Talk:AVANT

[Untitled]

Avant's efforts were documented in numerous news articles and magazines in the 1980's. It is very difficult to supply references by direct links to the original source archives in the internet. More often than not, they simply do not exist. Therefore, there are scans of these articles and books on the newly launched website that is referenced: www.avant-streetart.com (This should not be taken as advertisment for a website) it is simply an historical archive of Avant's achievements and milestones.

I have instantly reacted to the (automatic) alerts and removed what may be deemed subjective, like "the first to" although this is not easily debunked, and a whole paragraph about our efforts. I do think there is room for consideration of the notability factor based on the facts and historical timeline of street art and it's development in NYC. From 1980 to 1984 Avant and Hambleton did pioneer many forms of street art that are now traditions today. Simply because AVANt or Hambleton never showed in the TATE, I can't imagine why they should be exluded from the history and development of street art. I urge anyone who would like to challenge this entry to visit the press and images page of the avant website: www.avant-streetart.com, and to visit the Hambleton entry already in existence. Pioneers of any form are often forgotten until people are offered evidence within the context of what is now. If anyone can help me with this entry I would be very greatful. {{helpme}} --Hindsite (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so the first thing to be done is for you to review WP:PROD. You basically have 7 days from the time the tag was added to the article, to show that this company is notable enough for Wikipedia. Essentially, any article on Wikipedia should only have information that is given from third party, reliable sources. You can cite these sources several ways, and the sources don't have to be online. They can be from magazines, newspapers, journals, etc. But the most important part is that the have to be verifiable. That is, you have to show us how we might be able to find those sources (author name, title, publisher, date, etc). You can do that by using MLA, or in any standard bibliography method. If there's enough third party coverage, then it warrants a Wikipedia article. :-) Please let me know if any of that was confusing. You can post on my talk page to get ahold of me :-). Killiondude (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note that it's not necessary for the original source material to be on the Internet in order to use it as a citation. If the Village Voice covered AVANT, and you have the date and title of the article, that's sufficient to constitute an independent third-party citation. It certainly helps a lot to have a URL to a reliable source, because it's easier for other folks to verify, but is not necessary. Tim Pierce (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and personal assistance! I have reviewed the WP:PROD but i still am not sure where the problem may lay. Some of what you said is still confusing however: We have many many articles and documents that are scanned which are readily viewable on the (non-advertising, non profit)website archive. I will look to use more citations from historical articles, but if they are only linked to scanned articles, will that help the "bad" status of the page??? All refferences are linked either to an ISBN book or a website containing "scans" of the original article. My question the is: Is that not enough, or does it have to wait for review on another level??? I try to assume these references are "EASILY" viewable and verifiable by any parties. --Hindsite (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I read this post on my talk page, I'll just respond here. It actually looks more professional if can write out the sources in MLA format, or any other method used for works cited. That's probably the first thing you can do for the article. For an example of what we're shooting for, see the "bibliography" section here. It looks like somebody contested the PROD for this article, so the article is safe from deletion, unless another user takes the article to Articles for Deletion. I think it's safe, though. See Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:Your first article as useful places to help you learn how to format and edit this article to make it better. :-) Let me know if you have more questions. Killiondude (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again.. so far so good, I completely understand the approach and guidelines now. I need another couple of days to prove that this is so!!--Hindsite (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Killiondude, I have completely rewritten and referenced. I hope this will make those flags dissapear! comments? Thanks again.--Hindsite (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did some minor cleanup in an effort to make the article adhere more closely to Wikipedia's manual of style. The references still need a lot of work in terms of formatting. See WP:CIT. Note that for convenience, there is a citation generator available. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamie, thank you so much for your assistance!!! Yes, I thought i could formatt the citations better too. When you say formatting - do you mean the visual look, or the actual reference form: Last, Fist name, title, publisher, date, page, print etc..?? (I thought they were within the guidlines. I will check the WP:CIT and tool you suggested.

I do plan to add more to the main article. Before I do it would be good to get the "style" factor right first.

When I do changes to style- (information same) do i summerize my save as "minor" and uncheck "what page"?

One more question: Is it good or bad style to use name WITHIN THE CITATIONS to link authors, other artists and terms, already listed in wiki?--Hindsite (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The WP:CIT link gives lots of examples of how to do citations, and the citation generator mentioned above makes it even easier. You can look at any number of other pages (check out the featured articles on the main page) for examples of what the reference section should look like. The "what's this" link next to "Minor edit" explains what that checkbox is far; the "Watch this page" just indicates whether or not you want the page to show on your watchlist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Will need some time, but I am sure to clean up the format properly. I am interested to keep the actual quotes visible from each source reference. Should I put them in a seperate catagorie then? Thanks again! --Hindsite (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AVANT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903060318/http://www.davidfried.com/ to http://www.davidfried.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)