Talk:Patricia Olynyk

Query
" One of the first artists in the US appointed to a scientific unit at a university," this is meaningless-- does the source have the exact number, or is it only guessing? DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Patricia Olynyx
As per your query above and the queries on your talk page under the title, == Patricia Olynyx ==, listed below, I copied my response from there.

"Please see my query on the article's talk page. Could you please include the exact wording of the source.

I should also mention that a paragaph on career starting with the latest position and going backwards is almost always a sign of promotional writing--is there any coi, or did you just adopt the wording of a source?  DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)"

Hello,

As per your talk page query, and I will copy this exchange there also, "One of the first artists in the US appointed to a scientific unit at a university," this is meaningless-- does the source have the exact number, or is it only guessing?"   -  That is in the opening, introductory paragraph of the article.  As per Wiki guidelines the writer can choose to footnote the introductory paragraph, or not, and put the specifics lower in the article.  I choose to do the latter and have a footnote lower down in the article, under the new section you added, "Artistic Work," which still uses my original writing:   "she was one of the first artists in the US appointed to a university science unit,[7]" followed by footnote #7 "Terranova, Charissa N.; Tromble, Meredith (August 12, 2016). The Routledge Companion to Biology in Art and Architecture (1st ed.). Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge. p. xxiv. ISBN 9781138919341. Retrieved 11 June 2019." from a respected press.  The exact wording of the sentence footnoted from Routledge is "She formerly held joint appointments in the University of Michigan's School of Art and Design and the Life Sciences Institute, where she was one of the first artists in the US to be appointed to a scientific unit."

The same information is covered in other reliable sources that I could easily footnote but Routledge Press is a well known international press and I thought that was adequate. The MIT Press, the National Academy of Science, Yale Radio and others could be added to back it up further.

- Regarding your "a paragraph on career starting with the latest position and going backwards is almost always a sign of promotional writing--is there any coi, or did you just adopt the wording of a source." -- Did not know that and thought it was standard. Understood that as long as you have it in a logical order, either chronologically from the latest going backwards -which I find more useful, see all the time on Wiki, and assumed was the standard- or the other way around, was fine according to Wiki rules as long as it makes sense. Yes, I imagine I was influenced by the many sources on this person's career, which as I recall usually lists from latest to most recent. I can double check if there is a preferred structure for this in Wiki guidelines.

- Regarding the flags you put on the article: "This article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism. (July 2019) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (July 2019)" - I am reviewing Wiki rules that cover these. I will add more direct quotes about the artist's work and contributions to the field from respected and reliable sources and edit the article to improve it. 00:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Ogmany (talk)


 * An organization writing PR always goes backwards. They want you to know who it was they managed to get their current head from. their PR people don't care about his career in general. Encyclopedic style is a systematic presentation. All biographies in general sources start at the beginning. They typically have an introducton giving the highest position, but then they go in order.
 * "one of the first" is widely used in general writing. It is not appropriate for reference books. I remind you that one of the first, could just as accurately be written: She did this, but she was not the first to do so.   If Routledge used that phrase, that's an indication of poor copy-editing.  I've reviewed hundreds of reference books for the main academic librarian's review journal Choice  for several decades. It is not at all unusual for some  of them to be of lower quality.    A publisher's goal is to sell books. Our goal is to have high standards.  ( My guess is that they didn't bother looking it up, but copied it from the publicity materials. It might it fact be rather difficult to define who was actually the first. )


 * My primary concern here these years has been the removal of advertising & PR. I see from the range of subjects that you work on that you are not writing advertising. Since there is so much advertising here from lower standards in our earlier years that has not yet been removed, and fine arts is one of the fields where it has been particularly prevalent, it's important to make sure your work can be distinguished from that. You  have to make sure the reader knows it .  DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * once I look at a page and find some problems, I generally look at other pages by the same editor-Although I did find similar problems,  and did some miscellaneous copyedits while I was there. I realize I may be concentrating on this unduly. There's sometimes a difficult liine between the need to catch similar problems, and the need to not get over-insistent about it. Since your work is fundamentally OK, however I may disagreeabout style, I do not want  to unreasonably focus on it when there are much more serious problems elsewhere. My apologies if I may have seemed unpleasant. .  DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

looking again
I've looked again atthe article. I regret that you did not understand me, and I do not mean to pick on you, but I will not overlook what reads as promotionalism. I am removing one of the first as poorly referenced BLP. It is against the rules to add it back without explicit consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

-- Hello, Please recall you only just removed the line (shown in full below) with this most recent edit. You did not remove the line before this, please check your earlier edits -- and I most explicitly DID NOT "add it back without explicit consensus." -- as you state above. It was never taken out until your most recent edit: so not only did I not add it back without consensus, it was never taken out until now, by you. You also apologized above saying "I realize I may be concentrating on this unduly. There's sometimes a difficult liine between the need to catch similar problems, and the need to not get over-insistent about it. Since your work is fundamentally OK, however I may disagreeabout style, I do not want to unreasonably focus on it."

How does this read as promotionalism? The only reference I can find for promotionalism in Wiki help is blank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD_and_promotionalism. Could you please explain what the issue is exactly? As stated earlier above, I choose to not put any citations in the introductory paragraph, which is considered a valid editorial choice by Wiki guidelines, and is not "poorly referenced" since it is covered by two different footnotes further down in the article, and passed your scrutiny two times earlier. The line that you did not take out of the intro paragraph until now was "One of the first artists in the US appointed to a scientific unit at a university."

That line was not footnoted, as also explained earlier, because the intro paragraph does not have to be footnoted as per WIki guidelines. That fact was then listed further down twice, supported with two different footnotes in the: -- third paragraph under "Artistic work" "Olynyk was one of the first artists in the US appointed to a university science unit,[7] (footnote #7 Terranova, Charissa N.; Tromble, Meredith (August 12, 2016). The Routledge Companion to Biology in Art and Architecture (1st ed.). Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge. p. xxiv. ISBN 9781138919341. Retrieved 11 June 2019.) -- and under "education and career" as "In 2005, she became the first non-scientist appointed to the University’s Life Sciences Institute.[29] (footnote #29 O’Connor, Candace (Spring 2010). "Artist Evokes Mysteries of Nature". Washington University in St. Louis. Retrieved 28 May 2019.) Ogmany (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

-- Upon reviewing Wiki guidelines again for the flags you put on this article, which we have discussed at length on the talk page above, and as defined per Wiki, also included below, I do not feel the article is routine coverage, sensational or puffery, and is indeed neutral. Here are the flags you have posted:  -- This article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism. (July 2019) -- This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (July 2019) --The neutrality of this article is disputed. (July 2019) And here is the definition of those flags, below, per Wiki. From Wiki: "Routine coverage Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories). Sensationalism Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability. Note that this guideline applies to articles about a wide range of subjects beyond just events including articles about living people, celebrities, media topics, and fringe ideas. "

Could you please point out the exact problems you have and point out how I can improve the article? Additionally, could you please answer the question in the previous entry, about the line you claim I took out, which I did not. Ogmany (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)