Talk:Legacy Russell

Self-published sources
I added a maintenance tag to the page. The main concern I have is that LinkedIn should not be sourced for where someone worked previously (per WP:SELFSOURCE), since it's a social media platform and not reliable / checked for accuracy.

If the LinkedIn sources are replaced with reliable sources, or the information from those sources is removed, then I think the issue will be addressed and it would be fine to remove the tag. - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and cleaned up some of the sources, and the tag is now removed. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Legacy Russell revert
I see you recently reverted my edit, but I don't see an explanation of the issues you saw in it, so I'm restoring most of it. Could you please explain so we can discuss the issues here? Also, considering your edit history, are you related to Legacy Russell in any way, either financially, professionally, or socially (or as a fan)?

Just to summarize the edit a bit: My edit fixed quotation marks per MOS:CURLY. I simplified the part of the sentence "Russell is an active participant in the critical expansion and disruption of conversations around...", which was unsourced and sounds like art talk that many readers wouldn't be able to understand. I removed "moving image, performance, and digital art practice" from an unsourced run-on sentence about her academic work. If you have any other ideas on how to improve that sentence so that it doesn't run on, I'm open to it, though.

I removed the sentence about her being a smart, out-there curator, since it didn't convey any concrete information about her work - that part of the sentence also gave undue weight to a small mention in a larger source, and seemed to go against WP:PUFFERY / MOS:SAID. I also adjusted the article so that it sounded more neutral than it currently was - words like "heralded", "coined", "extensive" and other sorts of phrases that are meant to promote a person's work are usually avoided on Wikipedia, unless they have multiple high-quality sources to back them up.

I appreciate the work you've done on this article so far. Again, if you have any issues, you are welcome to discuss them here. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)