Talk:Chet Bowers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chet Bowers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Oregon Start‑class Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Environment Start‑class Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 23 September 2015 by reviewer Samtar (talk · contribs).

Untitled

While I understand that this news should have no bearing on the review decision, it has motivated me to do whatever I can to make this article acceptable for review. I would deeply appreciate any editorial assistance that would both expedite and further that effort.C S Chaffee (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:FoCuSandLeArN for your helpful suggestions! I will edit the page within the next 24 hrs to address your suggestions.C S Chaffee (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed listings of three published books.C S Chaffee (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured Ideas sections to begin with outside references that correspond to the "Ideas" offered. In response to suggestions by User:FoCuSandLeArN.C S Chaffee (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really trying here, folks.C S Chaffee (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "Critical reception" section with additional outside quotes and sources. If the metadata for the sources already cited is filled out (full titles, etc) I think this is in much better shape than a few days ago. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much to those who have helped out here, especially DES! I have cleaned up much of the unsupported text, removed some of the external links, further resources have been added and the entire page looks tighter and the better for it. I will resubmit it shortly.

Appreciate all help but please do not tag this article without at least an attempt to bring up specific criticism on the talk page first.

As the author of this article, I have appreciated all the helpful and thoughtful editing and advice. The article is better for it. But please resist the temptation to "drive by" tag and make general criticism without first giving me a chance to either defend it as written, defend other's editing, or make changes as suggested. Thank you.C S Chaffee (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — [reply]

Reasonable point, User:C S Chaffee. Please see below. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic style, neutral point of view

While well-written, in current form this article reads more like a marketing or publicity sheet than an encyclopedia entry. Please see WP:BETTER and WP:NPOV for suggestions on how to strengthen this article, and make it more encyclopedic. And meanwhile, please do not remove article maintenance tags until the problem has been fixed; these are there to alert other editors that assistance is necessary in strengthening the article. Thank you! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But,DA Sonnenfeld you have still not given me a specific example within the text of the article that addresses your contention. Tagging an article, making generalized statements regarding its POV and then moving on, is not particularly helpful. Especially when others before you have not tagged the article. Please respond with specific examples needing improvement or remove the tag.C S Chaffee (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with C. A. Bowers

Rationale: Two biographical articles on same individual. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for calling attention to this, User:DASonnenfeld. The C A Bowers draft article originated three years ago. It appears that the original author of the draft lost interest in 2014 and the highly edited version was recently submitted by someone who did not know the article Chet Bowers existed. I believe that C A Bowers should be merged into the Chet Bowers article to avoid confusion and redundancy, although I don't see too much, if any, supported information in the C A Bowers article that isn't already included in the Chet Bowers article. C S Chaffee (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]