Talk:David Spielman

Multiple issues notice

Looks like someone removed the head note where I noted "multiple issues". I don't think these issues have been fixed. I'll elaborate:

• This biography of a living person needs additional references...: The references are
  • His own books
  • A not all that relevant bit about Churchhill and "Iron Curtain".
  • Lots of advertising links. E.g.: * Leica http://www.leica-camera.com. (These will have to go)
  • This got a bit better by now, with mentioning (but not linking!) The Times Picayune etc.
  • What would be great is a reference to a book about Spielman, not from him.
• ... consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking.: this is something that can be fixed, but hasn't, so far. The way to do it here is with <ref></ref> tags and <references/> at the end. An example how it can be done is George Edward Anderson, somone from the Category:American photographers I picked more or less at random. How to do it is explained in the links in the notice.
• copy editing: This is mainly about the capitalisation, easy to fix, too, but not done.
• like a resume: I admit this is a bit subjective, but, well, I stand by it. It's just the style in general. Doesn't sound like an encyclpedia article to me. One example: "(...) a technique aimed at giving a glimpse into the private lives of the authors and the creative processes of their work". There's a reference given, but no link, but even if that did appear in some local paper, it sounds like some fluffy article praising a local hero. And the section Camera Equipment, sounds like a resume and an ad. Not the style I want to find in an encyclopedia. Again I refer to the "random photographer article" George Edward Anderson. Completely different style.

And now I'll raise you one. I'll add

• Conflict of interest (I could have used autobiography as well), as a user called David G. SPIELMAN has edited the page.

--ospalh (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ospalh, for the constructive criticism. I'm a bit new to the editing process but I'll take your recommendations to heart. Do you have any other specifics about the tone of the article? Certain words or phrases you think should be changed?

Best, Cgromek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgromek (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel I'll have to decline the request for specific advice. I don't think that I can be really objective. I must admit to a certain bias agaist the whole article. I'm not sure that my advice would really improve Wikipedia.--ospalh (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)