Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis
(Redirected from Draft talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis)
Latest comment: 11 days ago by Pigsonthewing in topic Collectible design
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declaration
editI have been asked by representatives of Vincenzo de Cotiis to see if I can rescue this draft and bring it to the standard required for publication. I will be paid for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Collectible design
edit | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
[Noting the CoI I declared above]
Please change, in the lede:
for interior designs and furniture.
to:
for interior designs and furniture, in a style termed "collectible design".
and append:
His work has been said to belong to a the "collectible design" aesthetic movement.[1]
References
- ^ Wright Gander, Brecht (19 May 2021). "Vincenzo De Cotiis: Éternel". The Design Edit. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
De Cotiis's latest show... establishes him as one of the foremost contributors to what is, unfortunately, being called "collectible design," a vital aesthetic movement that seems to have been named after an auction house catalogue.
to the paragraph currently ending "of the 2019 Venice Biennale".
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Done I've only included the second part, since I'm not sure it's notable enough to include twice, but I'm still surprised it's notable. [1] ⸺(Random)staplers 19:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Randomstaplers: The lede should summarise what is in the body of an article. citations belong in the body, not the lede. And surely the genre of an artist's work is exactly what should be repeated in an article's lede? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's okay to include citations in the lede, if it's not repeated in the body (and it's not in the GA process). Also, I can't find much without resorting to Google Scholar, so, yeah...
- ⸺(Random)staplers 19:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Very few hits before 2010.⸺(Random)staplers 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I said: The lede should summarise what is in the body of an article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Randomstaplers: The lede should summarise what is in the body of an article. citations belong in the body, not the lede. And surely the genre of an artist's work is exactly what should be repeated in an article's lede? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Having received no reply, I have reactivated this request in the hope that another editor will make the changes to apply the edit as originally requested, in accordance with Wikipedia's usual standards and MoS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: I'll cite the relevant text here: Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
I included the info only in the lead, which makes citations here perfectly okay. You also aren't submitting this article to WP:Good article nomination, so stop reopening this edit requst. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)- Yes;
"the lead usually repeats information that is in the body"
, which is what should happen here. There should be no"redundant citations in the lead "
, because the citations should be in the body, per the above request. When I write or edit articles, I aim do so to the highest standard possible, regardless of whether I plan on adding a badge to them. I specifically said I was reopening the request so that another editor could take a look it it. Since you insist on reclosing my request without allowing another editor to review it, I'll go down the WP:3O route. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes;
 Response to third opinion request:
|
Best practice is to provide the citation in the body, with the lead functioning as a high-level summary of the contents of the article without distractions. The material currently associated with the citation in the lead is important enough to be presented in the body of the article. The rationale that the article is not yet a "Good article" and therefor doesn't need to follow advice that "the lead usually repeats information that is in the body"is nonsensical, as editors should always strive to observe best practices. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you. I have now implemented this change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)