Talk:Clive Barda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draft review[edit]

[This discussion copied from Rhododendrites' talk page.]

Dear Ryan,
I hope you are keeping well, and that you enjoyed your (partial) wiki-break.
Whenever you might have a few spare minutes, I would be most grateful if you would be so kind as to review the subject draft and to point out areas needing improvements. I am particularly interested in your views concerning my use of flat lists and collapsible tables, which I thought proved appropriately useful in this case, but might be too outlandish for a GA-level quality article, which is the standard I aim to achieve.
Thank you very much for your considered comments, Ryan, which are always helpful and wise.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 11:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdebee: Hello there. I had a good couple months of wikibreak, but yeah, it pretty quickly turned "partial." :) I've only given it a very quick look, so I'll just give a few first impressions from its appearance now, and then take a closer look this weekend. Apologies if any of this is wrongheaded due to not having looked closely enough yet.
  • Ideally, content in the lead is also in the body somewhere, so the citations could be migrated down. Pretty minor thing, though.
Will do. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not terribly familiar with quote styles, but to me right-justified with small text (and no other differences) looks a little odd. My preference would be either just use {{quote}} or to use a border with the box (and reduce the width, putting it to the side of the text).
I've now added a border to the two quote boxes; does it look less odd to you now? Personally, I quite like the quotes as they were, but if they looked odd to you, then that's an important element of feedback which I'd want to take into account. Please let me know if it's better now and, if not, I'll change it again. Thanks very much, Ryan.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 14:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{quote box}}, to me, is usually best off as with {{quote box|align=right|width=300px|quote=abcdefg|source=12345}} It defaults to a 1px border and 90% fontsize, but you can style everything with CSS. That said, {{quote box}} is really only for quotes that are already in the article (duplicating them to highlight them as magazines do). {{quote}} is for quotes intended to be part of the text. Sorry, I didn't distinguish previously. So for yours it would be more or less:

In 1969, I went to a concert at London's South Bank, where pianist Daniel Barenboim and the cellist Jacqueline du Pré were playing Beethoven sonatas. [...] Barenboim was the most famous musician I had come close to and I decided to ask if I could photograph him. To my amazement, Barenboim said "OK".

— Clive Barda, Performance! Musicians in Photographs, "An Interview with Clive Barda" by Graeme Kay
Sorry for the confusion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Dear Ryan; Many thanks for your lucid explanation and the very useful sample, which I have now applied to both quote boxes. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for identifying those photos! I have now added one (of Scott Ellaway) in the Method section, and re-adjusted the quote box to occupy the page better. What do you think?
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now also added the other photo (of Sarah Beth Briggs) in the Career section, and left-aligned – to balance the other photo mentioned above.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "notable portraits" - seems like this means the portraits themselves would have received coverage? Or does this mean the collections/books are notable? Or the people? what criteria went into these lists of selected works?
The collapsible tables summarize the photographs of notable people that were selected for publication in both books. In turn, the names in the flat lists are of the most notable people and are a subset of names from those tables (and are therefore wikilinked in the flat lists but not further down in the tables). The reason for calling the section "notable portraits" is because all of the people in the books are notable artists. I could certainly rename the section title to "Selected works", because every photo published in the two books was selected by the author from his immense collection.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)  Done[reply]
So this is a tricky one. Because it's a subject I don't have experience writing about, it's unclear to me what level of detail is appropriate for this sort of list of works. Typically an artist will have a list of works that lists major works like books, albums, films, etc., but not a list of minor works, like individual songs, paintings, minor acting credits, articles in newspapers, etc. Sometimes if there's an article about a collection (like Performance!), it can make sense to include a list of contents, but I don't usually see that in the article about the artist. The exception is when each item listed has received secondary coverage showing its significance. This is an unfair comparison, but the article about Annie Leibovitz, for example, has a list of major works at the bottom, and a list of specific subjects/photos that received attention (magazine covers and such).
So I'm a little bit concerned that someone might see the lists of subjects/photos as promotional here, since the sources supporting inclusion of the content is Barda's own work. I don't know. It was smart of you to put them in a collapsed table, as even though there is a lot of detail, it doesn't occupy much space on the page. You may want to get a second opinion, as it may be more common than I realize. As I said, this is not a category of article I typically work on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could be wrong, but I think the typical way to mix a bibliography with footnotes would be to use {{sfn}} instead of citing the book in the bibliography and in the references. So for example, removing the Performance! book in the references, and replacing each instance (along with the page number) with e.g. {{sfn|Barda|2000|p=17}} If you'd prefer to keep the citations as they are, it might make sense to rename "Bibliography" to "further reading".
For now, I chose to follow your suggestion of simply renaming the section title to 'Further reading'. However, I may well adopt your first proposal, after trying it out in draft mode. Thank you so much, as ever, for pointing out this subtlety in the relashionship between bibliography and footnotes.  Done
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. More later :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ryan,
Very many thanks for your initial review, which seems to have been more than cursory.
I have made a mental note of your most helpful suggestions and will think about each of them carefully. I am going away tomorrow and will be back on Monday. I will wait for you to complete your review this weekend, as you indicated; then will reply to you in greater detail. For now, though, please know that I definitely intend to follow your advice, as well as the pointers you've already provided so helpfully. Thank you so much for your willingness to assist me in getting this right; as you gathered, I am a bit of a perfectionist, so all your input is of immense value to me, and I remain very grateful; thanks once again, Ryan.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For now, I have replied to a couple of points, in your bulleted list above. Thank you.
@Pdebee: Thanks. I had a few things I wanted to finish today, and will follow up about this tomorrow. I'll leave a message with responses/feedback on the draft's talk page, in case it's useful for this discussion to stay with the article. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ryan,
Thank you for your latest message, and for finding the time, whenever convenient. As for copying the above exchanges, I had been thinking along the same lines, and have now done so here.  Done
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replied inline to a couple things above, and adding more down here. :)
Why {{clear}} after the method section? For me it creates a big section of whitespace.
 Done. I have now removed it – it was there because I almost always add the 'clear' template automatically after a 'File' link, to make sure the next paragraph starts on a new line. Thank you for catching that unneeded one, as I had missed it. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The method section is interesting. I'd love to see that expand down the road, if there are sources. It's the sort of thing specific to his craft that I wouldn't have thought about. Nice.
 Done. I am glad you found it useful. I collected these details from the sources and they seem to fit together well. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life seems out of place there, after all of the lists, but it may just be because it's so short right now. I wonder if it could be expanded or if there's a place that makes sense elsewhere (maybe before exhibitions, or folded into the career section?)
 Done. Many thanks for pointing this out; it's now just after the 'Method' section, and before the 'Exhibitions' section, which effectively starts the various list-type sections. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A million photos by 2012! Especially considering most of them are probably pre-digital, that's a big number :)
It amazes me too! My wife (who is a classical pianist) was offered Performance! shortly after it was published in 2000; then, we went to Barda's 2012 Exposure! exhibition in Thurrock and were blown away by his photos! Then, when I saw he'd been awarded the OBE earlier this year, I thought he merited an article here, hence all the recent work.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else looks good to me. I'd say that even without responding to anything else I've written above, you're good to move to mainspace. Hope this is helpful, and sorry to take a while to get back to you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ryan; Many thanks for your vote of confidence! It means a lot to me to have your blessing, and no problem at all about the short delay. I have followed your advice in all cases above, excepting the lists & tables, for which I will now open a new section below, at the present talk page. As you suggested, I will seek a second opinion tomorrow, as I have to close shop for today. I will keep you copied in the ongoing discussion about the two sets of lists & tables, as I would like to have achieved consensus on all the points you raised before moving the article into mainspace.
Thank you once again for all your most helpful guidance and suggestions, which are deeply appreciated.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design of the 'Selected works' section[edit]

Dear Yintan;
[Courtesy copy to: Rhododendrites]
I hope you are keeping well? I apologise for imposing on you again, but when you have the time, please would you be so kind as to read this section, and then review the present draft article's Selected works? As ever, I would be most grateful for your helpful guidance. Thank you very much for your consideration.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comments[edit]

[The following text (written by Rhododendrites) was extracted from the exchanges in the section immediately above, in the present talk page. It specifically addresses the current layout of the article's section: Selected works.]

So this is a tricky one. Because it's a subject I don't have experience writing about, it's unclear to me what level of detail is appropriate for this sort of list of works. Typically an artist will have a list of works that lists major works like books, albums, films, etc., but not a list of minor works, like individual songs, paintings, minor acting credits, articles in newspapers, etc. Sometimes if there's an article about a collection (like Performance!), it can make sense to include a list of contents, but I don't usually see that in the article about the artist. The exception is when each item listed has received secondary coverage showing its significance. This is an unfair comparison, but the article about Annie Leibovitz, for example, has a list of major works at the bottom, and a list of specific subjects/photos that received attention (magazine covers and such).
So I'm a little bit concerned that someone might see the lists of subjects/photos as promotional here, since the sources supporting inclusion of the content is Barda's own work. I don't know. It was smart of you to put them in a collapsed table, as even though there is a lot of detail, it doesn't occupy much space on the page. You may want to get a second opinion, as it may be more common than I realize. As I said, this is not a category of article I typically work on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Justification[edit]

The current layout of the subject section is based on Henri Cartier-Bresson#Notable portrait subjects, except that I chose to use flat lists because they occupy the page more efficiently than columns, which leave a lot of blank space in the section.

The reason I added collapsible tables with the details about the photos selected for Barda's two books, was to enrich the reader's experience by enabling the first three sortable columns to be used for exploring the works included in the tables:

  1. chronologically – by sorting the Year column (and then perhaps consult the Date column, for additional granularity);
  2. alphabetically by artist – by sorting the Subject column;
  3. alphabetically by venue – by sorting the Location column.

However, if either the flat lists approach, or the inclusion of collapsible tables infringe upon one or more of the editorial guidelines, then I am certainly amenable to reworking the section completely. I have outlined an alternative approach in subsection Option 1 below, but please feel free to propose additional options by adding similar subsections further down. Thank you in advance for your assistance and consideration.

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1[edit]

  1. Keep the section title as Selected works.
  2. Restructure the section's content by decade.
  3. For each decade, use a list of sentences to describe the artists photographed, as was done at: Annie Leibovitz#Examples of photographs.
  4. Relocate the collapsible tables into a separate article, as was done in: Laurence Olivier on stage and screen, and remove the collapsible feature.

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patrick, sorry for my late reply.
Technically there's nothing wrong with it but I feel that it may be a bit over the top to list all (or many of) the photographs in a book. It seems overly detailed for a photographer's article, I would expect to find such a list in an article about the book (so yes, I also find the list in the Leibowitz article way too long. Just listing her more controversial photos would have been enough, in my opinion). Not sure if there are any guidelines on this, really. Usually "major works" are listed which I guess would be a book. But then again, one could argue that the photographs in a book are the actual works. Your guess/opinion is as good as mine. Cheers, Yintan  08:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yintan;
[Courtesy copy to: Rhododendrites]
Thank you very much for your helpful thoughts, and no problem at all about the short delay.
I hope I am correct in concluding that your remarks are meant to address the detailed lists I created in the collapsible tables, but that you are happy about the flatlists of names, as they stand currently. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You wrote: "I would expect to find such a list in an article about the book...", which echoes one of Ryan's comments: "Sometimes if there's an article about a collection (like Performance!), it can make sense to include a list of contents, but I don't usually see that in the article about the artist.".
I then looked into MOS:LISTS and WP:SAL to remind myself of the guidelines. As I saw no reference to photographs, I ran a search for List of photographs by and found two occurrences:
List of photographs by Edward Weston, created on 20 January 2011
List of photographs by John Thomas, created on 17 April 2016.
Since there are these two precedents, I have created a second draft article:
User:Pdebee/List of photographs by Clive Barda...
... which contains both detailed tables, now non-collapsible. I have added a lead section, as per WP:LEADFORALIST.
I have now also removed the original tables from the draft article on Barda and, if you are both satisfied with the end results, I'd like to move it into main space, then move the list article, and finally uncomment the link to the latter, just under the section header Selected works (using: {{main article|List of photographs by Clive Barda}}).
Thank you, Yintan and Ryan, for your kind patience with me and for your helpful guidance, as always!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 12:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ryan and Yintan;
Just a quick courtesy heads-up to confirm that I have now moved the articles in main space: Clive Barda and its affiliated List of photographs by Clive Barda. I could not have completed their development without your generous and helpful advice, and I owe you a debt a gratitude: thank you both, very much.
I look forward to the opportunity of being of some assistance to yourselves in return, perhaps, one day; who knows?
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ツ[edit]

[This discussion copied from Lopifalko's talk page.]

Dear fellow editor,
Thank you very much for your help in improving the article I created on Clive Barda; although I had asked a couple of editors with whom I had worked before, they had given me the OK to publish the article as you found it. In particular, you helped me today by invoking WP:LINKFARM when you removed the Selected works section, as I was not aware of that guideline. Just FYI, I had included such a section after looking at the article on Henri Cartier-Bresson, which has a similar section: Notable portrait subjects, where the list of subject names is presented in columns instead of the flatlist format I had adopted. Would you therefore say that section is also a link farm and needs to be removed? Thank you for your considered advice.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate that you have a vested interest in this, having worked on it for months. It looks like a well built article - I haven't read the text yet, having only skimmed over it looking for obvious policy violations. It might be justified in removing those from the Cartier-Bresson article, I would need to think on that more than I have time for right now, in order to give my opinion. However, By my count, the Cartier-Bresson article has a total of 43 links representing the whole of Cartier-Bresson's career, where as the Barda article had 97 links just for those included in one publication, and 44 for one other publication. That seems excessive to me. I am following here in the example I have seen others make in working on biographies. To me, it seems clear that a wall of names and wikilinks is of limited value to a reader. I can appreciate that you might think otherwise. When I have more time later I will read up on the policy for this. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)'[reply]
Dear colleague,
Thank you for your thoughtful and sensitive approach, but please don't worry: I want to get it right and I am grateful to you for enabling me to learn guidelines that are new to me. I agree with you that the earlier lists (of 97 & 44 links) could be seen as excessive and I am always happy to hear another viewpoint, as this is how we'll improve our encyclopedia. At some stage, I'd like to mention a few of these names in the article (maybe the real megastars like Menuhin, Bernstein, etc.) as it's now a bit strange that none of these names appear in the article. I don't necessarily wish to recreate a separate section for these, but I think we ought to have some in the Career section, rather than just the current three. What do you think?
In any case, very many thanks for your prompt and helpful reply.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 18:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. -Lopifalko (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lopifalko,
Thank you very much for the additional edits you applied this morning, which were greatly beneficial to the article.
Without wanting to appear churlish, though, I was somewhat disappointed that you chose to remove the {{cite book}} templates I had used systematically when I created the article. However, since it is possible that you were not aware of MOS:CITEVAR, here is an excerpt from the guideline:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.

I trust you won't mind that I restore the book templates while making sure to preserve your otherwise excellent improvements.
Thank you for your consideration, and for all your great help, nonetheless.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do as you wish. For photography articles, we have a standard format that doesn't use citations, and so it was this that I was reformatting to. I don't know if it is documented anywhere (though I really should know), I go by example, for example please see Martin_Parr#Publications. My edits are a suggestion, if you want to format it with citations then I will not stand in your way. -Lopifalko (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lopifalko,
Thank you for your recent post above and for explaining the background, which I can certainly appreciate. I haven't created as many articles as you have, so am inclined to defer to your experience, especially if there is an established format for articles related to photography. On the other hand, I always aim to adhere to the guidelines, and MOS:LAYOUT has a section, WP:FURTHER, which says:
Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article.
I know that some editors find the {{cite}} family of templates unwieldy and bulky, although one thing I like about them is that they deliver a predictably standard output, which is why I use them consistently.
In any case, thank you for graciously agreeing to let me restore the templates. I will do so tomorrow, also making sure to retain your other improvements to the 'Publications' section, such as removing the links to Amazon, separating 'books by' and 'books with contributions by', and relisting the books in chronological order instead of in alphabetical order by surname.
Please be assured of my gratitude for all your helpful assistance, and for what I have learned thanks to your useful contributions to the present article.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That may be true for a Further Reading section located near the bottom of an article, but what we are talking about is a list of works by or with contributions by the topic of the article. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lopifalko,
Good morning! You are quite right: I keep on conflating the two; thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, I have just looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works again, which mentions the option of using {{cite book}} in its section on Template. Since I had used it initially, I will restore it later today. Thank you once again for your help and support.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Sarah Beth Briggs[edit]

[This discussion copied from Jennica's talk page.]

Dear Jennica,
First of all, thank you for the improvements you applied to the article on Clive Barda earlier today; it's always good to have an extra pair of eyes to review one's work, and I appreciate your taking the time.
I just wanted to let you know, out of courtesy, that I have relocated the photo of Sarah Beth Briggs to where it was before, and attempted to explain why in the edit summary. Essentially, I had initially put it where you found it so that I could complete, uninterrupted, the story about Barda's big break in the previous paragraph. When you relocated it, that paragraph became aligned with the photo, which did not make as much sense because the prose (now alongside the photo) is still talking about Barenboim but the photo is not of Barenboim.
On the other hand, having the photo where it was, alongside the next paragraph ("During the following decades, Barda has portrayed the world's leading classical musicians, ... ") makes sense because that's when Barda took that picture of Briggs.
I hope you will now be able to understand my rationale better, and I thank you once again for your time and contributions.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 14:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"London-based Barda..."[edit]

Dear Rathfelder,
Thank you for your edits, but the fact that Barda attended Bryanston does not make him "from Dorset". He was not born there, and has spent most of his life in London, where he graduated from Birkbeck College, University of London, and he has always been based in London. See his website, which says "London-based photographer Clive Barda...". Hope this helped.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 23:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should alter the article to make that clear? Rathfelder (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rathfelder, Thank you for your prompt reply. I will do that tomorrow, as I was about to retire.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 23:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clive_Barda&oldid=1205731429"