Jump to content

Talk:Rebecca Masisak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial review[edit]

I was asked to take a look and review this. On first review, the tone seems a little much like a PR piece, but the information seems to be well sourced to reliable sources which are referenced appropriately. Could use continuing work but seems good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I marked this as reading like a (narrative) resume. For one thing, at least 1/3 of the text is a hagiography of the TechSoup organization; does this article really need to include a list of all 33 countries where the subject's organization operates? Or a paragraph-long description of her favorite anecdote (not an anecdote about her, but a story she likes to tell). Much of the content should be excised and merged into the TechSoup article. This article would do fine if it were 1/3 the length. --Anirvan (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources for expansion[edit]

Here are some materials that could be used to improve or expand the article. Not all will meet Wikipedia's reliable sources definition, but perhaps some do. Please note, I work for Rebecca's organization, TechSoup Global. I am trying to inform a decision about whether this article should be kept, but not casting a vote. -Bajeckabean (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these sources. However I don't think any of them are particularly useful or support Masisak's notability. We need sources that are reliable and that contain significant biographical content about her. I went through all of these sources and I don't think any of them fit the bill. Most of these contain a quote or two from Masisak, not something we'd include in a biography. The only source with significant biographical content is the Almanac source but that does not appear reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

A lot of content was added recently by Alicjapeas and then re-added re-edited by Dr. Blofeld. Since then I believe I have gone through every single source and deleting a whole lot of content that is unverifiable, non-noteworthy, or non-neutral and that had the combined effect of inflating Masisak's importance beyond what was warranted by the independent reliable sources. For instance, I removed some complimentary language that read like marketing-speak and that was supported only by press releases issued by TechSoup. Perhaps not coincidentally, the article is now about as long as it was before Alicjapeas' original edits. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To claim I just readded it without considerable reediting and making some effort to address neutrality is just not true so I suggest you reword that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I never bothered to check how your edits compared to Alicjapeas's. I was just going based on what you wrote on my user talk. My apologies for the misunderstanding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change "re-added" to "re-edited". I spent a fair bit of time this morning trying to dial down on it and change it, I suggest you go back and look into what I did. Alicja's version was 13 kb mine was 9 kb, so I'd cut a third of it and altered a fair amount. Trimming out padding and some stuff further is fine but I don't think you have to complete hide everything to make it a decent, reasonably balanced article which doesn't read as a promotion. You have retained the vital information though, that's what matters most. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]