Talk:Kendra Haste

Concerns
This article reads as highly promotional and is entirely created by one editor alone. Many of the historical references to other artists and are irrelevant as it is boring padding and does not offer basic facts about Kendra Haste. This sort of essay would be more appropriate for a publication that Wikipedia page.

The un-referenced exhibition list is thin, and again self promotional in style so against the spirit of Wikipedia. It adds nothing.

A clear notion of commissioned sculptures, when and where etc, would be sufficient for this article without endless anecdote. Tooth Dover (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, and apologies that you find the subject boring. I note your contributions to date are limited to this article alone. I did not start the article - I came across it while Reviewing New Pages, and I left a comment. Coincidentally I had visited the Tower of London in July last year and was impressed by the lions so I decided to invest some time in the article. As Haste is a visual artist I wanted some good images but had difficulty sourcing any, so I asked Haste's agent, Patrick Davies, if he would upload some to Commons. He did so, (low res only). I have also asked him for other info, and he has corrected me on occasion.


 * Where the article might read as promotional, I take your point, but I can hardly be expected to treat the work of a notable sculptor in its varied historical contexts as one might do a shopping list.


 * The "unreferenced", (4 refs already) exhibition list is referenced more thoroughly in the body of the text, many of which you deleted, but for greater clarity I will link each item directly. The list is actually a complete list of all her exhibitions, so I assume by "thin" you mean there is almost no info to go with each title. I agree - but first I had to create the list, and have begun to add detail at Underground Safari. I don't agree the list is "self promotional in style" - it's comprehensive, engaging and easily read.


 * "A clear notion..." - I think the when and where are complimented when some context is provided, such as in the Tower menagerie background info. I especially thought the "Influences" section was important so as to contextualize Haste's own work, but I note you deleted all, save the four thumbnails. The extended quote is a verbatim answer to a question put to Mz Haste herself in interview and referenced as such. Given one of the most important tenets of a "Good" article is that it be "engaging", I see no worth in hacking her own words about. Anyone interested in knowing what has influenced the artist is best served hearing it from the horses mouth, so to speak.


 * My enthusiasm for the subject might come across as promotional, but I have not used one adjective - I rather let the art speak for itself. You might also suggest I am promoting the Tower of London, or Cannon Hall Museum; is there even one word spoken in any language that is not in some way promotional? I am cognisant of the need for neutrality so I've kept your COI tag in place.

The article now links to Tower of London and National Museum of Wildlife Art, therefore no longer an orphan. Curiously it also links to User:DanielRigal, (is s/he notable), a professed Deletionist. Perhaps you and he should meet up. Thanks again. Mark  Dask  04:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That made me jump! Fortunately it was the other way round. My talk page linked to the article, rather than vice-versa. I had the article on a very old "todo" list dating back to before this article was created. I made a note of a vague interest in the subject as I pass the elephant at Waterloo fairly regularly. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay I think the word you were looking for was frippery - check out my last edit.  Mark   Dask  13:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

is mostly correct in their assessment of the text and sources.
 * The "Early life" section is sourced to her own website. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, sources published by the article subject can only be used for non-controversial claims about herself that do not involve other people. The information about her family is both not in the source provided and gives identifying information about low profile individuals in violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. Without reliable sources to verify and show how they are relevant, they should not be in the article (per WP:BALASP}. The parts about her schooling and her BBC award are obviously self-serving and involve claims about other parties. The only here that meets all five BLPSELFPUB criteria is the fact that she was born in 1971 and that she was born and raised in London (cited on this other page)


 * The main source in the "Influences" section is an overlong quotation from an interview that isn't accessible. Instead, it's cited to the contact page of her agent. What the hell is that supposed to be? All quotations have to be verifiable to reliable sources (lede and first section of WP:V), and they should generally be reworded into neutral encyclopedic language unless there's a good reason to faithfully reproduce them (MOS:QUOTE and WP:LONGQUOTE). Reproducing long quotations might also be a copyright violation (WP:COPYQUOTE). If readers are interested in the full interview, it will be available in the source. The other sources in this section about the influence of Assyrian art on Ms. Haste do not mention her at all, but merely describe the art that supposedly inspired her, making it a breach of WP:NOR. So until the interview is accessible, there's no actual sources in this section, so removing it was the correct option.


 * The exhibition on the Chime Museum exhibition had an incorrect citation which referred to something else entirely, and a Google Search of English and Chinese media didn't find any reliable sources that dealt with the exhibition with much more than a name drop. I sourced it to the museum exhibition page, and moved it to the exhibitions section, which does need work. Many entries need to be sourced for a start.


 * The caption of the images should follow MOS:CAPTION. The lede image does not explain why it's important at all, and doesn't even explain that the woman pictured is the article subject.


 * The various "citation needed" and "not in source given" tags are correctly, but feel free to challenge or improve on them. I personally prefer using citation needed tags because it's precise about where citations are needed, and isn't as ugly as an orange citations needed banner under every section header that needs it. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the two refs, especially Chimei. I have now addressed the ref tags you applied, though I'm unsure about how best to format the "Exhibitions" pre 2005. I had linked each to Portelli, with all same page number (298, copy of page available - email me), but that looked silly, so thought it easiest just to specify Portelli, p298 at top. I also want to reinstate this quote in the Career section - explanatory, not self-serving and referenced (4);
 * "I have always drawn and made things but working with wire really came about when I was at art college. I used to draw three-dimensionally with a linear, binding wire and that has developed over the years to the more robust, substantial sculptures that I make today. The wire mesh is commonly used in sculpture practice to make an armature with other material, such as plaster or clay applied on top, but I always found the wire form more aesthetically interesting. So I began to use the wire mesh as a sculpting material on its own".
 * Let me know what you think and if okay please remove the "Refs" tag. Mark   Dask  19:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Only a few quibbles: I would use ref. 9 which specifically mentions Haste's work at the Tower a bit more liberally in sourcing in the section on the Royal Menagerie. Some of the sources still don't mention Haste which I'll tag). I also think the long quotation is unnecessary. We're an encyclopedia, not an art magazine, and the quote doesn't add much besides the fact that she started her work with wires in art school. Shoot me an email (see my user page), with the .pdf, and I'll be happy to take off the ref tag once these issues are resolved. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've emailed you p198.pdf and I've addressed your new ((citation)) tags in the text. I have done more than I think you have a right to expect. If you feel you're right in your demands I think you should demand the same of the Guy Portelli article.  Mark   Dask  22:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources for the Cannon Hall rhinoceros still don't mention the earlier stuff by name, and since the only source is from a firm contracted by the article subject to do renovation work, I've moved it into the other artworks section. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the Portelli article already has an orange tag at the top - one that this article no longer needs, since all claims are more or less appropriately cited now. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the exhibitions list as it included general Art Fair participation with Tooth and Davies Gallery/ inclusions graduation shows and other low level group shows that are not Wikipedia notable or verified with a reference indicating Haste's specific inclusion. I have followed Wikipedia preferences and removed the CV list as Wikipedia does not like lists. This section now looks strong and can be easily edited into as Haste moves forward in her career. I have placed this 'Notable Exhibitions' section under her 'Awards' section. I hope this reads clearly for Wikipedia now, and obviously a full CV list is present on Haste's website.Tooth Dover (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists, lists are prefered for works/exhibitions like the one you prosified. All the entries in the exhibition list are now sourced to either Portelli or other reliable sources, all of which do specifically indicate Haste's inclusion. Removing the list because Haste's career isn't notable enough doesn't seem to work in this case because she's been an award-winning artist for 20 years. I've reverted to a previous version, because placing awards/honours and exhibitions/works at the top is atypical in biography articles. This is partially because doing so would make the biography more promotional than encyclopedic. I have however, removed any works that are not sourced to a secondary source. Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. List is fine then, but I have never seen a degree show on a CV and my research has shown no evidence of many of the listings as exhibitions. I have tried to refer to the Modern British Sculpture by Guy Portelli (as this is referenced throughout the page) to back up the CV listings and have inadvertently found that Haste is not actually included in this book http://thisbook.ru/Modern-British-sculpture-Guy-Portelli-RBA-ARBS/2/cjhbhca. I have downloaded the book PDF and she is not there. Clarity would be good here. Am I missing it, otherwise this should be removed from the 'Awards and Affiliations' section.Tooth Dover (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how reliable a presumably illegal copy from that URL is. I went to a local university library to look at the Portelli book, and the pages on Kendra Haste are there, and they verify all the listings that were there on the article. The Yale source also includes Haste in the list of included authors. On this basis, I'm restoring the content. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to download the PDF on my Windows 10 PC and nothing happened. Also I noted on that link, ending .ru, there are only 81 artists listed of the 95 that are in the book - albeit Haste is mentioned at the bottom. Thanks for taking the time to visit the library Patar; I already had the goods so didn't need to. Mark   Dask  15:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Maybe the 81 artists was an earlier copy that got leaked and uploaded for illegal downloads. The print version definitely includes Haste. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming Portelli is now an accepted source, it seems unfortunate to me that ref (3) has to be cited 20 times in the article - looks like someone took a blunderbus to the page. Must the article forever wear that degree of overkill? Just asking. Mark   Dask  00:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see it as a problem in any way to cite a high quality source 20 times. I was the main contributor to Harry Yount, a Good article, and I cited the best source 23 times. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen - 2nd opinion appreciated - let it stand. Mark  Dask  23:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion around this and I must be clear here as I have bought the book myself for clarity. Kendra Haste does appear as a text mention but is not a featured artist. This is why she is not listed on most on-line promotions of this book. I can also be absolutely clear that Kendra Haste has no CV or exhibitions cited in any way in this publication and it is incorrect that this book should be continually used as a reference for exhibitions in this Wikipedia page.

It is obviously a great achievement that Kendra is mentioned in this book and this must be noted. However, the use of this book as a continual reference throughout this article must be undone. I will leave this to another editor to make their own judgement  Tooth Dover (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The version of the book I saw devoted three pages, four paragraphs, and several pages to Kendra Haste. I can vouch that all the information, including the awards and shows cited to it does appear in the book. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I emailed Guy Portelli on his site, (enquiries@portelli-sculptor.co.uk), on 21 Feb, prior to using the Portelli ref in the article, and his rep Victoria Hansen confirmed Haste's entry in the book at pages 298-300, inclusive. I have copies of those pages and can confirm wut Patar says. I would suggest anyone with any doubt should email Portelli and Ms. Hansen will doubtless confirm the details. Mark   Dask  17:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to seem presumptious here but Tooth Dover's recent edits seem a bit severe. I thought we had come to a consensus when Tooth claimed to have bought a copy of Portelli, (minimum £76.99), by way of disparaging both my and Patar knight's evidence to the contrary. Mark   Dask  21:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

On 13 th April 2017 Mark   Dask  stated in his edit summary that 'Haste's agent has just informed me that he used me to serve his interests - I want no part of promoting this agent's commercial interests'. This is very irregular to have appeared hidden in the edit summary.

The article has been dominated by this one editor who accused me of being a sock puppet of --DanielRigal just for making basic contributions that have been supported by other editors. Whilst the investigation ran (and cleared me) I now find most of my edits undone by Mark  Dask  Tooth Dover (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to bother responding to this, save to direct any prospective reader to the comments immediately above Tooth's complaint. I am currently working on the Nicola Hicks article. I'm in personal touch with her agent because agents are the best source of information and images, and I hope I can do as much for the Hicks' article as I sought to do with this article. My thanks in advance to whoever removes the COI tag. Mark  Dask  00:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Photos
Could you explain this edit summary? It looks like several of the photos uploaded to Commons failed an OTRS check and will be deleted within 30 days unless proven to be under a free license. What happened? Should we immediately re-add the free versions of Haste's works from before? Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with the photos, I've reverted the edit. I need to take a break so will not be on here for a while. Mark   Dask  09:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)