Talk:Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/11/14. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/11/28. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Actually, the nomination for the 1st AfD was withdrawn by the nominator. At the time, no consensus had been reached. The article has been nominated/relisted for a second AfD. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If this survives AfD, should we not move it to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a controversial change. I'd be for it. --Oakshade 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Moooooove it. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm new to to this and type poorly - I just don;t know how to change the title or I would have already--James.lebinski 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Level of detail

I don't know how I ran across this article, but I have taken an interest in it. I see that the community consensus was to keep it, so I won't comment on that, but there is waaaaaaaay to much detail in this for an encyclopedia article. I don't think we need to know all the brand names of the equipment and paint used. But I did run a spellcheck on all of it. Good luck! Katr67 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This doesn't fit the definition of performance art. Katr67 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, and fair point, happy to have the detail edited to conform. The salient points are the dates, titles, art, and interpretation - the techniques and materials may be superfluois - but then again they may be relevant as a study of the techniques used to create this art.

I'd be happy with a label other than performance art - but what? The work has been featured with a troop of performers - so I think that fits the bill??? Edits/Suggestione encouraged.--James.lebinski 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

If this survives Afd (again), it needs some serious copyediting (I ran a few spellchecks but it still needs work on grammar, syntax, typos, etc.), some wikification, changing of the term "performance art" to "public art" throughout, and as I stated above--the listings of materials and methods need to tightened up considerably. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and this is what it reads like. I'd like to see another article about an artwork (and as charming as Gladys is, I'm afraid she is not fine art, but folk art) that lists materials and methods in such detail. That's not a rhetorical question, I really would like to see if there is an example. Also, I have noticed a trend on Wikipedia wherein those who vote to keep articles don't stick around to help bring them up to standard, so I hope that's not the case here. </soapbox> Katr67 08:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Took a shot at the recommneded cleanup - detail out public art in. Comments?--James.lebinski 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, this looks a lot better. Just so you know, I voted delete in the AfD but it's nothing personal, I just had some concerns, as you have read over there. I'll continue to address those concerns on the AfD page. If nothing else, Gladys has made for some interesting Wiki-debate. As far as cleanup goes, this is coming along nicely, but I think I'll refrain from doing more work on it until we see how the AfD comes out. Besides, I'm hoping other editors will help with the cleanup too (hint hint). Katr67 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Re the cleanup - Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow#History is a bit long isn't it? Have a look over at WP:MOS. If the history section is that long it must have some sensible points where it could be broken up if you want to stay chronological, or you could re-write the history section covering topics that have been addressed - racial tension, public services, I haven't actually read the article but it seems to have a bit of need for a copy editor... Garrie 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • TX Would yearly headings in the history section do to adderss the comment? --James.lebinski 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • A chronology would be the wrong way to go - please see my reply below. B.Wind 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What steps are needed to address the un-encyclopaedic concern tag?

A user posted the tag without making recommendations as to why they believed the content to be an issue. The position of the tag is in the gallery area.

I think the thing that needs to happen is that a discussion of how to alleviate this concern occurs. So I gues I'll start it:

Would removing the scanned images of the media coverage address the concern? If so, I would accept that recommendation.--James.lebinski 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed 6 images from the gallery as a first attempt to resolve this.--James.lebinski 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have way too many pictures for this to be an encyclopedia article. With the gallery, it looks more like a portfolio, which doesn't belong here. You'd have a much more effective article if no more than five or six pictures were used to represent it... and (as mentioned above) about two-thirds of the details were excised as well. In this person's opinion, this will cease becoming spam and become an encyclopedic article if this is edited more in line of other articles about specific pieces of art... starting with identifying the artist. After all, the cow didn't paint herself. Good luck. B.Wind 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While it is informative to name the artist, I respectfully disagree with the last editor as to the primary importance of it. Other folksy art like Elsie the Cow doesnt list the artist at all. But I would still suggest it. As for other parts of the article, I would at least separate the text into sections. IE: Creation, Initial showings, Popularity, etc. --Oakshade 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good day B.Wind and Oakshade.

As you will see I have edited the article further and reduced the level of detail per b.wind.

I'm not sure where to go on the galley thing

Perhaps another editor will move some of the images into the text and delete the rest - which I would acccept with reservation - because my own opinion is that the images contibute significantly to the article - they are not repetitive images of the same work, insteadd they are single images of multiple works. Given that I only have B.wind's opinion to go on - I don't know what to do.

Your feedback would be gratefully received. --James.lebinski 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup finished

OK, I copyedited this to a faretheewell, except for the references section, which could still use more work. But I'm done--I've got lots of other stuff I need to work on. My editing should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its suitability as a Wikipedia article. Since it has passed AfD twice, however, it might as well not be a mess. Enjoy! Katr67 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gladys

The Original Gladys Holiday Greeting
For your hard work, insighful opinions and overall contribution to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, I hereby award you this Thank You, along with my sincere hope that you have a wonderful holiday season.

james.lebinski 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/a/Talk%7EGladys_the_Swiss_Dairy_Cow_f789.html"