Talk:James Metzger

Cleanup

Heading added for more description by czar ♔ 04:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup was done to add 3rd party references to replace self published references. -12-31-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxblue (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Czar - I believe all references using self-published sources have been removed and replaced as far as I can see. Do you see any that have been overlooked? (Is this the appropriate place for this question?) Laxblue (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the talk page is the right place to discuss the article. You won't always get a response right away, though (and you might have to ping other people if they're not following the article, as you did). It looks like you removed a lot of the self self-published sources (the stuff by Metzger about Metzger), which is commendable, but lots of SPS remain (e.g., is Under the Bucket a reliable source or some guy with a blog? Is the Whitmore page reliable for exceptional claims about lacrosse records?) The rest of the sources are primary, when WP wants independent (secondary), reliable sources. I'd look to replace almost all of the current sources with Newsday and even Patch.com, and to use the press releases and whatnot sparingly. The article needs a rewrite anyway, considering the tone issues. czar ♔ 15:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll also add that since this appears to be your first and main contribution to Wikipedia, it may help to look at some articles evaluated at "Good"-class to have a better idea of what I mean by secondary sourcing and non-CV tone. If you have any affiliation with the subject that may lead you to treat him impartially, you would also want to declare that per the COI guidelines. czar ♔ 15:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Czar: Can you help me out to understand? I get your comments on the CV style vs the encyclopedic style, and I understand some of the primary sources comments. But I don't understand the self-published comments. Can you tell me which sources you are considering self-published? I see sources now from Hofstra University, jewishsports.org, new york non-profit press, patch.com, LI Pulse, American Heart Association, rayennerawardwinner.com, National Association of Athletic Directors, Newsday, archangelmichaelchurch.org, Funeral Service Foundation, Google books and social life magazine. I wanted to clean this up this article and want to first deal with the self-published sources issues. Hopefully we got them all, but are there any of those sources do you still consider self published? If so, can you identify them specifically from the above? I thought that by removing or replacing certain sources that the self-published comment would no longer apply? Do you think so? (I want to feel like I was able to get this stage of editing completed.) And once we do that, can you point to which of those are Primary vs. Secondary? Laxblue (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you were correct in noticing the Whitmore page was left in by mistake about those Lacrosse records. It is changed to the Hofstra record book link. On the other hand, Under The Bucket is a respected LAX news site. I thought it was better to show a variety of sources, but since you questioned it I also replaced that with a link to the Hofstra record book. Let me know what you think and if we got all of the self-published sources. Thanks! Laxblue (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to go into this in depth, but here are some cursory things that will help: (1) the "social life" mag does not look reliable and I believe it's sourcing a piece written by the subject anyway, which should be a red flag. We can't trust something written by the subject for any claim about his industry or success or whatever—only for personal stuff like birthdays, at best. There should be ample independent (secondary) coverage (read the link, it's good) for all of those details and these sources should be a last resort. If you want to remove the SPS flag as a technicality after finishing that one, fine by me. (2) I don't know what is supposed to be sourced at the archangel michael church site. (3) Primary sources cover a topic directly (e.g., someone makes a donation, the organization issues a press release)—it confers no editorial oversight nor newsworthyness. The article needs more secondary coverage (e.g., people from reliable editorial places like Newsday and [less so] Patch.com who review those primary sources with editorial oversight). I recommended looking to "Good"-rated articles for examples of this. So more of the Vaccaro-type sources (books with editorial oversight) than Hofstra press releases. If you need to use a primary source, keep the guidelines in mind—they should only be used for basic descriptive info and no extraordinary claims. Godspeed czar ♔ 05:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Social Life Mag source and related text as suggested. I read your suggested articles and see some of the difference between primary and secondary sources, but there seems to be a lot of grey area questions. I'm sure I'll be pinging you as other changes are made. Thanks for your help and your time.Laxblue (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Family

Czar: Hi again. I see that you removed the entry I made in the Family section. My feeling is that the data is relevant based on other articles I see, but I see you think it is overly promotional. My feeling was that section was removed when you pointed out that the overall article seemed to be non-encyclopedic. I didn't think that particular section had that issue. So what do you think is promotional vs. relevant? I did read through the wikipedia articles on relevance, but still thought it was proper. What do you think of this piece below? This is a story line that is repeated over and over in the lacrosse world.

Metzger's nephew is Rob Pannell, the standout All-American lacrosse player for the New York Lizards and Cornell University. Pannell was a late bloomer in high school and was not highly recruited by colleges. Metzger was instrumental in Pannell getting his opportunity at Cornell where he ended his career as the all-time leading scorer in NCAA history and won the Lt. Raymond Enners Award from the NCAA in 2011 and 2013 as the Outstanding Player of the Year in Men's Lacrosse.

(By the way, I do not believe that I have a conflict of interest. I am certainly trying to be unbiased and neutral, and am happy to listen to your input.) Laxblue (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: this edit, first, remember that we're building an encyclopedia, not a repository for all facts about a subject. I think it would make sense and be due weight to have a one sentence mention that he is related to Pannell, but you'd need justification to add much more. Second, the edit introduces peacockery: "the standout", "the war hero", "outstanding", and even "late bloomer" and "instrumental". See the aforementioned link for examples of letting the facts speak for themselves, but in this case, those sentence should likely be removed altogether. And about the last paragraph, of course, everything added should be referenced from a reliable source with editorial oversight. Overall, this addition shouldn't be more than two sentences (three max?) and the section should be about his personal life (the article is a biography), not dedicated to his family, unless his family is a particularly large part of his notability. So I'd be aiming for:

Metzger's nephew, Rob Pannell, is an All-American lacrosse player who has played for the New York Lizards and Cornell University.

for example. There's no evidence in the NYT source that Metzger was "instrumental" in Pannell's career, and it would be OR to conclude anything other than what the NYT explicitly states. czar ♔ 19:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

CZAR: Okay, I understand your comments about the original version and the "peacockery". So I see we need a simpler version. There is a story line that seemed to be repeated over and over in the lacrosse world about Pannell not being recruited much at all out of high school and was going to end up in a second tier lacrosse program. His uncle Metzger stepped in through a series of events and got the Cornell people to re-evaluate Pannell and accepted him. Pannell ended up arguably as one of the best college players of all time, and being in the higher tier program may have made a big difference in his career trajectory. (Now I understand that my langauge here is not appropriate for the article, but I wanted to describe what I think is a fact worth mentioning. And I understand that this needs references before it would go up.) But what do you think of that type of fact in the article?

(Another related question I have is this: I have heard the above mentioned a number of times during commentator conversations during the TV broadcast if the NCAA lacrosse tournament. Is it realistic to use a citation like that in the aticle?)

Once again, thanks for you input and help! Laxblue (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That story of helping make a star player would be worth including, but only if it's verifiable. The idea is that if it's so important, a reliable media source will cover it responsibly, which is then worth including in an encyclopedia article. Again, I don't think more than a sentence would be due weight for the topic. Live commentators aren't exactly known for reliability—they're speaking off the cuff, possibly with laudatory statements—and I'd be hesitant to use them as a source. Now if a single and notable commentator were to make such a comment (and yet be the only published source for this fact, eluding all reliable print sources), one could argue to include a sentence along the lines of "Bob Costas credited Metzger with launching/saving his nephew's lacrosse career. His nephew went on to play for the X and win Y, etc." But you see that the sentence is couched by saying whomever made the extraordinary claim. The reference itself would need to be precise, such as the exact time and direct quote of the broadcaster, because the source needs to be verifiable by someone who attempts to do so. So for the last question—whether it's realistic to include this—I'd say no. There is so much work to be done on this encyclopedia that I see the effort better expended elsewhere, and if the story really matters, it will eventually be covered in a reliable source for our usage. czar ♔ 04:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean about the tone and the verifiability. I believe there is evidence out there and will look it up when I get a chance. Until then we can put up the first line you suggested. Thanks again. Laxblue (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that backs it up, that quoted, basic sentence from above would seem acceptable. (But a reminder that http://lilacrossenews.com has no editorial oversight and is not a reliable source.) czar ♔ 13:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting to change from "CV" style

I have made changes to rewrite the philanthropy and awards sections that were in bullet form. I tried to group common type items together instead of having everything listed in chronological order. [CZAR: What do you think?] Laxblue (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Better, but still needs work. It reads like a list when it should be flowing prose. I recommend looking at some of WP's "good articles" about businesspeople for a sense of how a full and balanced article reads. czar ♔ 03:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The Philanthropy section has been rewritten again, this time I think it reads more like a prose narrative (especially in the Hoftsra section.) Laxblue (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)