Talk:Alice Jacobsen

Referencing, mostly

Copied from User talk:Almighty059 (by Hoary (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)):

I understand now about the comment about her "memory will forever live on through her artwork". Everything needs to be fact based and unbiased and that comment is an opinion. I think that is the only one like that but I will read over it to make sure.

As for the unsourced sections that you referred to that's what I am confused about. In my original submission I cited articles word-for-word and then referenced it with a citation. Then I was flagged for copyright issues but I only did so because I thought as long as I referenced my source it was okay. When I was flagged it said to use my own words which I remembered was the correct way to use a reference which is to rewrite everything I learned from the reference but in my own words and if I use anything word-for-word I quote it but that should be kept to a minimum, I went back and rewrote it and did that.

The other thing that confused me was that the original copyright flag citied websites that had in fact copyrighted the content themselves. For example, the copyright issues referenced three websites that had all copied their information from a Chicago Tribune article (which I referenced) as well as her obituary in the Chicago Tribune (which I referenced). I didn't know what to do in that case but I think rewriting everything in my own words as mentioned above fixed that.

My main question is if each section has some type of information from the referenced Chicago Tribune article should I reference the article at the end of each section or is referencing it once okay? And if a section is referenced from two sources should I reference both of them together at the end of each section? And due to the subjects age most of the information is no longer available which is why the Wiki page is so important. A lot of the referenced information comes from things I learned years ago from old newspaper and magazine articles. The Elmhurst Press, The Bugle, NSG News, The Citizen, and other publications are no longer in print or available online but I do have physical copies of them that were cut out as clippings from the publications. Is it okay to cite those publications? I was worried since it would be something that Wiki can't verify unless I can upload the articles. Almighty059 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Almighty059, normally, one reads something in a reliable source, summarizes it (not only chopping bits out but also changing the wording of what isn't chopped out), and provides a reference. If much of a paragraph of an article comes in this way from a particular source, there should normally be a reference to the source at the end of the paragraph. If much of a particular sentence comes from a particular reference, there should normally be a reference to the source at the end of the sentence. And yes, if much of a particular subordinate clause comes from a particular reference, there should normally be a reference to the source at the end of the subordinate clause. And so forth.

If a sentence comes partly from one source and partly from another, and separating what came from the one and what came from the other would be tedious both for the writer and the reader, then put the two references at the end of the sentence.

It's sometimes beneficial to retain the original wording. Unless a quotation is long, it requires quotation marks. If it's long, don't use quotation marks but instead put it in "blockquote" tags. But however they're formatted, long quotations are seldom desirable.

Sources do not have to be available online. They may instead be on paper. But they must be published. (There are other requirements too. Please see WP:RS.)

I'm surprised to read that you "have physical copies of [newspaper articles] that were cut out as clippings from the publications". Yes, you may cite these. But how is it that you have these physical copies? -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't understand the paragraph above starting "The other thing that confused me". You mention "the original copyright flag"; which flag was this? Or you could specify the websites in "the copyright issues referenced three websites [...]". -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary the paragraph that started with the "other thing that confused me" had to do with the very first draft that I submitted. After submitting it I almost immediately got a reply stating that copyright content was used. The reply is at the top of my User Talk page. The reply cites three different sources that it claims I used the copyright content from which was true. I did use the copyright content but I referenced the source so I thought it was okay. The part that confused me was that the sources the reply referenced all had identical content which was actually copied from the source that I referenced. So I was confused because I had referenced the original source but the Wiki was incorrectly saying that the content was from other sources that I had not referenced. I didn't know how to clarify everything to Wiki but it no longer matters because I rewrote mostly everything in my own words and correctly referenced it and then quoted and referenced a couple small sections that were not. Almighty059 (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hoarythank you for the feedback. I'm finally getting a better understanding of how AfC work and what is required. I had to go back and remember the days of going to the public library and finding information in encyclopedias. As for the physical copies of the articles, they come from collectors of her work who saved other things that were related to her besides her actual work. There was also a book that was made that that including pictures with detailed descriptions of her total body, her design and creative process, and various documentation about her. Part of the documentation were clippings of numerous published articles. All of this is extremely rare which is one of the reasons a Wiki page. A Wiki page would hopefully be the piece that links everything together and allows it to more obtainable for anyone trying to find out more about her. Since most of the publications are no longer in print could the articles be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons or somewhere else? Almighty059 (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Almighty059, it's safe to assume that the content of any US newspaper is conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved"), unless you see explicit indication to the contrary. (I have never seen such an indication, on any US newspaper.) What is conventionally copyright may not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary if pictures of any articles were to be found somewhere else on the internet could they be displayed on her Wiki page? For example, if someone has a picture of one of the articles posted on their website or if she had a website that was maintained by her family or friends and had an article posted could it be linked to and used on her Wiki page? Thanks. Almighty059 (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Almighty059, many bloggers, Facebook participants and so forth (and even what first appear to be conscientiously organized websites) merrily reproduce material whose copyright belongs to others, without presenting any evidence that the reproduction is authorized (which it almost certainly isn't). Wikipedia articles may not link to such material. -- Hoary (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The photo

Who took the photo of Jacobsen that illustrates this draft? -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Former Comments on draft page

• Comment: Chicago Tribune Obit should go a long way to meeting GNG / ANYBIO. Slywriter (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: not clear how they pass WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Please see this draft's talk page, and feel free to continue the discussion there. Hoary (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: A comment like "Her memory will forever live on through her artwork, which will continue to be shared forever." is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: There are unsourced sections, where did the content come from? Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: please remove the external links for the body of the article we don't use them. Theroadislong (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)