Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a26e9048d953d434

Jump to content

Talk:David Zwirner Gallery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jd02022092 in topic Suggested edits

Untitled

[edit]

While David Zwirner was not deleted at Afd, the result was no consensus and it has been moved to this article on the Gallery. It needs serious work to wikify, add sources and concentrate on the Gallery. --Bduke 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Conflict of interest

[edit]

At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Suggested edits

[edit]

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers,

Many thanks for your reply on your Talk page - I am following your advice to suggest edits to the David Zwirner Gallery page here instead. I am a freelance writer not employed by the gallery, but I have done some writing for them before. I am not sure how far that counts as a conflict, but I'm happy to suggest my edits here to make the page factual, at least (as it is, and as you're aware, it's very thin and also very out of date, and so not informative as it currently stands).

The edits I propose are as follows; they fill out the full history of the gallery and recent developments, and also list its artists, each of which (with 2 exceptions because they don't have them), is linked to their own Wiki page which was already existing. The image is also very out of date, but every time I tried to add a current one it was rejected, so I will check how to best provide a an image.

Many thanks1-ona (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for using the talk-page to make this request, 1-ona. May I suggest that you add a {{request edit}} to it – see the advice in the section Conflict of interest above – so as to get some input from someone other than me? Meanwhile, my initial observation is that the text you propose seems very similar to what was there before. If you look at some of the edit summaries I left when making recent changes, you should be able to see how that content fails to conform to our fairly strict idea of what an encyclopaedia page should look like, what its tone should be, and how the content should be cited to independent reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much - I will do a request edit in that case. I am not sure how my edits looked similar to previous ones, as I added so much that was new and different to a tiny entry. I did try a few times to add my edits, which might explain why they looked similar to somethign you had caught recently? Anyway, thanks for the advice, and I'll proceed as you suggest. 1-ona (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

1-ona, you have five edits in Wikipedia. You had never edited the article page when you wrote this. Did you make those previous attempts under some other name?
I've added a {{request edit}} at the beginning of your post to show you how that should be done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, yes - I realised it would be best to set up a Wiki profile/account, so I made my recent edits using that, and earlier edits just as an anonymous user. 1-ona (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers , how is this going? Many thanks 1-ona (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Which bit of it, 1-ona? The article seems more or less OK to me (but then I wrote most of it). There are still a couple of unreferenced statements which I'll probably remove soon unless a suitable independent reliable source is found. You've submitted another proposed version, very similar to your last, on this page (which really is not the place for it). My own opinion of what you've written remains exactly as before: it fails to conform to our fairly strict idea of what an encyclopaedia page should look like, what its tone should be, and how the content should be cited to independent reliable sources. It is, in my opinion, inadequately referenced and promotional both in tone and in actual intent; please remember that Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind. However, I'm not going to decline it, I think it only fair to let someone else look at it. Unfortunately there are a lot of these requests, but not much interest in answering them. Why don't you check back in a few months and see if anyone has happened by? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @justlettersandnumbers, thanks for your reply. I do see if you feel there is more info here than is strictly factual, ie/ non-promotional, so I would be happy to trim the text down in order to make it more fitting to what I gather the nature of the tone and content should be (I was going for an entry that would make the text far less vague/out of date, eg. where it talks about the artists, and also match entries like that of Gagosian Gallery, for example, which is very informative and much longer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagosian_Gallery). I will have a go at this before leaving it on the docet for too long, and also because it might be simpler this way, and for you to check - thank you also for being so fair in seeing if someone else would look at it. I will suggest a briefer version shortly. Thanks again. 1-ona (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Justlettersandnumbrs, one thing I forgot - the image on the current David Zwirner page is completely wrong - that space doesn't exist anymore, so it would at least be good to update that. I will see if I can find a current image. 1-ona (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Justletersandnumbers - here is a proposed shorter version, incl references.

Many thanks 1-ona (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @justlettersandnumbers, wondered if you'd seen the above brief version. Many thanks 1-ona (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just checking in again here on this edit - thanks 1-ona (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to give a proper ping to @Justlettersandnumbers here, since it seems the user is not receiving your attempts to ping him. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Jd02022092. I've nothing to add to what I wrote on 21 April – the article seems pretty much OK, the proposed text seems unencyclopaedic, and promotional both in tone and in intent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
It is for this reason that I will mark this request as declined. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
[edit]

I'm sorry that I can'tsee how to make this appear as it does on the actual Wiki age, format-wise, but below are the edits I suggest for the David Zwirner Gallery page. All but 2 of the artists can be linked to their own Wiki pages; there are sources for the majority of the info in the History section which are listed below also.

1-ona (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply