|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 . 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 of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I've noticed deletions and revisions to this page made by a contributor who's made the interesting claim that the article "looks more like a user page" Kevin Lakhani (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC). This is a clearly pejorative, loaded statement -- in fact, ANY article on a person could look like a "user page" if one is inclined to view such pages in a negative light.
Lakhani has also inserted headers regarding "Notability", "Clean up" and "Puffery". I've contributed several edits to this article, which was created over four years ago and has been expanded ever since without any meaningful challenges.
Regarding "notability", this concepts is under discussion for being ill-defined. Not every article needs to be about a "notable" (usually meaning "well known", "newsworthy") person or thing. In a comprehensive enclcopedia such a Wikepedia aspires to be, one should be able to find information on both the well-known and the obscure. Related to this, the more obscure a subject, the less likely there will be numerous, citable "secondary" sources -- often editors will have to conduct "original research" to ferret out primary sources such as individuals familiar with the topic REGARDLESS of whether such information was ever published. Citation would be the criterion.
If Lakhani can contribute something by way of "clean up" because he feels the style can be improved with some tweaking, he should contribute something rather than simply inserting flags. As to "puffery", I personally have no vested interest beyond seeing the material represented accurately and fairly. "Puffery" is another pejorative, loaded term that suggests exaggerated, inflated statements meant to make something look better than it is. I have not made any such statements, and I don't see that any of the prior contributors have either.
I've personally found numerous articles on Wikipedia which are no different than this one. The unfounded nature of Lakhani's flags, raises the question of whether some personal objection to the article is at play. Checker (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I have said on my user page discussion in response to your message, please do not discuss articles on my user page discussion. This is the place for such discussion. This article is currently rated as a C on the quality scale. This should at the very least indicate that the article requires cleanup. I have no "personal objection" to the article. I chose not to go ahead and edit away on the article because I know little to nothing about Frank Judge but I do know a little about well organized wiki articles. The fact that you are so defensive on the article makes me think that perhaps you feel that my adding templates was some kind of attack on the page. It was only to alert anyone looking at the page that some review was needed. Please see my response to your message on my discussion page for more information, I do not want to repeat myself over and over and I don't think that this is really that big of an issue to be spending so much time discussing. If you would really like me to make some edits, I would be happy to when I have time (I'm at work on lunch break atm). Kevin Lakhani (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I like the term "clean-up" very much. This article reads like a resumé or a conversational bibliography. Like a cover-letter to a magazine. As for the accusations of "puffery," so what? I have never tried to make any Wiki entry, but several others have tried to make one for me, and they got shot down. Do you have evidence this is a person writing his own wiki entry or sending minions? Perhaps I can fix, at least, the JOURNALISM "C" by interviewing this person and folks associated with him. Hehe. Because I say what I feel, and I feel nothing for this fellow who I have recently learned is important in the Rochester, NY poetry scene...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxpoet (talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I just spent an hour or so updating this entry and restoring external links that were removed by an overeager editor who did not actually EDIT the page but simply removed the links and left NUMEROUS [ red links ], which we all hate to see. Minutes later, I found all my work reverted to its prior state by one of your bots.
Apparently links within text have fallen out of favor. But I do NOT agree with the reasoning behind this. Most links are NOT "citations" but merely links to other WP pages or external pages that have useful data. As a reader, I want to be able to see that material IN the text and click on it where it's relevant and NOT have to scroll down to a footnote to see the link, possibly follow it, and then come back and scroll back to where I left off. And aesthetically, it's also rather unappealing to see all those numbers -- i.e. , , etc. in the text or at the bottom of the page.
There hasn't been a problem with external links within text since WP was founded. What's the problem? When did this change? -- if indeed it did. I can't find any specific guideline that says that ALL external links should be stuck at the bottom of the page. Poetavecchio (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, that's just not true. References and external links sections do follow WP consensus. It looks much more professional as well instead of having a bunch of inline links which look almost like spamming. Using inline external links to sites outside of Wikipedia is not accepted on most articles and hasn't been for a long time. See WP:EL. There are just so many articles on Wikipedia that not all of them have been truly corrected yet. Just because it is used incorrectly in other articles is no excuse to use them incorrectly here. Please also see the reply by other users to your posting at Talk:Rochester Poets. Per WP:BRD, I'm not going to simply revert your edits, even though you ignored a bot that reverted your edit adding a facebook link (which is not per WP:EL) and re-added it marking it as a minor edit. That is completely inappropriate. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I must agree with you on one thing: that the , , etc. in References or External links does not look great. That is why those need to be changed as well. They need to have names and other info as well. If I didn't correct those then, it was my mistake. They should have been corrected, too. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Added BLP hatnote back.
I just added the BLP sources hatnote back into the article because it still needs reliable sources. Especially with a living person, Wikipedia takes much more caution. There is danger of this being deleted without some real references. I'm sorry, but having a note at the bottom that says basically, "Trust me, I've seen sources," is not good enough and cannot be used in Wikipedia. We need verifiable and reliable sources. And the comment in the edit summary about none being online is irrelevant. Reliable sources do not have to be online. Please study WP:Citing sources. I and every other WP reader/editor can absolutely demand sources for any information put in. Having verifiable content is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. See WP:VERIFY. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Related discussion on user talk page.
A discussion related to this article and all the Rochester Poets articles is also ongoing at here and here, for anyone interested. Some of it is rehashing discussions here, but may include new discussions. Too long to copy over here, so created this link to it. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC) updated to link to archived discussion correctly. JoannaSerah (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Project class, importance
I do not feel that this article is a B-class for any of the projects. Doesn't look like any other B-class articles. Don't think this a mid-level priority for the Poetry project (probably not for the others as well). Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've re-rated it start-class. It does not meet the b-class standards as per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#grades guidelines. The article is not suitably referenced. The article does not reasonably cover the topic. INeverCry 02:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frank Judge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212140750/http://metrojustice.org/pae_storefront.htm to http://www.metrojustice.org/pae_storefront.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.