Talk:Arnold Skolnick

Template additions.
Copied to User talk:Prof.Psky

I have added a variety of templates to the Arnold Skolnick article. I considered copy-editing it to remove all unsubstantiated claims, leaving only the disinterested, but what would remain would be a mere stub, and requesting inline cites would mean adding a request to virtually every sentence and clause.… the whole article is pure promotional aggrandizing flannel. Now, what is written may or may not be true, however, encyclopedic style dictates that claims and opinions have to be substantiated with links to primary and independent sources.

Please consider re-writing the article, also removing its editorializing and hyperbolic aspect, ( Manual of Style (words to watch) ), with phrases and words such as: most “widely” known… “highly” competitive… And “unfortunately”… is “arguably” the most famous piece… this “legendary” artist's… father “carefully” cut… the “entirely” original… Others “absurdly” have… a “peaceful” 3 days… “legendary” artistic ability… Skolnick's “beautiful” drawings…

This hyperbole doesn’t aggrandize Skolnick; the show of blatant promotion appears as a desperation to impress, and in a Wiki article it diminishes him. I say all this because I believe him to be notable. Acabashi (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)