|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leana Wen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Articles for creation||(Rated Start-class)|
I'm just posting to 2nd my agreement with Savonneux's removal of the neutrality template. It was there when I came to this article for the first time a few weeks ago, so I made a bunch of edits to add sources and make the tone more neutral. I have a feeling the main problem was that she was referred to as Dr Wen throughout the entire article, which can make the whole thing feel like puffery. I hadn't removed the template yet, because I didn't make it all the way through the article, but I didn't really think it needed to be there to begin with anyway. FYI to future editors, I only thoroughly worked on sources and wording in the Early life and education section. I changed the section structure and otherwise only made light edits in other sections, so the last half and the lead could probably use a one-over. I remember thinking the Career section needing updating and expanding. Most of the information had been added a few years ago. PermStrump(talk) 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
"Negative" material in article
@Underthesea2012: I'm posting here to elaborate more on what I started to explain in the edit summary of my revert here, because I'm pretty sure that I'm the one who updated the wording of that sentence weeks ago. If it wasn't me, I still prefer it, because the other version has an excessive level of unnecessary detail. Your edit summary said, "Negative, cited information added earlier was removed without explanation - added back to make this less of a CV", In my opinion, none of the meaning was lost in my version and it contains less extraneous details, making it easier to follow. I'm not sure which parts you even think are negative. Most people will never even be considered for a Rhodes Scholarship, so the fact that she was a finalist in 2005 is laudable and not negative in any way, shape, or form. I think it's unnecessary to mention she was a finalist in 2005 since she was actually selected as a Rhode's Scholar the following year. It's basically like saying, 'She was really amazing in 2005 and even more amazing in 2006.' If that's not the part you thought was negative, I'm totally lost. Please clarify if I've misunderstood.
As a side note, I swear I did my best to make this article sound less like a CV. I'm just noticing that a large chunk of new material was added since then, so I'll look that over in a little bit to make sure the wording is in WP's "dispassionate" tone. But after doing a lot of research when I was working on this article a few weeks ago, it genuinely seems like her life has been one prestigious and/or humanitarian experience after another (perhaps to the exclusion of other things). And I think, barring future scandals, the most accurate reflection of the vast majority of reliable sources is always going to sound kind of CV-like, which IMO, could be interpreted as a good or not-so-good thing, depending on the reader's values/priorities in life. —PermStrump(talk) 04:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)