Talk:Mark Romanek
What is the cause or reason for all the unrealised projects? It seems like an unusually long list? 202.7.248.173 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unrealised Projects
What is the cause or reason for all the unrealised projects? It seems like an unusually long list? 202.7.248.173 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Weaselly and unsourced statements in lead
The statement "Romanek's music videos have come to be regarded as among the best of the medium." Has two problems;
- Firstly it is weaselly. The readers is given no clue to who is doing the regarding and how such an estimation has been reached. If someone notable or authoritative is doing the regarding, then their opinion should be attributed. Leaving their views as a mushy "have come to be regarded" does the article subject absolutely no favours.
- Secondly it is unsourced. Cherry picking a couple of sources in the article that are of the opinion they are among the best does nothing to verify that this is something "regarded" generally.
It's usually difficult to back up such an unattributed statement with sources, which is why they are simply not suitable for an encyclopedia article. The lead should focus on facts that can be supported; the awards he won are much more encyclopedic content and say everything that needs to be said.
Similarly, a "best known" claim is equally bad. Best known by who? Who measured this? How? If he is so celebrated for his videos, then who is to say he isn't better known for those? Again, it's not likely a source to support, or dispute, this claim will ever be found. It reads more like an opinion or a guess. But that's ok, cos it is a completely unnecessary statement. His films can be mentioned in the lead without any guessing about who knows what. Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.