User talk:Jessie.kaur24

Welcome!
Hello, Jessie.kaur24, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Image copyright
Hi, I noticed that you uploaded two images and marked them as your own work, however the images appear to be photographs of copyrighted work. Keep in mind that although you may have taken a picture of a picture, the way you photographed this would be considered a copyright violation on Wikipedia because it can be seen as a reproduction of something that's held under a restrictive copyright. Images of this nature cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons because of the matter of copyright. Generally speaking, if an sculpture or artwork was created in the last 150 years, it shouldn't be photographed. For images in specific, only images put out before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain and thus able to be photographed and reproduced on Wikimedia Commons. (There may be some exceptions to this.) There is a bit of wiggle room with content released prior to the late 70s if there is no evidence that copyright was renewed, however this is something that you'd have to research and validate in case anyone was to ask. Anything released after the 70s should be assumed to be copyrighted and not able to be reproduced on Wikimedia Commons unless clearly marked as being in the public domain or a compatible Creative Commons license.

As such, both of these images will need to be removed from Wikimedia Commons. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft notes
I wanted to give you some notes on your draft as well:


 * Wikipedia doesn't use euphemisms for things like death, so rather than saying passed away you should say "after her death" or something similar.


 * You need to be careful about declaring something as Calabrese's biggest accomplishments. This can be seen as original research, as it could come across as us saying that these are her best accomplishments. If it's something that's being said in the source material it needs to be attributed to the person making the claim, such as "Jane Smith has stated that...". However my recommendation would be to write it like this:
 * Pieces of Calabrese's clothing are held in the permanent collections of the Costume Institute of The Metropolitan Museum of Art and in the Costume Collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
 * This is more straightforward and to the point, without making potential original research. The information about her seeking out the museums herself is definitely good to add so that is a nice touch to include. (I was just focusing on the first part.)


 * Wikipedia refers to people using the last name, with the exception of when you have an article about multiple people with the same last name or when someone is really most known under a professional first name such as Madonna.


 * Avoid mentioning who has worn her clothing in great depth unless it is particularly noteworthy. There is a general expectation that well known designers will have famous people wear their designs, so this by itself isn't really noteworthy as far as Wikipedia goes.


 * The DEBI award line is confusing, as it says that she still wins after her death. Is it that her company is releasing work that is winning or is it that the contest considered clothing that she created prior to her death, but the award was given posthumously? If so, that should be specified.


 * The Joan Rivers part needs to be sourced. It is also unclear what the term most is meant to mean. The draft needs more sourcing as a whole.


 * Be careful of sourcing, as not all sources are usable. For example, the Manta source only backs up who ran the store, not the claim about Calabrese, which should be the main focus. Basically, the thing that should be sourced is the claim that this is where she first sold her clothing. There's also a question to be had about whether it's really usable, as the site looks like it accepts user submissions - which makes it potentially unusable since it would be like Wikipedia, which cannot source itself or be used as a source.

A lot of this is smaller details, so I hope that this doesn't dishearten you - I think you chose a good topic and that overall what you have here is good. At this point it's just a matter of fitting it to Wikipedia's writing style, which takes some getting used to. (I did the same things when I first started editing.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)