![]() ![]() IMO this article does not deserve these templates as it is properly referenced, is NPOV, and the subject is notable. The edit unfortunately does not identify what parts of the article are questionable. Several templates regarding the article's quality and notability have been placed on the page. Sleety Dribble ( talk) 00:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Reply As a start, I just shoved a onto the opening sentence, which currently points only to. Could we perhaps just do a bit of "neutralification" (if that's not a word, it should be) as we prune here and there. ![]() (Unfortunately there's isn't a WP:AUTOBIO-FAN-ISH template :-) ) I dunno - if it's failing WP:NPOV, it's only just over the line and I'm not sure it deserves a tag. ![]() For sure the article's overall tone is still very autobio/fan-ish. I wasn't the earlier tagger, but I do think some of the tags may have been somewhat warranted.Regstuff ( talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Reply ![]() If anyone sees any issues in the article that need to be resolved, please put it up for on this page for discussion. Can the user who left these tags or anyone else please begin the discussion as to why these were applied. Lots of tags have been added to the page in July 2016 about factual accuracy and lack of neutrality, but there seems to be no discussion or even an attempt at one on the talk page. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |