Talk:Quad Cinema

Article «written like an advertisement»

Dear Arxiloxos,

You keep marking the article Quad (cinema) as «written like an advertisement», although some clean up as been made, after you marked it for the first time.

Style is objective and not tendentious. Article topics are third-party verifiable. Facts are justified with references and more information links.

Are the mentioned and verifiable facts what make you hostile to the article?

If not, please let me know clearly what are the bad points and I’ll try to improve the article quality once again. May be you could try. That’d be nice!

I apologize, but will have no further time for discussion.

Regards,

Tertulius,

(talk) 23:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let me first say that this article is self-evidently written in good faith, and that the subject appears to be both notable and interesting. However, the tone does appear to me to be unduly promotional. My concerns essentially boil down to the following:

1. The text does not clearly attribute the quoted opinions and conclusions to their sources, meaning that they are presented in the article as objective fact rather than as the opinions of the sources.

2. It is difficult to ascertain the actual source for some of the quotes, which are not footnoted.

3. It's not clear to me whether some of these sources are reliable ones, or if their opinions are significant enough to justify inclusion.

4. There is no need for so much effusive prose about Maurice Kanbar. He has his own article (which has also been the subject of much puffery, as well as quite a bit of inappropriate negative content--see its edit history and its talk page for more about that).

5. Phrases like "eager moviegoers" and "popular hangout" just aren't very Wikipedia-like, especially if they're not part of a relevant quote from an important source.

6. Also, a minor typographical point: in American English (which should be the language of this New York-centered article) quotations are marked by " " not « »

--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I’d say as well that the article, which is «both notable and interesting» contains relevant historical information and that good intentioned Wiki people like you often «boil down to» conclusions, and easily start introducing “spam” like yours on the top of many good articles.

1 – The sources are clearly indentified and you’ll not find any others. Anyway, you’ll not find anywhere any «objective fact» that is not «opinions of the sources». Facts do not exist “per se”, they all, even in science, are matter of opinion. Have a look on your major philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce about this and then you will understand what I mean.

2 & 3 & 4 : Point 1 includes answers. Poin 4: «effusive prose»? Can you prove that, or is it simply a matter of opinion? Are you interfering in Wiki articles with subjective opinions? Of course Maurice Kanbar article is bad stuff. You are an English language native and would certainly be able to improve it, much better than what I’d be able to do.

5 – I’ll change these terms.

6 – Is American English “superior” to British English? That’s why it’s becoming a pattern in Wikipedia? Is there «New York-centered articles»?. What does this mean?

I’ll try once more to improve the article quality, accordingly to your opinions, and then I’ll stop. If you do not feel happy, please correct it.

Thanks,

Tertulius (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.39.141 (talk)

That's OK! Thanks for your help. Good work!

(talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)