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 sourcedmust 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 this noticeboard.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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
I see this article has a 'multiple issues' template but there is no indication on this talk page of what issues the editor who posted that believes need to be addressed. To me the article seems to be somewhat on the brief side and could do with expanding, but I see no signs of violations of wikipedia policies. Can anyone be specific about what needs to be done. If not, I suggest taking off the notice in say a couple of weeks. DaveApter (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you check out the article's history, it's largely written by Chaisson himself with edits such as this one and many others. The article needs more/better references and feels promotional, like when I read it, I'm skeptical that that's all there is to the subject?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly promotional and autobiographical. On the other hand the subject clearly meets notability criteria, and it's not too dreadful, so it's been filed on my "to do eventually" list for quite a while. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
