Talk:Dwight Lauderdale - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KoshVorlon (talk | contribs) at 13:09, 24 December 2008 (/→Reverted Trolling by Damiens.RF: /). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:09, 24 December 2008 by KoshVorlon (talk | contribs) (/→Reverted Trolling by Damiens.RF: /)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
	This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

RFC section

... Place your comments about the article here. Got an improvement, by all means, put 'er in. (Make sure it complies with WP:BPL :) ) KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 04:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) "started out" and "wound up" -- avoid slang, mate. "Began a career" and "evolved into" sounds better. Ask a volunteer to give you a shout. Toby Ornott (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Stubbiying the page

Damien, do NOT stubby this page again. Your reasons are totally without merit. Kindly state any concerns you have about this article, discuss them, and yes, if they violate BLP change them. (FYI - there are NO BLP violations I'm aware of, but I'm very open to group consensus ). THank you KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No BLP concerns indeed, since the article has a heavy non-neutral positive bias towards the man. I've listed some of my concerns bellow for your appreciation. --Damiens.rf 21:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that some of the tags at the top of the article are quite relevant, but the sheer number of them is a overwhelming to the point of being unhelpful. I think it would help if, instead of one person working on the article and the other critiquing them, you both worked together on the article. If you see a change that needs to be made, just go ahead and make it. If it gets reverted, discuss on the talk page. BradV 21:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are also some helpful tips at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies). BradV 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I went through the sources in the article, and after excluding the dead links, came up with a total of four references. They are as follows:

It appears that if we remove all unsourced information, and inappropriate opinion pieces such as can be found in the interviews, we won't have much of an article. However, I suggest that it may the right thing to do, and to build on that as new sources come available. Your thoughts? BradV 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I also found the following:

BradV 21:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seem you independently came to the same conclusion I firstly had: that the easiest path to a Good Article on the notable news anchor Dwight Lauderdale probably involves stubifying the current article and starting from there, accepting only sourced facts.

Another editor recently tried to start cleaning up the article and described the experience as a something that gave him an "headache".

To state it clearly, my thoughts are: Yes, I support your suggestion that "this is the right thing to do".

Indeed, stubifying an unrecoverable article is not the end of the world. It's something that have been successfully applied a lot of times , including with other news anchors. --Damiens.rf 03:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

BradV I don't see many (see my response to Damiens.rf above) of his complaints as being valid. He claims unsourced information multiple times, when all information is sources, and in many cases, any claim (i.e: "Legendary anchor") is a verbatim quote from the sources. Also, he makes a rather wild claim about the myhighschoolnews website as being not verifiable or something like that. Despite it's name, it's actually owned by the American Society of Newspaper Editors take a look.

Btw - you pointed out to me that the link I had for the Dwight Laudedale interview has been changed, I'll fix that promptly, as that legitimetly can cause problems and make it look like I'm trying to fake sources :)

As far as the interviews themselves, I'm not keen on removing the quotes, if that's what you mean. However that doesn't mean I'll get pissy and war about it either. My reasoning for the quotes is it gives a more complete picture of Dwight Lauderdale (yes, I'm biased, I live in South Florida, and yes I actually admire his work). Howerver, if you belive it's causing problems such as Undue, I will strike them.

Thanks for your review—KoshVorlon 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ps: Thanks for the additional follow up on additional resources ! :)

I think you missed a link up there this one http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=miamii&p_multi=MH%7C&p_product=MH&p_theme=realcities2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=Dwight%20Lauderdale&s_dispstring=Dwight%20Lauderdale&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&xcal_useweights=no&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0= I realize it's long, but it does work! :) KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dwelling on who said what and whether or not it was helpful is not contributing to the overall quality of the project, nor of this article, so I won't comment on that. However, you do need to make sure that you are not being overly defensive, and that you keep everything in perspective. Your thoughts on what we can do to make sure that the article follows the Manual of Style would be appreciated here. BradV 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. I realize the hidden comment you reverted looks 'OWN'ish. It's just an echo of what policy is on a BLP page. DOn't worry, I won't put it back ! I'll read through the manual of style and then I'll be able to answer your question!

Thansk! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding following the manual of style - I just checked it and this article appears to follow the WP:MOS nearly to a "T". The only thing not following the Manual of style is my use of italics to denote quotes.

MOS doesn't say it totally shouldn't be done, but neither does it support it's use. I claim IAR on that, as using italics allows the quotes to stand out, and if the reader wishes, he or she can skip that portion and still get the main ideas expressed in the article. I realize anytime anyone claims IAR, that claim can be challenged, and if consensus exists, a change can and will be made to reflect that consensus (with VERY few exceptions - BLP..etc..). If you're seeing anyting amiss, please let me know and I'll be happy to fix it.

Thanks! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look specifically at WP:MOSBIO for biog articles. Also the references need to be fixed -- I started to do it yesterday but the rest need work -- either enclose the URL in single square brackets appending a link title eg , or just use the bare URL with no brackets and no title. If you use brackets without a title, the link just displays as an unhelpful numeral - see WP:CITE for more help. – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The other thing that would be helpful is to give the references names so they aren't duplicated in the reference list. E.g. <ref name="example">www.example.com</ref> BradV 19:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

italicized quotations

Kosh, mate, there is absolutely no reason for italicizing the quoted comments of various parties. If you want readers to read your article, then conform to existing norms. Misplaced Pages is not an exercise in re-stylizing formats because they may look more exciting, or distinctive, or creative, or something of that nature. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia; it conforms to conventional standards. Those standards are explained in WP:MOS#Quotation_marks and WP:MOS#Italics. Also, the "dead link" in the first sentence needs to be repaired, or eliminated—not overlooked, or hidden in the coding of the edit-box. (You will note that I left a "hidden note" for you in there myself, hah!) Toby Ornott (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Toby,

Per WP:MOS, it's not dis-allowed:

Quotations in italics For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italicization is not used as a substitute for proper quotation formatting.Italics within quotations Italics are used within quotations if they are already in the source material, or are added by Misplaced Pages to give emphasis to some words. If the latter, an editorial note "" should appear at the end of the quotation ("Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest" ). If the source uses italics for emphasis, and it is desirable to stress that Misplaced Pages has not added the italics, the editorial note "" should appear after the quote.

(at least, the way I'm reading it -- I'm more than willing to be wrong here! ) ) So I disagree with your first sentance. However, the dead - link definetly needed to be pruned and I have done so. The "Where" was removed as that's a referenced statement shown "where" at the end of the paragraph. :)

Thank you KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 21:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, mate. You misread the WP:MOS#Italics.

I will try to explain—

In the first sentence (of the subsection Quotations in Italics), it says: "For quotations, use only quotation marks...not italics. In the second sentence, it clarifies that instruction with the examples–both of which are clear: "NOT because it is a quotation", and "NOT as a substitute". Continuing on (into the subsection Italics within quotations), it further states: "Italics are used within quotations if they are already in the source material, or are added by Misplaced Pages to give emphasis to some words." This instruction then begins to explain a necessity for an editorial note (), and where and when to add it.

Sadly for you, mate, Misplaced Pages's instructions very well DO disqualify your interpretation (and use) of italics for simple quoted material.

Now then (moving on into the where)—

Sometimes readers need to be taken hand-in-hand and pointed in the right direction. A writer can not always expected a reader to look for details. Thus, in the two sentences (He describes his parents as "hardworking". "My parents," he says, "were strict...") a reader wants to know where Lauderdale has described his parents: to a friend (?), a bar room audience, an assembly of scholars, or a mere interviewer in a office (?) A writer can not expect a reader to read those two sentences and then look for the answer. A writer must command his authority (to write) immediately, by saying something on the order of: He describes his parents as "hardworking". "My parents," he says , "were..." Either way, the reader wants to know WHERE. Toby Ornott (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In any event, italics or not, there are way too many direct quotations here for the size of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I removed most of the quotes and took the italics off those that remain. heat_fan1 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good show, mate. I think you are doing a remarkably good job of cleaning and polishing this article. Toby Ornott (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I second that. --Damiens.rf 16:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories: