On writing bio's on the internet

[Monkey_Feyerabend]

Hello folks,

while updating some comics artists bio's on goodreads, I have come across this page devoted to Casty. I am 95% sure that someone of your wrote it. 
There are two big problems in this text, according to me, and I thought that it would be instructive for everyone to point them out. Also, it would be nice if that could be rectified. (I cannot modify this wiki, apparently.) Notice that this wiki biography is one the first results that turn up when searching 'Andrea Castellan' on an English-speaking google home page.

Firstly, the section titled 'Controversy' contains no controversy, only regular criticisms to the author's work. 'Controversy' means something different, usually much worst. Please, refrain from using that word when it does not apply. If anything, the only controversy there is the title of the section. It should be amended.

Secondly, I was surprised by the following sentence therein

He also got criticized for "childish" dialogues and for not giving his main characters much depth[34].

So, I was curious to check this reference [34]. You know, to see who has called out his dialogues for being childish, something that I myself have thought often reading his stories in their original language. Well, it turns out that reference [34] is...me!??! The link brings to the inducks comment section of a Casty story, where I was lamenting how childish his dialogues often sound to me. Please, try to understand: this is wrong. I don't think that an anonymous comment on a site or social media - from a generic douchebag like me, no less! - should be references as a source for an informed criticism. I am no-one, and when I write a post on a website I assume that it will not to be taken as a scholar or a professional reviewer. If we follow this standard, we can write everything about everyone in every biography.

 

[Spectrus]

I think it was me    But I have no idea how the text ended up on that site. I once submitted a draft to Wikipedia, which was declined. As you see, the link to Wikipedia goes nowhere: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Castellan

So, while I'm indeed responsible for the text, I have no responsibility for the fact that it shows up on that page...

Another edit: It was indeed a draft, but if you look here, it was deleted a year ago. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_Castellan

So, "castygate" me if you must, but it was 1) a long time ago, 2) never properly published so I have no idea why it's on that site, and 3) one of the reasons I could get neither article through was exactly the shortage of "reliable source" references in general with almost all these Disney artists, certainly for someone like me who can't read Italian. At the time I added your comment as representative of a group of fans who've made this point - I'm pretty sure you're not the only one I've seen with this opinion, though again it's a long time ago and I don't remember it well. Actually, I think one reason I added it was because my original draft (which ended up on the Scrooge McDuck Wikia) was torn apart for being "advertising".

I guess the only way this can be done right is by restoring the original draft, editing out the reference and reworking it so it's up to scratch for the English Wikipedia, which would then "override" anything currently out there. I seem to remember even asking for help at the time, and getting next to none.

Otherwise, I could of course sign up on that site just to edit away an article by me that I never put up there...

[mousemaestro]

Man, that biography is certainly strongly cited.

[bats]

Wikipedia's notability requirements unfortunately results in a lot of articles having "reception" and "criticism" sections that just quote some random comment one person made somewhere "notable", rather than anything resembling the actual general opinion. These sections are 100% worthless and only exist because of internal rules saying the article subject isn't notable enough without them.

Jul 4, 2021 12:10:52 GMT Spectrus said:

I think it was me    But I have no idea how the text ended up on that site. I once submitted a draft to Wikipedia, which was declined. As you see, the link to Wikipedia goes nowhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Castellan

Casty has a decently sourced article on Italian wikipedia, translating that should do the trick.

[Spectrus]

Jul 4, 2021 23:09:40 GMT bats said:

Wikipedia's notability requirements unfortunately results in a lot of articles having "reception" and "criticism" sections that just quote some random comment one person made somewhere "notable", rather than anything resembling the actual general opinion. These sections are 100% worthless and only exist because of internal rules saying the article subject isn't notable enough without them.

Casty has a decently sourced article on Italian wikipedia, translating that should do the trick.

Yeah, that's why I tried to emulate that format! Didn't work anyway.

You're right about the Italian article, but after all my failings with the previous versions of the article, I really don't want to be seen as the guy who's constantly pushing Casty to get an article. So I'm afraid somebody else will have to do the work on that.

I also have an unfinished article on Massimo De Vita but maybe it would be better to simply translate the Italian one too... my draft is clearly not neutral enough.

[Monkey_Feyerabend]

Jul 4, 2021 12:10:52 GMT Spectrus said:

So, "castygate" me if you must, 

😅 😅

It was not to point you out, I do appreciate the sentiment of wanting to disseminate information on the internet. It's just weird to reference a mere comment section. It should be at least a well argued blog post from a decent source.

I have added a few short bio's of European Disney cartoonists on Goodreads, taking bites of information from here and there, and updated the poor existing ones. You are free to reuse it elsewhere, I assume:

Casty
De Vita jr
Bottaro
Ziche
Artibani
Faraci
Jippes


Let me know if you seen mistakes in this. (English not my first language, nor even close to be the second...). I will write more when I have time and will. (Not everyone can, you must have the status of 'librarian' on that website to edit informations on books and creators.)

[bats]

For what it's worth, neither comment sections nor well argued blog posts are considered notable, it needs to be a quote either from a person who's notable on their own to the point everything they say is "notable" or something from an article/review/etc on a "notable" website that paid said writer to write this.

This is why you end up with so much irrelevant nonsense in those sections.

[mousemaestro]

Jul 9, 2021 16:00:45 GMT bats said:

For what it's worth, neither comment sections nor well argued blog posts are considered notable, it needs to be a quote either from a person who's notable on their own to the point everything they say is "notable" or something from an article/review/etc on a "notable" website that paid said writer to write this.

This is why you end up with so much irrelevant nonsense in those sections.

Does it count if my momma said I am special? 

[Spectrus]

Jul 9, 2021 10:26:03 GMT Monkey_Feyerabend said:

Jul 4, 2021 12:10:52 GMT Spectrus said:

So, "castygate" me if you must, 

Let me know if you seen mistakes in this. (English not my first language, nor even close to be the second...). I will write more when I have time and will. (Not everyone can, you must have the status of 'librarian' on that website to edit informations on books and creators.)

Since you asked 😉 I checked out De Vita. It's legible but if you want to be correct:

fathers -> father's
heavely -> heavily
sketchy, art style -> sketchy art style

I'd also add Paul Murry as an influence. It's very obvious in De Vita's first Mickey stories, right down to the hat, and he also acknowledged it in interviews.

[Monkey_Feyerabend]

Jul 9, 2021 18:24:35 GMT Spectrus said:

Jul 9, 2021 10:26:03 GMT Monkey_Feyerabend said:

Let me know if you seen mistakes in this. (English not my first language, nor even close to be the second...). I will write more when I have time and will. (Not everyone can, you must have the status of 'librarian' on that website to edit informations on books and creators.)

Since you asked 😉 I checked out De Vita. It's legible but if you want to be correct:

fathers -> father's
heavely -> heavily
sketchy, art style -> sketchy art style
 

Oh yes, thank you. These are all typos, I am sure there are others in the other bio's. I wrote them quickly the other night without actually rereading them. In any case, nobody on that website cares about comics creators, left alone Disney cartoonists.

[Monkey_Feyerabend]

Jul 9, 2021 16:00:45 GMT bats said:

For what it's worth, neither comment sections nor well argued blog posts are considered notable, it needs to be a quote either from a person who's notable on their own to the point everything they say is "notable" or something from an article/review/etc on a "notable" website that paid said writer to write this.

This is why you end up with so much irrelevant nonsense in those sections.

Well, I said 'well argued post from a decent source'.
By the way, when it comes to comics - a field where actual professional critics and serious journalism never actually happened, if not on Groth's The comics journal - a well arguing blogger can often be considered a sufficiently 'notable' person in the field. At least in my view. But then again, we can spend all life debating what 'well argued' means.

I honestly think, like you, that wiki pages should simply not contain any reference to art criticisms of any sort.