Wikipedia:Peer review/Debra Ruh/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Debra Ruh[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because it was originally sent to AfD for being too promotional in nature, but received a significant rewrite and expansion with sources from CaroleHenson (see original version here) and was voted as keep just now. On the talk page though Cullen328 commented that "the article needs a major trimming", and in response, I have decided to seek a formal review process - which has the additional side-benefit of evaluating the reworked article for potential GA status.

Thanks, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the the request was archived, and then returned. It would be lovely to get at least some high level feedback about the current state of the article.—CaroleHenson(talk) 13:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 29 and 30 are dead, both are links to the whitehouse.gov site. The cited material is possibly still available at the archived site at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/open -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update It looks like none of the submitted material was saved — I am not able to find it through searches or going through the menus.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

I hope it's useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67 Yes, that was useful guidance, thanks for taking time to compile the list! The peer request was opened because a user thought "the article needs a major trimming". Do you have an opinion about that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson the section about the TecAccess company could possibly be trimmed, if there are sufficient good sources to sustain a separate article about it. I'll try to throw something on a page at Draft:TecAccess, just to see if it could be viable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67, thanks. Yes, it looks to me as if there are sufficient sources to start a separate article. I'll start drafting the content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson see Draft:TecAccess, where I made a start. I also added a list of possible sources that we can use to expand the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67, Oh, wow, thanks. I will work on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]