Talk:Anastasia Taylor-Lind

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anastasia Taylor-Lind. 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/20140121023126/http://viiphoto.com/popupworkshops/speakers/anastasia-taylor-lind to http://viiphoto.com/popupworkshops/speakers/anastasia-taylor-lind

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite by Aliceaedy1993

@Aliceaedy1993: here are my thoughts so far on your edits yesterday:

• The lead section focuses more on her clients than on what her work is about. I would argue against listing the news outlets she has worked for in the lead (instead summarising as "She works for editorial publications...") and instead list her books.
• It reads a little too much like a CV. it focuses more on her achievements than on what she has actually done. Though it does include the latter, the balance would be better were it to swing the other way, drawing from independent reliable sources that have written about her. It is not notable that various publications reviewed her books, only what they said about it (if something is worth repeating) and using the source as a reference. It's overly heavy on the outlets that have used her work, e.g. "...Taylor-Lind has been documenting the war in eastern Ukraine since it began, published in..." and "Taylor-Lind documented New York City's childcare crisis for TIME magazine...". This is a recognised problem for conflict of interest editors: "you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article" (Template:Welcome-COI); this is an encyclopedia rather than the subject's own web site. Saying that, I am used to seeing terribly promotional examples so in comparison your text isn't half bad, it just has a promotional slant to it.
• Please also read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and note it says "Be transparent about your conflict of interest; Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space. The role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell."
• All instances of "leading" should be removed as that is WP:PUFFERY.
• Inline external links are not allowed. Those that support a claim, must instead be in reference format. Those that are merely direct links to the thing itself are considered spam and must be removed. To create refs, the minimum you need to do is to encase each URL with <ref>URL</ref> to create a bare ref, then I can use an automated tool that will convert them all to full ref syntax.
• MOS:TMRULES says we write "MAIDAN" as "Maidan", the same with "TIME" being "Time"
• "A wide variety of organizations have recognized and supported her projects through awards such as the..." needs to change. "have recognized and supported" should instead describe exactly what place she came. Personally I would put this in a list format in an awards section. If any of these awards are notable then they should be listed in the lead section.
• I don't believe that being a on a jury is notable enough for inclusion.
• "An exhibition of the work will be shown..." - without independent reliable sources you cannot describe future events
• The "Publications" section is for books only, not video or TV
• WP:OVERLINK says that links to other Wikipedia articles should not be repeated other than in the lead section and then once in the article (though perhaps once more in the prose and once in the publications/exhibitions/awards sections).
• Please summarise each of your edits before you submit them in the box included, so that others reviewing what has changed have a list of summaries they can scan through.
• Without having scrupulously checked the new sources, it feel as though the article now leans too heavily toward primary sources (e.g. the subject's own reportage in news outlets rather than sources writing about her / her work). this Guardian source is a good independent source for her education, which you removed; her education as it currently stands does not have a source.

Thanks. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)