User talk:Joe Markarian

Hi Joe!
Welcome to Wikipedia!

I notice that you are an enthusiastic art lover. Oh Dear! This always leads one into trouble on Wikipedia! The problem is that every single statement that you make must be verifiable.
 * You can't repeat a story about eg. Giotto and Cimabue, without citing your source.
 * If the fact is indeed fact e.g. "The Arena Chapel is 85 metres long then you just reference it as (ref Bloggs p. 126) with the proper formatting for locating it in the reference section at the foot of the page (which you have to learn how to do).
 * If the fact is actually a rumour, tradition or story, then you must cite its source within the body of the article, otherwise it has no credit at all. e.g.
 * According to Vasari, Cimabue would get his pupils to plaster....... and then this must be followed up by the location of the information within Vasari's work. (ref Vasari, Lives - Cimabue, p. 136) or whatever.

Further matters:
 * You cannot use highly-descriptive qualitative terms on Wikipedia.
 * In other words, you can't say that no-one captured the beauty of the Virgin Mary as well as Jan van Eyck. There is absolutely no way of backing up this statement.  It is entirely "personal Opinion", and editors get shot down in flames for expressing personal opinions.
 * For a start, we have no evidence that the Virgin Mary was even so much as reasonably pretty (however much one might suspect that she was).
 * And some equally enthusiastic writer might well say that no-one portrayed the Virgin Mary as exquisitely (my word) as Raphael, or Velazquez.
 * Basically, words like "beautiful", etc are labelled "Peacock Words" and get deleted by the Wiki police.


 * There is a way around this. Use direct quotes from reliable sources. e.g. Helen Gardner described this painting as one of the finest essays in light and shade of the Early Renaissance. (cite source)

Pages you need: Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, Manual of Style

AJM's advice to new editors

 * Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
 * Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
 * Search for the right place to put it.
 * Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
 * Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
 * Be aware
 * that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
 * that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images
 * Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
 * Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
 * Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px.  The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match.  Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
 * Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
 * Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
 * Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
 * Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
 * Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Happy editting!

Amandajm (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Jan van Eyck
I have just deleted your addition to the Jan van Eyck article, in the light of the message that I left you, above. I've pasted it here so that you can work on it.


 * While painting the Madonna with her child, Van Eyck's brush brought out her purity and beauty above all. His images of Mary with their costly garments stand in Gothic churches, serious and lovely, or sit enthroned in lavishly decorated rooms, lit by the gentle sunlight. According to some sources, no one had been able to use color so magically before him. Previously, it was hard for artists to capture the waft of a transparent veil on the velvety glow of expensive fabrics. Van Eyck, however, used oil painting, a technique which was still new and which he mastered; this enabled him to show fine transitions, to lend a glow to faces, velvety weight to fabrics and to make other textures shine transparently.

The problems are:
 * It is about Critical assessment of van Eyck's painting.  So it doesn't get jammed into a section relating dated events in the course of his life, and immediately at the beginning of a new section which begins with an important event, the death of a patron.   It definitely doesn't  begin that section.
 * This is about finding the place for your edit. if you look further, you will find a section on his paintings.


 * Personal opinion. Van Eyck's brush brought out her purity and loveliness.  This is 100% personal opinion.  You cannot write it into Wikipedia.
 * Peacock words. purity, beauty, serious and lovely, lavishly, gentle, magically, etc.    I know this may sound like a difficult ask, but if you are going to write about art on Wikipedia, you have to limit the use of adjectives and use them very skilfully, otherwise every single one of them gets deleted.
 * Vague expression. Previously, it was hard for artists to capture  the waft of a transparent veil etc.   What is this about?  You must get to the absolute nitty gritty and make a clear statement.  The statement is quite simply that the medium of oil paint lent itself to painting texture (that is the key word).   It is quite reasonable to say that Jan van Eyck was a master of the technique and influenced other painters.
 * Seriously stretching credibility: According to some sources, no one had been able to use color so magically before him.
 * What? Which sources?
 * No-one? Does that include all the fresco painters and icon painters?
 * Magically? That is an extreme peacock word that simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.


 * There are ways to get around these problems, but you need to:
 * Cite sources
 * Quote sources
 * Use about one-tenth of the adjectives. And make every adjective that you do use really count for something.
 * "Magically" is absolutely out unless you are describing how it was that Neville Longbottom turned into a toad.
 * State facts not opinions.
 * Put all your edits in the right places, under the right headings.

Amandajm (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)