Talk:Rebecca Allen (artist)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 19 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lisacalabro92. Peer reviewers: Rheana98, Francescacast, Jakejf113, Christay817.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Please read WP:RS, we need reliable sources in order to a new content to a BLP. Removal of information today featured without sources (ie. she is a Detroit native?). Jooojay (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Work Plan for Rebecca Allen's Wikepedia
When examining the current Wikipedia page for Rebecca Allen, there are a number of improvements to be made to make this Wiki page better. After working on the page for a while now, there are some minor corrections that I have made. Other Wikipedians have also contributed and edited the Wiki page since I have started my work on this page. Their contributions have mostly corrected my grammar and wording of phrases. Although, when examining the page first, the primary works needed to be done for this page was adding corrective citations. This was because although citations existed for the page, some of them were dead links, or lead the viewer to an unreliable source. I would take this into consideration and change the citation to match something of a more reliable source coming out of an academic article, or thesis on her work. Also, when examining her page another thing that may be improved is the pictures up. As the main picture on the profile, I believe the one in use if fine. Although, I believe there should be one or two more pictures of her, and maybe two or three pictures of her works presented on the page. I intend to complete this by looking at the pictures of her that meet the standard of Wikipedia posting and making sure there is no violation info the trademark or plagiarism rules for Wikipedia. When looking at her intro section or sentence, I feel this should be shorted a bit and more concise rather than staying as wordy as it stands. Also, I intend to move the second entry (sentence) upward or finding a way to concisely make this claim. I feel her biography can contain some of the info that is presented in the intro sentence, and that overall the biography section may be expanded a bit further to discuss her past main contributions to the graphic design world. Also, maybe updating some of the information to be more present as well. After looking at this, and moving into the work section, I have tried to already add a more recent work done by Allen, although I feel like it might be best to scrap this section as a description to her works, and make it into a list, because as it stands it only mentions her biggest works, not her totality of works. In doing so, I intend to cite all of the pieces used mentioned from a digital archive. In her art and exhibition section, I genuinely like how it is currently formatted, although I might add some other performances or exhibitions she has worked on. In the awards section, the claim and citation are truthful, I would just personally work it in a different way. Finally, in the external links section, it is quite confusing because it just gives us a link to her website, then an interview with her, and the UCLA website. This I would desirably change because having her website is understandable, but the interview I would remove that, or maybe see how it relates to being on the page and writing a more valid hyperlink to it. The final link to UCLA, I would remove completely, or refer to the link of her working there because it seems confusing as an external link to be present there, because she had retired from UCLA. Moreover, when looking at Rebecca Allen’s Wikipedia page, I feel that there are quite a few adjustments to be made, and hopefully, my main concern is to see that these changes do occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisacalabro92 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, please take the time to read about what Wikipedia describes as a "reliable source" - a lot of your decisions you have made on this talk page do not follow WP:RS such as we would not include anyone's thesis paper a reliable source, and when we are dealing with dead links - there is a procedure to tag them as such, so the bots can add in the archived URL, see WP:LR. It's okay to use a UCLA link in external links section (even though she retired, universities often maintain staff pages for emeritus). If you have questions please ask here or use the Wikipedia Teahouse. Happy editing! Jooojay (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey There, i had recently ghone over the Wikipedia Reliable source sections, and i agree with the idea of not using thesis as a source, for it is not a actual reliable source. Although when continuing this article further, the sources i do plan on using follow what would be considered reliable, and academic in the sense of being used in a thesis. As for dead links, some of the links have gotten removed, but if there are more i plan to actually go about the corrective way of fixing the. Thank you for the advice and this is something ill take into great consideration!Lisacalabro92 (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC) lisacalabro92