the title An artist emerging from the shadows, but I now have serious doubts that the citation as given is correct... Most importantly, The Independent's own archive for 16 July 1994 contains no article under that title and no entry for either Danny Lane or Jonathan Glancey. I also checked 16 July 1993 and 16 July 1995, in case the year had been entered incorrectly, with the same result.

I further checked 16 June and 16 August 1994, together with several surrounding July dates, and searches for the exact title have likewise produced no verifiable copy or bibliographic record.

I do not think the quotation "a master of form and light" should remain attributed to Glancey without a source that can actually be verified. Leaving this note here for the record in case somebody has access to a print archive or other newspaper database which can establish otherwise. Aequoratlas (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)