Talk:Anna Sui

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPV[edit]

This is rather stub as NPV... or just a draft. Is there any point CONTRAing a designer? Fixed grammatical errors for immediate now. I never know whether Isetan is great deal for ANNA SUI, even for japanese...

Probably the original author is Asian young person, preciously found in Wikipedia who is not computer hacker nor academics nor pop culture addict (like me).

I will continue intermittantly.

--NoirNoir 16:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I tried to edit some of the content that didn't seem like it was written from NPOV. Is this okay? I hope whoever wrote those stuff realizes that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. mirageinred 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like whoever wrote the article who directly copied everything from

http://www.fashionvue.com/directory/anna-sui.htm. mirageinred 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Birth year[edit]

It says she's born in 1964, while all the other websites I've seen have told me that she was born in 1955... I'm changing it to 1955. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.81.83.183 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

She is definitely older than 47. She's in her 60's. Unfortunately, there is no way to confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.8.112 (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

General cleanup, needs more[edit]

Resolved

This is going to be a bit critical. I don't want to chase away any new editors. I can appreciate the amount of attention that has been put into this article, including the sourcing efforts. It just has some issues that relate to how we produce content here, versus at a fashion magazine or the like.

I went through and fixed many of the numerous style problems in this article:

  • Don't use italics (marked up with pairs of single quotes: ''italics'') for quotations. Quotations go in double quotation marks "like this". Use single ones for 'nested quotations' inside quotations. The citation template's |quote= parameter auto-generates quotation marks, and quotation marks are not used for block quotes, so they only need to be added for regular quotations in the article body (which is where almost all quotations should be). (MOS:QUOTE)
  • Use {{Quote}} for block quotations not a pull quote template like {{Quote frame}}; that should almost never be used in articles, because Wikipedia almost never has pull quotes.
  • Products, companies, organizations, product lines, events, and other random stuff are not italicized (MOS:ITALICS); titles of books, films, TV series, and other major works (including gallery shows, oddly) are italicized. Chapters, articles, TV episodes, and other minor works go in double quotation marks (MOS:TITLE)
  • Use logical quotation (MOS:LQ). Terminal and interruptive punctuation goes outside, not inside, unless part of the quoted material. Right: "I was warm", she said, "until the snow came." not ...warm," – and Before the snow, she said "I was warm". not Before the snow, she said "I was warm." It can take some Americans a while to get used to this system, but it's important for quotation accuracy.
  • Lots more; basically, please see at least Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.
  • Also, big blocks of Chinese text serve no purpose on English Wikipedia.
  • When listing books, etc., in bibliographies and further-reading sections, do not double the material with a reference citation. These are not references. References are what are used in the article body as sources for facts in it.
  • It is not helpful to add blank citation (or other) template parameters. It's just dead code that clogs up the page.
  • the |page= and |pages= parameters are for citing specific page numbers, not for indicating the total number of pages. That is a detail that is not useful in source citations (see also WP:NOT#Bibliography).
  • Everything significant that has an article here, that is not an everyday word, should be linked, but only upon first occurrence. Things never likely to have article should not be linked (it just makes red links that will always go nowhere), nor should general words and concepts that are not significant in the context, like "career" or "shopping basket". Things people might be unfamiliar with, like pop-up store should be linked, as should especially relevant general concepts like fashion industry, as well as more specific things, like notable individuals and companies.

This page still has three serious problems:

  • It's a WP:QUOTEFARM, with truly excessive amounts of pointless quotation in the citations, possibly even to WP:Copyright violation levels. Much of it is redundant with the actual quotes in the article text, and the rest of it serves no purpose other than to include trivia and anecdotal ramblings that are not encyclopedic and cannot be included in the article text. I was tempted to delete every single quote from the citations, since I cannot identify a single one that we need to retain. I've left them in for now, in case someone wants to go through and examine them more closely. We only need quotations inside citations for the following reason: We paraphrase something that a substantial number of readers are going to want to read for themselves (e.g. because the claim stated is controversial), but which doesn't work well as a quote, because of awkward, overly technical, or too-lengthy wording. Or, we have quoted something in brief, and it may be misinterpreted or ambiguous if a larger quote – but still minimal – isn't available to provide context. I can't see any place here where either of these are the case. The unused quotation material bloating the refs section makes up something like 60% of the total article text.
  • It's written too much like a celebrity profile in a magazine, with a lot of non-encyclopedic, emotive wording. Encyclopedic text is meant to be dry and dispassionate, as neutral as possible. Way too much of the material is trivia, like anecdotes about Sui's life, how she feels about other people, how people feel about her, etc., etc. That's all People magazine content, not encyclopedia content. See WP:TONE and, especially, Wikipedia:Writing better articles.
  • The nature of much of the material appears to be blatantly promotional. This is essentially an extended résumé combined with a product history, detailing virtually every single marketing item associated with Sui in any way, and there are even notes in there on where to obtain them. This is not cool, per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX policy, WP:SPAM, and maybe even WP:COI, if anyone working on this article is connected with Sui, her company, or anyone who sells her products.

Hope this helps. I believe the subject is quite notable, and it's good that someone cares enough to work on a good article about her. But this will never become a Good Article, much less a Featured one, in anything like its present state. It's written for the wrong audience.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scott, thank you for your extensive feedback on the Anna Sui article. Do not have much experience on writing articles and the guidance was very clear. Made extensive changes to the article and appreciate further comments and support from you. MargaritaPoppa (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a "Scott", but okay. :-) The improvements are major; good work! I removed the problem tags from the top of the page. Also did some additional cleanup. A few of the citations are incomplete, but that's not that big of a deal.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Sui. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anna Sui. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)