Jump to content

Talk:Peter Blauner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 32.216.147.44 (talk) at 11:48, 14 April 2015 (re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

the link to the novel "the intruder" goes to a children's book by another author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.110.9 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Virtually everything in this article now has at least one source citation. Several facts have two sources. Anything remotely resembling promotional material has been taken out. Yet there are still two paragraphs at the top claiming the article sounds like a "news release" and needs additional verification. Since all issues have been addressed, citations have been added with ISBN numbers for books, and even factual material with citations has been removed, it's hard to understand what the problem is. Why does these derogatory paragraphs remain? And what can be done to remove them?

McCranky (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The templates at the top of the article are not derogatory, but are intended to direct editors to areas of concern. While the tone has been greatly improved, issues remain. For instance, descriptions of books are sourced to the publisher's websites, which are not objective sources--unless the books are individually notable--and several clearly are, given their coverage by reliable sources--then each one probably doesn't merit a separate passage. Likewise, the subject's website may be used as a source, but with great care, as it's generally not considered objective, either. IMDb is not a reliable source, since it is open to editing by users. Admission of WP:COI is greatly appreciated--this is an interesting bio, and will be further refined. Cheers, 32.216.147.44 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]