Talk:Lynn Russell Chadwick (artist)

New article
This is plainly the wrong way to go about creating articles. There is a pre-existing article Lynn Chadwick (since 2008) which has been developed by numerous editors. Creator of this new article probably has a COI and if they have new info can add it to the existing article. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather saddened to see the article I started taken over like this. Not sure that the article title is correct either, he was commonly known as Lynn Chadwick. The article also has a LOT of unreferenced opinion and original research. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

To Sinonk and Theroadislong, I'm really sorry if I breached any rules of Wikipedia. I have read many books on Lynn Chadwick and I assure you all of the information relayed is accurate. I would be happy to take this down and add to the existing article. I am afraid I didn;t even check if there was one. As I said, I am really sorry. Please let me know how i can rectify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.130.18 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no fault attributed to the original author, IP 109, overall it looks like a well written draft, supported by some authoritative sources. Wikipedia is a collaborative process and contributing your(?) knowledge to the existing article would be the proper way to go, IMO. Sometimes people over-think a solution and come up with one that is over-complex (and wrong), as in this situation. Sionk (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat concerned that the article now has 39 references to Dennis Farr and Eva Chadwick's recent book which seems like ref spamming. Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That may be largely due to the fact each example of a work in a public art collection has an inline citation, particularly to source 1 (Chadwick). Sionk (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

,, . This is not how one merges two articles. The previous editors work on Lynn Chadwick has essentially been blasted away. Anything new should be added to Lynn Chadwick. The best way of doing this is for Chadwick01 to add their material into Lynn Chadwick. This way, the previous editors history is there and Chadwick01 gets proper credit for their new material. There is a problem with the refs in the new version. The refs had all the same names, even though they were not identical. There is a better way of doing refs from books when the refs only change page number. Take a look at Sfn or give a yell and I can help. I definitely think the new version is a vast improvement. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to address this comment to Dodger67 who moved this draft from AfC. It looks like it was written and submitted to AfC in good faith. I've started a merger discussion which you're welcome to comment on. Sionk (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Photograph Comment Spelling/grammar correction
I have removed the photograph from the info box, User:Chadwick01 uploaded it as their own work, but the photograph was taken by Stan Dutton. Not sure how to mark photos for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)