This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
The Vogel NY Times article appears to have been completely rewritten whilst I was editing. Some of the information is only sourced to the original version -- can anyone more familiar with the way the online NYT archive works figure out how to reference the earlier version? Espresso Addict (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, (as I understand it) if the Times does not assign a new URL, the old revision is lost. The Times'spublic editor, Margaret Sullivan, has complained about the broader journalistic problems this is raises, and I have half a mind to write in about the problems this has just caused us here. On the other hand, though, it's worth noting that some material that gets removed from an article like this might be due to issues with its accuracy. I doubt that that's the case here (though I did notice that there was a slight time-based discrepancy in the bit on the Roman collector, which I see you've [rightly] removed), but it is safe to say that the final version of this article (the one that goes into print) will have had the most editorial oversight, verification, etc. I'd really like to find another source for the thing about the collector, and for anything else that no longer appears in the article, but I'm not sure how easy that will be. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)06:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit over-optimistic! The story of the collector from Rome was quite interesting, if a new source could be found for it, but Google wasn't giving me anything earlier. I suspect the reason the article was changed in this case was probably to fit in all the material about the other sales at the auction, but it's possible that inaccurate material got pruned at the same time. I think that was the only information I removed. And excellent getting an image -- always helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
