Talk:Hokusai

Note: This discussion imported from textop wiki.

Quick draft

Like I said, this article is not yet carefully fact-checked and copy-edited; I just threw it together from some material I had already written, plus a few dribs and drabs from the existing Wikipedia entry. This is kind of what I'd like to see CZ aspire to: as it is, it's already much better than the Wikipedia entry on this important artist. If you look at the Wikipedia entry, not only is it short, but what is there contains a lot of repeated material, with multiple instances of several observations/facts scattered across the article - showing yet another problem with it, the lack of any good overall organization for the content. If anyone needed any proof that "drive-by" editing doesn't produce good content, that Wikipedia entry is a prime example. Noel 20:00, 5 October 2006 (PDT)

Well, it is now copy-edited. I still have to go through and fact-check it (the article was mostly written some years ago using Hillier, which is now rather dated, as Forrer contains later scholarship), but it's pretty good. Comments welcome (and humbly solicited :-).

And a very big tip of the Hatly Hat to Terry, for a large amount of help with the copy-editing! Noel 08:22, 6 October 2006 (PDT)

I suggest that we do not have notes about the articles themselves, a la Wikipedia. Such notes really belong here, on the talk pages. There will, instead, be a catch-all warning at the top of every unapproved article that says the article may contain errors, etc. The only pages that will not have such a warning will be particular versions of articles approved by editors. I do not say this to legislate it, but it is something that has long bothered me about Wikipedia--clearly, by putting such notices at the tops of articles, almost randomly as far as I can tell, collaborators are writing for themselves, and using the templates as bludgeons on each others--the templates are not for the public's consumption, really. Folks will deny this, of course, but I ain't buyin' it. --Larry Sanger 22:49, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

Ah, I never intended that these comments go in the article; I don't remember where I had them on Textop, but if they were in the article, that was just because the whole Textop situation was so.. temporary, with no set rules. I 100.000% agree they belong on a text page. J. Noel Chiappa 09:27, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Copy edits

I've made some further copy edits, hopefully improving the flow. It's a nice article; it makes me want to know more! I also added ISBN and/or OCLC numbers to the book references at the bottom, as such IDs make it (slightly) easier for people to get a copy of the material. Let me know if any of this is objected to. JesseW2 00:20, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

This comment was from me. I also made some changes to the article, which have gotten lost, due to the textop copy being copied, not imported. We really need to get the history fixed up, here and elsewhere. Just having the random last Wikipedia editor listed is, er, not very good. JesseWeinstein 01:38, 16 November 2006 (CST)

This was not an imported Wikipedia article. I wrote it offline, using mostly printed sources (although I did take a few dribs and drabs from Wikipedia), and then uploaded it to Textop, from whence it was cross-loaded to Citizendium. This (extensive) text has never appeared on Wikipedia. J. Noel Chiappa 09:23, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Style

Great information. I hope that the article can be edited to have a more narrative style of prose. I realize that large block paragraphs are a pain to read online, but at the moment most paragraphs have only one or two sentences, many of which begin with "In 1777..." or "Around 1796...". It's almost like a timeline or list of facts. The article probably doesn't need so many specific dates. --Eric Winesett 21:59, 9 May 2007 (CDT)