Talk:Tony Bove
| 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 sourced must 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 C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
{{Request edit}}
Tonybove (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Caruso - reliable source?
[edit]I would like further information on why this reference is a reliable source, with a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy', hence I have tagged it in the article. As far as I can see from the details given, it is simply a letter on a website; has it been published or something? Chzz ► 01:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Word of Mouth by Denise Caruso: The Dynamic Duo Publishes Again". Media Letter. Sept. 1990. Retrieved 1990-09-01.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help)
Media Letter was a publication by Denise Caruso, a respected industry journalist. See Denise Caruso. Tonybove (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
References accessdates?...
[edit]As of now the access dates for every reference in the article cannot be correct. They seem to match up perfectly to the written/published dates and that congruity/incongruity has to be in error. If I can access these sources today, the dates will be adjusted accordingly.
Shouldn't the COI tag be removed?
[edit]The article-creator has a clear COI since he is the subject of the article itself. Is the COI notice really supposed to be used in this instance? I thought it was for use when an editor came upon an article that needs editing but they cannot because they are somehow connected with the subject. Is there some other notice that would be more appropriate? Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- (Plus per COI, there was never a clear question posted about editing the article by the article-creator.) Shearonink (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Shearonink: Indeed, the author had originally included a bunch of sourced quotes and then removed them. I can only guess that it was out of a promotional feel. But many of them need to be restored in the form of the Reception section I just created. I standardized the layout. In short, the overall editing history should be reviewed and harvested for deleted but key information, and for other editors' analyses. I don't know if you're still interested in this one, but I remember that you helped me get my start as a serious Wikipedian on IRC! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)