Talk:Virginia Scruggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

==Cleanup==

This article suffers from similar problems to those that afflict a number of other articles about artists related to Birmingham, Ala. I'll expand on this if asked. -- Hoary 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've worked today at cleaning up the article. Due to a previous statement by an editor that I "hacked up" an article, I edited this one with a step-by-step approach to reveal the purposes behind each edit. While I think the article now presents Scruggs' work in an objective fashion, I have questions about whether she fully merits an encyclopedia entry. TheMindsEye 10:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do as well. Where's the solo exhibition? Where's the book by her?

Here's a remaining oddity. We read (after a link has been stripped):

• New American Painting #34, (Southern Edition) portrait pg. 37 Open studio Press, Wellesley, Massachusetts, Volume 6, Number 3, ISSN 1066-2235

I guess that this means:

• Portrait. New American Painting (Southern edition; Wellesley, Mass.: Open Studio Press, ISSN 1066-2235) vol. 6, no. 3 (no. 34), p.37.

But I'm still puzzled: is this a photographic portrait by her (of whom?), of her (by whom?) or a text portrait of her (by whom?)?

Incidentally, I looked up the journal (both by title and by ISSN) at Copac but it's not stocked by a single participating institution (none of 24 university libraries, the British Library, etc.). -- Hoary 11:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked it up by ISSN at the Library of Congress and found New American Paintings, plural. So one part of it is fixed. However, there's no mention in LoC of a "Southern Edition", and I still don't know what's on p.37. -- Hoary 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

During my edits yesterday I retained the Coffelt quote, although I find it hard to understand, and moved it from a separate 'Quote' section into the body of the article. Hoary removed the quote today and I agree with his summation that it is an "obscure quote by Coffelt: I couldn't understand it." In the meanwhile Artsojourner restored the quote and left this message on Hoary's talk page: "

I see you have deleted many quotes by critics and curators in the past and now here because, as you state, you dont understand them. If they hold up to a galleries guidelines and criteria then they can and should be used as quotes here on WP. these quotes are usually cited so they can be referenced. Because you dont understand the quotes doesn't mean many others will feel the same way Hoary. This seems to be a limitation you have and in my opinion this is yet another reason that you should leave the art section alone. You go at it like a bull in a china shoppe. Your comments toward many artiists are gross and unrefined and I would expect more from someone editing articles about art. Your comments here are noted by alot of art peole I think you should care more and at least nuance your comments or keep them to yourself. Artsojourner 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing the Wikipedia:Guide to layout, we are told this: "Quotations Note: This header is largely deprecated. Under this header, list any memorable quotations that are appropriate to the subject . . . Usually, the most relevant quotes can be placed directly into the article text in order to illustrate the topic, and only a few quotes should ever be part of such a section."

I find Coffelt's quote to be far from memorable or relevant, but rather dense and circular. Wiki is not an indiscrimate collection of information, but rather an encylopedia. Because Wiki is an encyclopedia, the argument that if a quote is good enough for galleries it ought to be good enough for Wiki, falls flat. An encyclopedia seeks to inform its readers. A gallery's criteria might be very different. I find that the quote does not meet the Wiki policy cited above, that Hoary's removal was appropriate, and I am therefore reverting Artsojourner's restoration of the quote. TheMindsEye 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)