Vera.Grace

Welcome!

Hello, Vera.Grace!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 13:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning Adflatuss. Thank you for the welcome. I will do my best.

Kind regards,

Vera.Grace. Vera.Grace (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Aymara people. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. While the text was placed into a block quote, if it wasn't pd, it would be on the edge of being unacceptable. Whenever you copy from pd source, please add a notice like I did. Thanks! The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 16:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning, thank you very much for helping me to do the correct thing. I have read the links you gave me. I think I cam unstuck because I did not recognise the work as in the PD. Was it the date of the work that should have told me or was it something else I missed? I knew that you cannot directly take text from any other source, hence the block quotation, author's name and inline citation but I know now I also need the attribution template. That is super because I want to do the right thing. With my kind regards and thanks again, Vera.Grace (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aymara people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castile. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Gae Aulenti

Much enjoying seeing the great work you are doing on the Gae Aulenti article! Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It is my pleasure. Please tell me if there are any problems. :-)

Vera.Grace (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Once you have finished, it might be worth nominating the article for WP:GA and/or WP:DYK (it is probably substantially different enough for this, but the criteria also takes article size into consideration in ways I have never fully understood). In any case, the article is very much improved, which is what really counts. Well done! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I found Gae a fascinating woman in a field of which I had no knowledge. I did not know of the GA or DYK things and I am not one to seek praise but what the heck ;-) I will give it a go. :-) Have an awsome day,

Vera.Grace (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gae Aulenti

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gae Aulenti you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I enjoyed working on it.Vera.Grace (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I will stay out of this until you and Rollinginhisgrave decide on the best path forward (too many cooks). If the article is promoted to GA (which, obviously, I hope it is!), then I will jump back in for DYK nomination. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's all good :-)

Vera.Grace (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I was waiting for you weigh in haha Cl3phact0; I wanted to see what you thought about VG's comment. I do obviously disagree that it's just a style issue. On the other hand, I do think the article is a (very) good article, albeit not a WP:GOODARTICLE, if you get me.

Part of it is just that the MOS is somewhat arbitrary, by its nature. If you think I'm going beyond the GA criteria to impose my own personal style requirements (which is of course possible), I can ask for a third opinion? Or I can just fail it and you can immediately renominate it, so another reviewer can pick it up? Some options. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

When I suggested (above) that the article might be a candidate for GA, this was based on the significant and substantial improvements that Vera.Grace made in the context of copyediting the previous version. As I don't have much experience with the GA review process (I'm doing more NPP, AfC, some AfD, etc.), I was trying mostly to help with technical and gnome-ish tasks. My concern is that I may have actually muddied the waters – hence, my suggesting that I stay on the side-lines until the two of you conclude. Please proceed, and do let me know how I can help. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Good morning! I appreciate ++ the help you have both have given me. I usually copyedit random tiny Indian village pages of little importance and only that because I go to the list of articles needing copyediting and choose the next one at the bottom of the "B"s in the alphabetical list - nuts and very random I know but it seems to stop me accidentally meddling in anyone else's work.

I did some more work last night to remove my "tortured syntax" - as one English teacher once told me ;-) I can see the problems where it lacks enclycopaedic tone. I have trouble between my sentences being stubby which is in my professional/scientific nature and the more cursive.

I do not think there are many more sources to be garnered on the internet now. I have removed the url refs other than university, government and journal sources.

One of the big problems I can see for this biography is that Gae was working in a complex environment ranging from philosophy of architecture to polictics to post war changes to personal traits.

Also, I am not an architect or interior designer (semi-retired physician if it matters). I was thinking that this is bad as far as the above is concerned but perhpas good because I have had to researched down to the nitty gritty. I am trying hard to improve my ability to translate that nitty gritty to the text.

Sorry for going on.

Having said that, any time you would like me to "cease and desist" work on the article ;-) there will be no problem at all. I don't want to take too much of anyone's time. Happy days :-)

ps. I created a "Neo-liberty" page and am carefully developing that with the sources I found for Gae.

Vera.Grace (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi @Vera.Grace, I read through your GA nomination, and wanted to offer a little advice. I am not an expert, but I think the ideas that helped me may also be of benefit to you.

Context

When writing, remember that articles are normally notable because they are interesting to people. However, people are not normally interested in raw facts and raw data, but rather the ideas and narratives that the facts convey. So, the literature on the subject normally explicitly talks about these ideas and narratives to make it interesting for the reader.

Your job is to make a summary of these ideas from all the reliable sources, not to create a comprehensive list of facts. Hence, you almost never want to list a fact without context.

It also (in my opinion) makes writing more fun. More context -> more meaning -> more interesting.

Copyediting

Finding the best words, structures etc. to convey the right ideas is really hard. Everyone is always improving at this, even the most experienced editors.

I found using ChatGPT really helpful when trying to copyedit. I often use the prompt:

"Copyedit this, putting all your changes in bold, and listing all your changes at the end: '[insert paragraph]'"

It is amazing for identifying mistakes, and correcting your misunderstandings if you question it further. You just have to make sure you fully understand why what you wrote was wrong before changing anything though, because ChatGPT is often wrong itself.

Best of luck, your attitude seems very positive. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your advice - very helpful. I hadn't thought to use CHAT gpt but I can - excellent. Re the context, is there are fine line between facts and editorialising? I wonder, if it is not too much trouble, if you could give me an example from the article? Is it that, for example, in the section on stage design, I would find other reliable sources about what Italian stage design was like at the time (or had been like) and then summarise it at the beginning of the section? Cheers, Vera.Grace (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is a fine line, it is a clear line. Only ever use ideas/interpretations which are already presented in the reliable sources, never provide your own interpretation, ideas or narrative (WP:OR). Words covered in MOS:EDITORIAL fundamentally link ideas or perform some other from of interpretation, which means they cannot be used without attribution or it would count as WP:OR again. When there are competing ideas you have to be especially careful to provide WP:DUE weight etc.

On first glance, the stage design section seems to be one of the better sections, as it is roughly organized into paragraphs which focus on the same ideas.

Aulenti and Luca Ronconi, theatre director and producer, founded the Prato Theatre design workshop (Laboratorio di Progettazione Teatrale) in the late 1970s. Together, they staged 16 productions including, Pier Paolo Pasolini's Calderón, Euripides Le Baccanti, and Hugo von Hofmannsthall's La Torre.: This is a good paragraph, it introduces the idea of Aulenti and Ronconi working together and flows well (because the information leads on to similar information). The facts are used in context with one another. For copyediting, putting it into ChatGPT with the prompt mentioned earlier picks up on:

• Spelling mistake: Hofmannsthall has an extra 'l'
• Grammar mistake: Euripides needs an apostrophe to indicate possession

I also think using some more specialized helps the flow, e.g. Aulenti and Luca Ronconi (theatre director and producer), founded the Prato Theatre design workshop (Laboratorio di Progettazione Teatrale) in the late 1970s. Together, they staged 16 productions, including: Pier Paolo Pasolini's Calderón, Euripides Le Baccanti, and Hugo von Hofmannsthall's La Torre.

Next para:

In her stage designs, Aulenti made reference to Filippo Tommaso Marinetti's work, A Manifesto of Variety Theatre (1913). Marinetti rejected imitation of the historic and obsessive reproduction of daily life. Rather, he chose freedom in design, the use of a cinematic background, and imaginative, satiric and futuristic concepts. Aulenti did not rely on scenery canvas and flats to provide perspective. Instead, she divided the stage with structures such as platforms in order to give context to each scene.: This paragraph also does a good job of providing context. It has a lot of interpretation in it ("rejected", "he chose", "did not rely"), so you have to back up every fact and interpretation with a reliable sources. Unfortunately there is only a general list of references at the end of the paragraph, which makes it near impossible to verify everything. For example, the sentence "Aulenti made reference to Filippo Tommaso Marinetti's work, A Manifesto of Variety Theatre (1913)" needs precise page numbered citations at the end of it to verify:

• Aulenti imitated Marinetti's work
• It was deliberate
• She imitated precisely the piece "A manifesto of variety theatre"

With the current state, if the reader wants to verify this, they need to search through all the four references at the end of the paragraph for all of this information. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As always, you can find examples of best practice by checking out any featured article. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the above. I understand the examples - thanks. Give me time and I will keep working on it. I did put the first few paragraphs through Chat gpt. Cheers. Vera.Grace (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gae Aulenti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)