Talk:Sara Flower

Work in progress
I'm new to wikipedia: this is a work in progress based around 15 year of research and a 2 vol. PhD thesis 2000, Griffith University, Queensland Australia entitled 'Terminal Silence'. The thesis is theoretically constructed around the suppression of Voice vis-a-vis word, using the historical 'disappearance' of the singer Sara Flower who had been one of the seminal 'voices' within musical culture in Australia up to the time of her death in 1865 and beyond to the return of Nellie Melba in the early 20th century. Humbeede (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this article. I've now added a source and done a bit of clean-up. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the contributions and advice..I'm refining the text in word and will have a more substantial contribution in the near future. I've also taken you up on the 'sandbox' idea, by following the link you created. Humbeede (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've done some cleanup here, but will hold off until the article is completed. However, there are serious problems here. It is written like a personal essay and contains original research. There is also a lot of jargon not suitable for an encyclopedia article, e.g. "It is music's compromise with language, whereby an audience is momentarily deprived of its jouissance." Great in a PhD. or journal article but not suitable for Wikipedia. There should be no reference whatsoever to the author(s) of the Wikipedia article, and the reader should not be addressed directly. Nor should there be personal commentary and opinions expressed. I've added some tags below which summarize the problems. Please click on the links in them to read more about the issues involved.

I suggest reading through Writing better articles for more detailed guidance.

Also the footnoting and referencing style is inappropriate. I had fixed much of it, but unfortunately, the article's creator has reversed most of it. Also please remember that these articles are edited collaboratively, try not to paste over huge chunks of the article which remove the necessary formatting, etc. provided by other editors. --Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. This all a steep learning curve for me. About the footnoting - thanks for fixing it up but I'm afraid I couldn't work out the Wiki method of footnoting and was hoping somebody would fix them. And someone did. You? thanks. Re the original research issue - I don't quite understand. So if the PhD thesis had been published that would be OK? But surely a successful PhD thesis puts the info out there and it is no longer new? Anyone can get it if they want to - but not on the internet unfortunately. Yes you are right to object to the style. I went back in to chop out that whole section but it had already gone.  It should start to conform very quickly. About the technical terms. If it's covered in Wikipedia is that all right? Jouissance was there so I made an internal link. what do you reckon?  But I'll go easy on them. Thanks again - Humbeede  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbeede (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)