Talk:Gillie and Marc
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 July 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conflict of Interests and Promotional Tone
[edit]This article has a history of conflict of interest, with contributions from the subject of the article and/or their assistants. Obviously SPA Gillieandmarcart is them and WP:COI. It appears that SPA Emcarthur and Emca91 are a former employee, as listed on LinkedIn. SPU Emmasalkild has also worked for them, and the recent edits from AlexandraCorey are being made by their "Global Marketing Manager". As well, several IP editors have added promotional text, one of whom removed the flags I put on the article; these IP addresses resolve to NSW, Australia (G+M home) or the more recent ones to Toronto, where the Marketing Manager has stated they live.
I note that Castlemate, Colapeninsula and Diannaa have spent a lot of effort repeatedly cleaning out these promotional additions. At this point we have an unduly long and obviously promotional article, full of images that are ambiguously/possibly WP:COPYVIO, with a CV of unverified public sculptures and awards of unclear notability, that whitewash the criticism of the work.
I also note that there is a strong presence of vanity galleries in the list of exhibitions, for example: London Biennale, Gagliardi Gallery, Biennale di Chianciano, Florence Biennale are all pay-to-play. I am not contesting the notability, which was assessed a year ago: I think that they likely meet WP:GNG, if not WP:ARTIST, due to the attention they have received, which has been scathing criticism at times. See: www.vulture.com/2018/03/the-new-astor-place-rhino-sculpture-is-a-kitschy-monstrosity.html and https://www.boweryboogie.com/2018/04/after-chinatown-protests-dogman-sculpture-headed-to-foley-square/
I am not sure what to do here. I am wondering if this needs a WP:TNT, either in full, or in part, or maybe just a revert to Diannaa's last stable version [1]. Should I start a post on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I'm putting this here, to elicit a discussion, before taking any action. --Theredproject (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is the most promotional page I have ever seen for an artist. I fixed some dupe refs (there are dozens) and some of the lede, but I think that TNT is the only solution, given the awful promotional editing that has gone on.104.163.159.237 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I did the TNT. You can see all the in progress edits on my sandbox: User:Theredproject/sandbox/scratchbox. It prob needs some [citation needed] tags, and to have the refs cleaned one time more. 104.163.159.237 you can remove the flags, if you feel that is appropriate at this juncture. --Theredproject (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is the most promotional page I have ever seen for an artist. I fixed some dupe refs (there are dozens) and some of the lede, but I think that TNT is the only solution, given the awful promotional editing that has gone on.104.163.159.237 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Theredproject, I have edited the page to make it neutral and added a few tags. Can you work on the further clean up? 2405:205:1380:E683:898D:4139:5F90:9872 (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Lede + Relative Importance of Criticism
[edit]Hi Revival938 thanks for working on this article, and cleaning out the promocruft. And thanks MB for keeping an eye on the article. I would like to restore some of the content that you migrated out of the lede that covers the significant criticism and controversy they have received/created by their work. I think it is fine to leave the bulk of the language where it is in the other sections, but I would like to put a one or two sentence summary of this criticism back into the lede, as it is actually what the WP:RS cover. By leaving them out, it doesn't indicate the relative prominence of this criticism. This is particularly important, given that this article has been a site for repeated NPOV edits to try to whitewash this criticism. You can see that history in the history, and on this talk page. I wanted to raise this issue here, before making the edits. --Theredproject (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Tags
[edit]Do we need both those tags at the top of the article? They seem to say the same thing. Perhaps we only need one? --2603:7000:2143:8500:8496:96B1:6FAE:A341 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Why did the artists Gillis & Marc make the sculpture of Ruth G B look like a man. No hair, no breasts. People will look at the statue & think it is a man.
[edit]I am so sad the statue of RGB looks like a man. If Ruth saw it she would be go home & cry. 2600:6C40:4200:351E:C03E:1696:C5:FC8C (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class sculpture articles
- WikiProject Sculpture articles
- Start-Class visual arts articles
- WikiProject Visual arts articles