Talk:Camera Work

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Photography: History High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

"Due to continuing financing difficulties..." What this actually means is "95% of subscribers had cancelled their subscriptions"!

Looking at the articles Camera Work and Photo-Secession, and related bits of the Alfred Stieglitz article, it seems to me they all say basically the same thing, large chunks read as copy-paste jobs of one another: I've found myself correcting exactly the same stuff in each article. That's not to say that they are not all needed, but they need to be differentiated from one another and not simply regurgitate the same stuff. Samatarou (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I finally got round to removing the duplicated info (or rather condensing it to a minimal summary of what is said in the other articles). I also augmented the article here and there to inject a bit of balance into what struck me as a rather rose-tinted view (as noted in the quote at the top). Camera Work was a great journal, but it lost its way half way through with Stieglitz becoming disillusioned with photography and his subscribers becoming disillusioned with him. Samatarou (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ringtoss.jpg

The image Image:Ringtoss.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the tone?

This article reads like a puff piece for the magazine. AesaraB (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the page with an eye toward editing

I'm doing a comprehensive review and edit of a this article. My goal is to build my skills as a Wikipedia editor and learn more about the editing guidelines. This topic is interesting to me because I've studied photography and want to learn more about Camera Work and its era. The article is relatively short and has relatively few sources so it seems to be a manageable project.

So far I've pasted the article text into a Scrivener file and organized it by source. I've found online copies of most of the sources on Archive.org, and I've ordered the book for source #2 which is quoted many times in the article.

Problems I've seen thus far:

There's a lot of uncited text which I assume is either plagiarized or primary content. There are whole paragraphs with no cite and paragraphs with one cite at the end.

There are numerous examples of plagiarism including attempts to mask plagiarism by changing words. The timeline headers covering the publishing era of Camera Work are also plagiarized and show attempts to mask the plagiarism. I see this as an author's misunderstanding of what plagiarism is as well as a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines.

The source descriptions need to be cleaned up and updated with available links.

There are some non-neutral points of view and there's an opportunity for a style edit that will improve the text's brevity and clarity.

The list of Camera Work issues might best made into a separate list that is linked to from the article. I will review image placement to see whether each supports the relevant portion of the text.

I'll take a look at the article in the context of the articles on Stieglitz, Photo-Secession, and Pictorialism. I'm interested in how the articles are balanced versus each other.

Once my review is complete, I'll assess whether the article needs a clean-up or something deeper. I'll post about that here before I make any edits. Any thoughts in the meantime will be appreciated.