Talk:Julia Galloway

Untitled
Julia Galloway is one of the most important ceramicists of our time. She is widely published and highly respected. Bkstevens (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear from the article if those are her own publications or the work of others but they look like her own stuff. If so, then no notability has been shown of even really asserted outside of self-cites. That is, you need someone else to notice her, not herself or those somehow affiliated with her. I've got publications, pictures, etc posted in various places and I have published writing ( or ravings as the case may be) that I think are great. If you can't get others to notice it, put it on myspace or an ad space. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Only cite 2-4 are primary sources. All others are independant of the subject.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it is hard to tell what the repeated things are- you can name a reference and cite it by name to reduce this clutter. Normally a few citations from independent sources would make a good case, but none of the independent sources have links and I haven't bothered to hunt them down. Remove reundant cites and try to find independent coverage online with a link or explain why not avialable should be fine. I'm big on dead tree sources but if you have something modern a link or two to an abstract at least would help. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They arn't links because they are publications. Reliable sources are not required to be online or linked.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

notability seems likely from goog hits and there are 3 apparently independent sources of coverage
but it would help if we had at least links to tables of contents for the journals to get some idea of the nature of the coverage. Not everyone who reads this will know the literature in the field and in fact likely will not.
 * I don't see your point. The key here is WP:Verifiability, not the ease of it.  If someone can go to a book store, buy the referenced material and see the citations, it meets the policy.  It isn't required that someone who reads the article already know the referenced material.  Please read Verifiability--TParis00ap (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would help if you read my post. "it would help" means just that, it would help. Its just a suggestion, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Ceramics+monthly%22+galloway&as_ylo=&as_vis=0, as it is hard to tell exactly the nature of the coverage. For example, simply being listed as exhibiting may or may not qualify. And, if you want readers to check the sources and see her work ( the only linked citations appear to be those affiliated with the topic) there is no reason to make it more difficult than necessary. With old obscure works you may find more dead tree sources. Most modern journals have table of contents online. Lack of a link of some kind raises suspicions. "Verifiablility" doesn't only mean that verification could be done, but that it would return a positive result and can be claimed in past tense as "verified" rather than "verified not to exist as stated." Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julia Galloway. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608172736/http://www.theclaystudio.org/exhibitions/galloway09.php to http://www.theclaystudio.org/exhibitions/galloway09.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)