Talk:Idit Harel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Idit Harel Caperton)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Idit Harel was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 4, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
September 21, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Notable?[edit]

The person is likely notable, but the article sounds more like an introduction for a keynote speaker at an educational conference than a NPOV wikipedia article. Youngamerican 14:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of working on this article. youngamerican (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


This article is blatant self-promotion and should be removed, or edited down to basic information.

From Wikipedia's Vanity Guidelines:

"Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author."...

"Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates. While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company"


I agree with the unsigned above comments and have nominated this article for deletion Appalachiangirl 16:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done most of the work on the article and I am in no way affiliated with Caperton or her company. If you think the article reads like a vanity article, feel free to edit or improve the article. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA[edit]

Symbol unsupport vote.svg In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 21, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R.


  • Prose: A good copy-edit is in order. I fixed some issues, but not all. Tense is an issue in some places, for example.
  • Point of view issues: Currently the article fails WP:NPOV, in my opinion. Many parts read like a promotional website.
  • Under-referenced: Currently the article is in need of additional inline citation. There are whole sections completely without reference which constitutes original research.
  • Images: Logos are not free use and lack fair use rationales. I question the appropriateness of even having the logos in the article at all.

Regards, LaraLove 03:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul/title change?[edit]

Did a major overhaul of this article, streamlined out unnecessary/unimportant details, uncited details, updated sources, removed self-promotional prose and neutralized POV where noted. Review and feedback welcome. Also, more current web sources show subject goes by "Idit Harel," not "Harel Caperton," following a divorce. Should the article title be changed? Oleander2323 (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move from "Idit Harel Caperton" to "Idit Harel" as an uncontroversial technical move. Confirmed subject does not use this previous name in contemporary online appearances.Oleander2323 (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)