Talk:Janet Echelman

Untitled

Permission is granted for the text used in this article with as origon www.echelman.com or one of it's subpages under the cc-by-sa and the gfdl Natuur12 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

More than one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers Five years later, curious if you think the tag is still necessary. I'd invite you to remove any content you think is problematic in order to address the tag. I've also started a discussion below about possibly separating some detail about her works from this bio. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Another Believer. On balance, yes – the page is definitely not as direly awful as it was after the last COI editor had finished with it (looks as if Melcous and Edwardx had a good deal to with that, thank you both!), but it's still far from encyclopaedic in tone. This section, for example, is content clearly written to promote rather than to inform. Just for the record, I'm under no delusion that the page was in a good state when I left it in 2017, either; at the moment I've no intention of working on it further. The images are a mess too – some have VRT permission, but the ticket does not include permission from the various named photographers or any explanation of how copyright was transferred; I may or may not start a deletion discussion on Commons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Enough references?

This biography has 47 references. If this is enough references, please remove the tag.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Category? Navbox?

Would Category:Works by Janet Echelman and/or Template:Janet Echelman be helpful? @Randy Kryn: Pst! :p

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Another Believer, seems to have enough links for a navbox (which usually and unofficially require five) and for a category. Thanks, this page looks very interesting and will check it out later (signing off soon). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

List?

This article has a lot of details about specific works, even for some which have standalone entries. We might consider creating List of works by Janet Echelman (or similar). Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This article provides a good summary of the body of work, which may not be large enough for a stand alone list, and since the page isn't overly long it seems fine to cover everything here even if some of it repeats data from the individual pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)