Talk:Peter Stanton/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

First look under Wikipedia's new article creation / review process

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nice work on a person that I think should have an article in Wikipedia. I think that it would be a good idea to find 1 or 2 sources that cover him in depth as described wp:gng. Right now there are just three with a paragraph that went with receipt of the award and another which is a general listing of him. But he may also qualify under the SNG for academics. I have not marked this as reviewed. Happy editing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much, the most in depth sources available that I can locate are lengthy transcripts of oral history interviews with the subject as well as his former colleagues which are available through the National library of Australia.

i.e.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/30888618?selectedversion=NBD11131850

Would these be suitable?

Thanks Gilpin b (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

COI tag (April 2021)

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

A recent editor, has only edited this BLP and 2 others have made a limited number of edits elsewhere. 220 of ^ßorg 11:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: who may wish to comment/look at possible COI editing on this BLP? 220 of ^ßorg 11:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: too, who deleted the Peter Stanton (Ecologist) BLP page, as promotional, for possible comment. 220 of ^ßorg 12:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Personally, I'm concerned about paid editing but not the infinitely broadly defined COI. To me this does not look like paid editing. Also I'm more concerned about the article than anything else. IMO the topic looks wp:notable and there is a lot of interesting content. Though weak on the GNG side, it's pretty strong in other respects and probably a slam-dunk on the SNG side. Some of the wording (especially in the lead) does look peacocky and I'll go try to fix some of that. In short, following the wording of the tag which focuses on what the article may need. Thanks again for the ping. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Just odd that 3 new/ish editors all edited the same 3 BLP pages, & little else. Maybe an educational project? 220 of ^ßorg 20:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: my enquiry at one of the editors talk-pages got a response! See User_talk:Threecreeks#Connected_accounts?. It is some sort of study group. 220 of ^ßorg 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)