Talk:Master E. S.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
|
Germany To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
You seem to be going around editing articles I have worked on in sequence. Many of your corrections are welcome; others are not:
- it is normally redundant to put in the caption of an article on an artist that the work is by that artist. Still more so to add "a German printmaker"
- it is not good style to spell out 1,809, or, I would say, any number over 99.
- farther is (COD) a variant of further (and an old-fashioned one) ; it does not have a different meaning.
- some of your edits tend towards vagueness or prolixity.
- the old master print is not very accurately described as a genre or a medium, and should be left as it is, as it normally is in English.
Johnbod 11:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
.....................
Hope you do not mind, but I moved your comments to this page for relevancy (as discussion of the article) and will address each item you have noted, hoping to clarify the issues you raised and to discuss them further. Please remember to presume good faith with other editors. I have no interest in what articles you have edited—per se—and have no interest in following you about to critic your edits. All are free to edit articles and no one has any article as a personal domain. Shared interests are frequent among editors, best to try to help one another, avoid taking edits personally, and refrain from making personal criticisms. I expect that we shall bump into each other frequently and believe we can work together well. I think our shared objective on each subject, is the best article that we can present for readers no matter what their backgrounds. I try to make my edits understandable in the history of my edit, and look for explanations or further discussion in the discussion for the article.
- Captions should be created that may stand alone with the illustration, making sense when viewed separately from the article. There are times when only the illustrations are viewed or printed and we should provide adequate information to accompany and identify them. Some illustrations may be found out of place from discussion in the text or in another article and the caption may be quite informative at such times. Repetition is a fundamental principle of education, so captions should note the most important information about an illustration. Good captions for an illustration in an article may be quite different from captions of the same items found in the commons.
- Regarding the figure, I do not see that figure in this article, it may have been in another. No need to chase this, I have no objection to your changing the figure. I have used the Chicago Manual of Style throughout my career and generally, would agree with you about 99 being the end of spelled out numbers, but there are many exceptions such as rounded numbers, introductory phrases, and to make the style consistent where possible. Lots of numbers in an article make it difficult to read and often readers abandon the entire article when legibility is poor. Given the nature of Wikipedia articles, often there are many figures, so I will use the spelled-out form except for dates (so the dates stand out for the reader).
- Regarding the distance up the Rhine, in Miriam Webster you will find the following discussion under the adverb farther, - usage Farther and further have been used more or less interchangeably throughout most of their history, but currently they are showing signs of diverging. As adverbs they continue to be used interchangeably whenever spatial, temporal, or metaphorical distance is involved. But where there is no notion of distance, further is used <our techniques can be further refined>. Further is also used as a sentence modifier <further, the workshop participants were scarcely optimistic -- L. B. Mayhew>, but farther is not. A polarizing process appears to be taking place in their adjective use. Farther is taking over the meaning of distance <the farther shore> and further the meaning of addition <needed no further invitation>.
As an adjective, farther - Function: adjective more distant : REMOTER <the farther side of town>
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html takes questions regarding usage and you might inquire about it there – seems I have read a discussion of the two in their frequently asked questions column. The column is available by free subscription on-line, you might like it.
Another discussion at, http://www.writing.com/main/books/entry_id/408649 reads, Farther (and farthest) is used to refer to a greater physical distance. Further (and furthest) refers to a greater degree or other non-distance quantity. It’s more noticeable when “farther” is used incorrectly, but “further” should not be used exclusively.
Examples:
How much farther do we have to travel? What further evidence do you need? Pluto is the usually the planet farthest from the Sun. That’s the furthest thing from my mind.
At http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/ontarget/archive/03_04.htm you will find, Grammar Trap: Farther vs. Further These two words are commonly used interchangeably, but there is a difference between them. "Farther" refers to physical or geographic distance. Example: The apartment I want is farther from my office. "Further" is more abstract. It refers to time or degree or quantity. It's another way of saying "additional." Examples: I have to look further into the question of moving farther from my office. There was no further discussion.
- Characterizations of my edits as tending toward vagueness and prolixity may be your personal opinion since my style is quite different from yours, but your comment does not seem constructive to me, perhaps you could be more explicit.
I recall that I did find myself trying to work around phrases in the article such as, X liked to…, because I believe such a statement to be a projection into the feelings of a person who has been dead for centuries – and, without historical documentation, beyond our knowledge – whereas, I do believe that it is valid to state that the work gives the impression of…, or seems to imply… to an author writing about the work. That requires more words. I will always choose explication to avoid what I believe might lead to a misunderstanding or be inadequate information for a reader to gain a good understanding of the topic from our article.
- Old master print is a category that has been well defined. It is not accurately described as a genre (which I changed because that refers more to written works), so I changed the term to a medium. That is not adequate either, since it is the title of a defined period with several types of work. As it stands, however, He was the first major German artist of the old master print and was greatly copied and imitated, seems confusing for readers who do not know in advance, what is meant. At the very least, it should read, the old master print period, with a link to the article on that period. Otherwise it should be put into the plural and without the article before the term as, He was the first major German artist of old master prints.
I hope this addresses the issues of concern to you about my edits, if not, please continue the discussion —
I do have a question for you, although it might not be a phrase you introduced, regarding the faces of the subjects, what is meant by, pudding-like appearance? It makes no sense to me.
83d40m November 25, 2006 .....................................
- I am happy to assume good faith, which I think my comments clearly did, but I do not have to assume good English style! Despite your undoubtedly excellent English, it is fairly clear to me you are not a native speaker, and at times it shows. For example in the doubtless/no doubt change you made you actually changed the meaning, doubtless without realizing it (good faith again).
I have read your very lengthy piece & I have to say I am quite unmoved. You did write out 1809 in words (Dürer, number of woodcuts in Nuremberg Chronicle). I now see that the Wiki style guide sensibly puts a 2 word maximum on this. What the Chicago guide says I neither know nor care, but i doubt it suggests 6 words is good style. If you are unaware of having made this very clear mistake, then you should be grateful to me for pointing it out. You could have checked all your edits in the time it took you say you did not remember doing it.
Your farther/further bit surprises me - maybe it is a US/UK thing, but to me (and my dictionaries) farther just sounds wrong & old-fashioned. Comparing the first page of Google hits using the UK/internet buttons I have rather supports this. In which case, since the article is written in UK English, wiki guidelines say it should stay in that.
On the captions I don't see any force to your argument. It is just filling space to put "by Master ES, a German printmaker" right next to the top of the article which begins by telling you just that. If the picture was by Master JK, a Romanian printmaker, that would be worth saying. In other articles i have done very detailed captions, WHERE USEFUL.
"Period" would be even worse than genre or the other one you had. I just don't see anything is necessary. This is a very - even normal - usage in writing about old master prints, and other things too.
pudding-faced means looking like a pudding - the picture next to it is quite a good example. No doubt there is a Wiki article on puddings.
when i say following me around, your history shows all you have edited today is four articles all very largely written by me.
I don't really want to continue the discussion, especially at this level of detail. What i would prefer to do is to be able to get on writing articles. Why don't you write some, then I'll be happy to check them over. All the best Johnbod 22:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
