Talk:Eric P. Schmitt

Charlie Rose ref

I removed

<ref name=CharlieRose2009-05-29>Charlie Rose (2009-05-29). "Season 69, Episode 05.29.09 -- Charlie Rose - Jane Perlez / Eric Schmitt / Mark Mazzetti / Pir Zubair Shah / Jake Tapper Airdate: 29-May-2009". Charlie Rose show. Retrieved 2009-09-13.</ref>

when my effort to clean it up revealed that the link functions as www.modernfeed.com would. The video was probably taken down bcz of copyvio. (I removed some previously harmless but unneeded newlines to unbreak the formatting of the indented version on this talk page.)
Its first use was redundant, since it was part of the overkill (and probably OR) re others citing him. Its second use was immediately following (my rewording:) "He has twice shared a Pulitzer Prize[....]" It may be worth checking whether the other citation there is adequate.
--Jerzy•t 11:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PBS ref

I found

<ref name=PbsNewshour2003-10-09>"THE IRAQ WARS". PBS Newshour. 2003-10-09. Archived from the original on 2009-09-13. For more now on the overhaul of the Bush administration's running of Iraq, we turn to two New York Times reporters: David Sanger covers the White House and Eric Schmitt covers the Pentagon. Welcome to you both. David, what is the again genesis of this overhaul?</ref>

(Again, as in the preceding #Charlie Rose ref section, i removed a previously harmless newline.) I removed the silly quote "For more now on the overhaul of the Bush administration's running of Iraq, we turn to two New York Times reporters: David Sanger covers the White House and Eric Schmitt covers the Pentagon. Welcome to you both. David, what is the again genesis of this overhaul?", which merely gilds the lily. They had him on; no need to give us the quote to demonstrate explicitly what a glance at the linked page surely shows: that he was on.
--Jerzy•t 11:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Major stories"

That is the heading i retrofitted. My work on that section was pretty much a matter of style (described above) but i have two related concerns, both major:

1. The lead section includes a block of 7 refs, all apparently dedicated to making the case that he's "widely quoted by other journalists". AFAIC see this is not a PoV problem, but it is OR, and interferes with our task of compiling established knowledge. Find 2±1 respected journalism critics who say that he is widely quoted, and throw away all this effort toward finding teeny examples of other actually quoting him.
2. What is probably a PoV problem is the "Major stories" section. The specifics contrast with his NYT bio (which was my sole source for the "Biography" section i added), to the point where one might be surprised to discover that they are describing the same person. I don't know whether the PoV problem is SYNTH, i.e., an effort to assemble evidence pointing in one direction. If not, there is still a problem of PoV: even if the PoV is just a contributor's (or a few contributors') attention being caught by instances where his reporting identifies wrongdoing or pursuit of controversial policies on the part of government and/or military officials, it is unlikely to reflect an even-handed selection of stories he's covered: still a PoV problem, even if created in good faith.

--Jerzy•t 11:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)