Talk:Ralph Rucci

Poor referencing

Having added a "references" tag to this article, I now see that the "references" on this article are worthless. They are just numbers with no indicator of sources from where the information came. A ploy to avoid being automatically flagged for lack of references? Mabalu (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. I have left this class=stub due to the references problems. Two of the links are dead links. Also, the whole article reads like an advertisement.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Lead too short}} tag

This is simply not an accurate assessment of our guidelines on article introductions. They are supposed to summarise all of the important information in the article. This one provides the very barest of context. I'm not re-tagging for now, but that plainly needs to be addressed in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What other information in the article is "important", in your opinion? The major awards are in the infobox. He's not done anything else, as far as I can see, that's notable. Perhaps a single line about having had a number of exhibitions of his clothing, and a recent documentary being made about him? "Rucci's clothing designs have appeared in a number of major exhibitions, and he has won some awards. He is the subject of a recent documentary and has received positive critical response in the fashion press." Something like that could be added, but, frankly, the article is short enough that the reader will pick that up by a quick scan. The "lede too short" seems like a non-issue, to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is ancillary and should not be considered to be a part of the lede as far as coverage goes, not least because in some formats (spoken for instance) it might be omitted entirely. As such, some mention of the awards belongs in the lede at the very least. Your new content is a good addition: it helps the reader to establish why the subject is important a little more, and offers additional anchors for new content if the article is expanded in future. As for the suggestion that the subject simply hasn't done enough of note to warrant a longer lede, if we cannot say anything immediately substantive about a subject other than what his name is and what line of employment he's in that would rather suggest that the subject doesn't meet our notability threshold in the first place. If we are to suppose that the subject is in fact notable enough for inclusion then we should be able to support that with a reasonable lead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't say that I agree with your logic. Notability is usually, but not necessarily, about many things done over the course of a career or lifetime, but it can also be about one big or very significant or continuing thing, in which case there might very well be very little to say about it in summary (as opposed to specific information in the article). In any case, while I disagree with your general case, it's hardly worth a lot of back-and-forth. I look forward to seeing what you add to the lede - there's probably something down there I've overlooked. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There may be exceptions, but I've yet to come across them. I would dare to suggest that the subject matter in question (a fashion designer) is not within either of our respective circles of expertise, and so neither of us may be in the best position to evaluate what is and is not of particular import here. But for now the lede has been expanded a little and there's no pressing need for it to be re-tagged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)