Talk:Amy Karle

"Artificial Intelligence A.I." or "Exponential Technologies" or [something else] section - what is best titling here?

AI is a category, however it is not the only exponential technology that Karle researches and works with. She's also notable in Regenerative Medicine / Biotechnology, Bioprinting, 3D printing, and digital manufacturing. Does an editor(s) have a suggestion of how to name and organize this section to best represent the tech she works with? Would you be willing to try to edit it to better represent her work? ~~~ 62.255.211.30 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this person, so I probably won't do any large editing, but I'd say "Artificial Intelligence A.I." is not a good title because it's redundant. Just "Artificial Intelligence" seems fine. Also as a general style note, you should stick to third person, which means not using "our" and "us". Also, it seems like you may be overly relying on primary sources here. It would be much better for establishing the notability of your content if you could reference other sources than the artist's own website and videos of herself. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Something like Use of Emerging and Exponential Technology as a section would be highly suitable, with subsections of the main tools she uses like 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing, Bioprinting, AI, Synthetic Bio / Regenerative Medicine et.al. ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

...Or a well-sourced, properly cited paragraph on her use of Emerging and Exponential Technology. Bkbray (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This section fails to include fundamental information on Karle's legacy in this field. Improvement to content is needed. 12.187.141.7 (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

WiG brief review

Posting in response to the request at WIG. I'm sorry to say that this is far from GA standards at the moment, and promotionalism is the most serious concern. The article needs a complete overhaul, and someone without a connection to the subject should do it. I suggest beginning by identifying sources with intellectually independent content, and using those to frame a brief draft; and then filling in only the most essential biographical detail with other sources. This may require a considerable shortening of the article, but a start-class page that is dispassionately written is far superior to a lengthy puff-piece, which this remains despite the good-faith effort put into it. Pruning will also help with tone issues, which are most obvious in the bits sourced to non-independent sources; but otherwise, I suggest reviewing usage of adjectives and adverbs in particular, and removing all that don't directly contribute to reader understanding. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Vanamonde93, thank you for this, and I agree with you it needs an overhaul, and is nowhere near GA status. @Hipal had pinged me about the COI/promo/advert issues (I had placed the COI tag some time ago), and I began doing some cleaning up today. I wrote up a checklist of items that need work in the section above called Talk:Amy Karle#Article needs to be rewritten. This checklist is by no means complete. I agree 100% that it would help if the article was pruned back to a short article, and all of the superfluous sourcing/ref-bombing (primary, blogs, press releases, etc.) trimmed. Netherzone (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your review @Vanamonde93 and for your checklist and updates @Netherzone. The review process and your checklist are very helpful, as is the information and discussions with the meetup.

The article still needs a lot of work and is not ready for a GA nomination next week. Before Netherzone, I had tried to update it to GA standards using Wikipedia guidelines. I made good faith edits to improve, but it seems the article was in too bad of shape before I arrived.

I would still like to help improve the article and eventually get it to GA status. Netherzone, I see you referred to a "last good version": [here] from before COI/promo/advert issues. I'd like to draw from this version to replace some of the removed content. The areas that I would like to review and re-add are the sections on: Residencies, Awards, and "The Heart of Evolution" in the Major Works section, and any other works were included in the "last good version". I'd double check all info, sources, and make any necessary updates before re-adding. What do you think about this? I would appreciate your advice and suggestions. Asking first and proceeding cautiously here since there is a lot going on with this page! LWu22 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Karle is an interesting artist, however the article still has several low-quality sources, and primary sources which should be cleaned up, and there is the matter of REFBOMBING to address. The article has a long history of COI editing, PR, promotional/advertorial tone and content. Not all of that is cleaned up. WP policy states that the encyclopedia is not an appropriate place for promotion. See WP:PROMOTION, in particular #4 on Self-promotion, and #5 on Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. It sounds like a lot of what you want to add back belongs on her personal website, not in an encyclopedia article. I would suggest being patient while unconnected volunteer editors proceed with clean up as their time is limited. There is no deadline. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The timeframe I referred to is from the edit-a-thon, I was in no way trying to impose that on other editors.

The content that I was referring to restoring was from what @Netherzone had referred to as a "last good version" from "before COI/promo/advert issues". From wiki BLP outlines and guidelines it appears that including major artworks, shows, residencies, and awards like how they were included on that "last good version" is standard to describe what the person does and has accomplished as long as they are notable, backed up by non-promotional quality secondary references, and are not in the long list like below. Is that correct?

From that version it seems like a big part of the artists way of working is participating in residencies and exhibiting but now that appears to have been completely removed. I would appreciate clarification on if these sections should be included for this and other pages that I edit. I am also an unconnected volunteer editor (feel free to do a checkuser) I don't need to edit this page if you don't want me to. I'd like to understand why these categories are allowed and included on other GA articles of similar people like Neri Oxman but not here when following same rules, and what should be included on articles like both of theirs. For example, there is a large section on Oxman's work as a professor, but not as Karle's work as a resident, though both appear to be a significant part of how they work from sources on them. Thank you in advance for your clarity and not biting the newcomer. LWu22 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I also asked about it here under Good article question to ensure the articles are accurate. I'm working towards GA status overall in all my editing. LWu22 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Tags from October

There are tags on the main article: problems with sources and close connection. At this point since Netherzone has rewritten the article, that tag should be placed on the talk page with the handles defined like on Talk:Stephen Barrett

174.197.73.31 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The article still needs additional clean up, and the sources too need to be analyzed and cleaned up. There is no calendar deadline for tag removal, it has to do with resolving the issues. Netherzone (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Copy on the source tag.

What is the issue with the COI tag that remains? Looks like you've re-written it. 174.197.64.112 (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Netherzone re-wrote the article in sept. coi tag added/re-added in oct. Netherzone said above he and Hipal acting in concert (under WiG > "@Hipal had pinged me about the COI/promo/advert issues") that behavior is showing up again now with Hipal and Netherzone right after each other timing with reverts. What's going on here? 80.149.170.9 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Best to focus on content.

Given the comments by Netherzone, there appears to be much more work to do. --Hipal (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Focusing on content, the issue that remains is to sort through the refs and clean those up.

The coi has been resolved by Netherzone rewriting. There is no longer any content issue related to coi.

Please stop reverting and readding the coi tag. If you believe that a coi issue remains please open an investigation. 24.7.42.20 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)