Talk:Charles Lockwood (author)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

my first time to post an article[edit]

Hello Wikipedians! I would truly appreciate your assistance on this new article. I don't want to put it on "live" when I'm not sure if it contains anything that will qualify it for speedy deletion or anything of that sort. Please review this article for me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jxc5/Charles_Lockwood)and let me know of the necessary points/inputs to consider, re-consider or not to consider at all. Thank you very much. Jxc5 (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! You did a fine job on your first article. I re-titled it, only because the other Charles Lockwood was also a published author. Perhaps a disambiguation page might be in order. Comments? Best, Trasel (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Charles Lockwood?[edit]

  • Move Charles Lockwood (Corporate Strategist) to Charles Lockwood? - qualifier not needed, as the other similar title is different enough to distinguish (Charles A. Lockwood). Pointing to one another with an {{about}} serves the purpose here. Grsz11 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are at least three articles on persons with the name. Without clear evidence of one being the primary topic, the base name should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, somehow I missed the third. Thanks for bringing it up. Grsz11 14:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current configuration is fine. One side note, however: it might be a bit befuudling for wiki users that Charles Lockwood (author) now redirects to Charles Lockwood (corporate strategist)--since the Admiral was a fairly prolific author. Trasel (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, Grsz, now that you've noted that there are indeed three Charles Lockwood wiki bio pages, do you now plan to withdraw your Requested Move? Trasel (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 3 Charles Lockwoods are not ambiguous as article titles so a parenthetical qualifier is not desirable. This article should be at "Charles Lockwood" with a hatnote to a dab page at "Charles Lockwood (disambiguation)" listing the other two. Station1 (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The incoming links to Charles Lockwood refer to the admiral so although the article is called Charles A. Lockwood it is obvious that this is not how he may be referred to. Maintaining a disambiguation page is sensible, at least until evidence can be presented, through page view statistics, that Charles Lockwood (corporate strategist) is the primary topic, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Tassedethe (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point; I fixed the incoming links meant for the admiral, since they would continue to be wrong whether or not this page is moved. But don't forget, "Charles Lockwood" was a redirect to the admiral until today, so they were not wrong before today. I also agree a dab page is sensible, but it should be the page taking the qualifier, not the article itself. I don't think primary topic applies, because each is the primary topic for his own article title; they are 'naturally' disambiguated. Station1 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is required because all of the persons could be known as Charles Lockwood. Simply because the middle name is know for others allowing them to have unambiguous titles is not a reason for the base name to refer to one person whose middle initial happens to be unknown. It is certainly a matter of primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up: If anything, Admiral Charles Lockwood is far better known than Charles Lockwood the corporate strategist. Directing "Charles Lockwood" searches to the disambiguation page makes the most sense. Trasel (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on article[edit]

This is a really biased and spammy article in its present form. It reads like a resume, complete with being structured in inverted chronological order. The links are improperly formatted, and the tone is shamelessly promotional. I'll try to fix it, but if somebody doesn't help clean it up, it may have to be deleted as spam for a non-notable historian working outside his field. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC) a non-notable historian working outside his field[reply]

spam, perhaps, but i don't see the bias. OM? The main thing it needs is replacement of the quotes from unstated sources and the introduction, with actual published reviews. DGG (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need more time please ...[edit]

Please give me some more time to work on this article, improve its content and make the necessary changes; or for editors who are willing to help me with the fixes, please feel free to do so. It will be very much appreciated. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other books[edit]

As for these quotations: if they are from publishers blurbs or book jackets or advertisements, don't include them. They are not considered reliable, no matter who said them. If thy were published, as some of them were, include an exact reference in cite format. As for goldberger's formal introduction, that can be cited, but not so extensively. I did a good deal of rewriting,. I want to now think if it can be cut further. Its a reliable rule that these articles are more like to stand if reasonably modest. I would like to use a straight name, without a subject descriptor for the title--is there a middle initital? I add the rest of the book counts tomorrow. DGG (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As DGG suggests, such quotations, when provided by the publisher, author, etc., tend to have a very NPOV-violating bias towards careful selection of the most favorable excerpts from the most favorable reviews; thus, they generally should be shunned. Seek instead for reviews from Book Review Digest and other indexes. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
considering the source of the reviews, I think at least one from the NYT would be usable if trimmed. (btw,BRD simply summarizes reviews from other sources--including the NYT--and one can just as well cherry-pick from there. personally, I'd much rather cite the NYT directly.) DGG (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

parts of his career[edit]

(from Jxc5's comment on DGG's user talk page:) "Hello there, David. Thank you so much for helping me fix/edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lockwood_(author). I just learned that you left out the "Green Books" section? My reasons for doing that's because those books (green) are so much different from Lockwood's earlier books on architectural and urban history. Second is, 25 years has passed since the publication of his architectural history book. If this is not acceptable, I think I'll just go re-order the books so the most recent comes first and the oldest book last? Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His notability in the past as a historian of urban architecture and city planning is easy to demonstrate: the earlier books had multiple reviews, which provide the substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources that is needed per WP:BIO. His current notability as a consultant and writer on "green" strategy would be much more difficult to demonstrate, unless there is similar published comment about his work. Not as my opinion necessarily, but on the basis of what the community decides here, it is often not possible to justify an article on an essayist or speaker based only on where he has been published in, or where he has spoken--the judgment on quite a number of such articles has been to delete them. With respect to his later publications, one chapter in a HBR book is not really a book at all, and such a chapter typically counts as less than a regularly published peer-reviewed article, such as the one in HBR itself; his book of interviews with various important people is likely to reflect his work as an editor, not an author: the major content will be theirs'. We give no particular emphasis to the later parts of someone's career--we're an encyclopedia, not a source for publicity. Yes, the books should be resequenced--please do just that. DGG (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What else can I do to improve this article, David? At least to remove its "advertiness", or to take care of the other problems it still has? Your advice please ... Jxc5 (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anything of substance in the "Additional news items about Lockwood" and "media appearances" sections, incorporate it into the article, properly cited. Otherwise, it looks like you're padding a resume. Also, the lede sentence is not wikified, partly because we don't have an article on "green real estate" (whatever that may be). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, OrangeMike. I will certainly do something about it. Jxc5 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another look at this article please[edit]

I have tried to edit the article along the lines of what Orangemike proposed. I've left out some lines and added more citations - references. I'm still not sure if I was to able to get it fixed at least excluding the part that contributed to its "advertiness". I hope I did. Your inputs will be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot. Jxc5 (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do one thing more--remove the news and media appearances section. Just use them as references at the appropriate place. DGG (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David. I've removed the "news and media appearances" section. I decided to just count out some items in there and used a few I thought were rather necessary, as references. Is there anything else? Thanks again. Jxc5 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken another look at the article. I've changed the first sentence and the heading to general terms . To insist on a particular exact detailed non-standard phrase to describe the business activities is promotional. DGG (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

More feedback[edit]

(We need fewer TLAs in our life) Taking a look at this bio following a request by Jxc5. Reading through it, I have to say that the references are definitely the weakest point of the article. There are 19 cited references, 10 of which are by the author - hardly a third party source. A lot of the references seem to be improperly used. For example, the first two sentences of the corporate advisor section: one attempts to prove he is an advisor by showing he was a keynote speaker, and the other tries to say he is often a keynote speaker by linking to a speech. At best that's WP:SYNTHESIS, but it's really (especially in the case of the former) just flat out wrong. Sources should talk about him and what he has done, not literally be what he has done - that's the definition of secondary sources that are individual, intellectually, of the subject. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Thank for the feedback. I haven't been able to keep in contact, got caught up with other things. I see your point. I thought of removing all the cited references by the lead, and kept the ones from 3rd party sources for you to take a look at please. Am I on the right track? Thank you so much for your continued help. Jxc5 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, those are great steps. The whole references section is much improved now that they are mostly reliable. Of course, more is better! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

How about sources to his articles? Do you think I can use a Bibliography section where I can also probably list his books? Jxc5 (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but you need to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). Essentially, rename the section "Works" and just list the title and year published. The other information is largely irrelevant (author is implied). All analysis and descriptions should be moved if relevant to his article, or completely removed if promotional. Remember to stay on the good side of WP:SOAP and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, as this is an easy section to get promotional in. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already created a section to include Lockwood's other works like his articles. I titled it "Selected books and publications" and merely listed those that were incorporated in the article. Aside from title and year published, I also listed the name of the journal/publisher. Did I choose the appropriate title for this section though, instead of "Works"? I can always change it to that (the latter) if it's rather recommended. By the way. Does the article still read like an advertisement? Anything else that I need to improve, if..? Thanks very much. Jxc5 (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That section needs to change. If you re-read what I said and read the Manual of Style link, it should be pretty clear what is out of line in that section. Just list a few of his most important/well-read books, and remove the rest. Articles he co-authored for a weekly or daily are not important. I removed the disclaimer. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Advert." flag's been removed, anything I can do about the other flag?[edit]

Hello there Amory. I'm not sure if I was able to do the right thing Orangemike advised me to do (last line) to probably help tone down the article in contrast to the "wikify" flag? I hope you'll take some time to review the material. Thank you very much. Jxc5 (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you here. I made a whole bunch of changes, mostly moving and removing content, to make it less promotional. Lemme know what you think of them - although there's a tad less content, I think what remains better serves policy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was great Amory. Thank you very much. I just needed to put "Building The Green Way" back into the article list. The 'wikify' flag, how do we get rid of that, by the way? I think I've already added the needed relevant internal links to the article? ... Jxc5 (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you, and so, apparently, does Orangemike! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Lockwood (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Lockwood (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Lockwood_(author)&oldid=1203731504"