Jump to content

Talk:Dwight Lauderdale/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Stubbiying the page

Damien, do NOT stubby this page again. Your reasons are totally without merit. Kindly state any concerns you have about this article, discuss them, and yes, if they violate BLP change them. (FYI - there are NO BLP violations I'm aware of, but I'm very open to group consensus ). THank you KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No BLP concerns indeed, since the article has a heavy non-neutral positive bias towards the man. I've listed some of my concerns bellow for your appreciation. --Damiens.rf 21:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC section

... Place your comments about the article here. Got an improvement, by all means, put 'er in. (Make sure it complies with WP:BPL :) ) KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 04:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) "started out" and "wound up" -- avoid slang, mate. "Began a career" and "evolved into" sounds better. Ask a volunteer to give you a shout. Toby Ornott (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the problems with the article

  1. 1st reference is a 404 error

It's a valid page found on Google. It's now cached [1], Article # 1908 (at this time - but that may change)

  1. "was born and raised in a working-class suburb of Columbus, Ohio" - Just name the place instead of describing it with POV charged terms

Read the reference that goes along with it. It doesn't list the town name, it lists his birth place in that exact verbiage. Therefore I have to list it that way.

  1. Too many emphasis on what he said once about his parents.
  2. "He took this lesson to heart..." - peacock terms.
  3. "winning many oratorical (speech) contests..." - No sources

Are you reading the references with this, it's REFERENCED!!!

  1. "...being publically recognized in local newspaper articles..." - weasel words

... REFERENCED info

  1. "One such article would lead to a phone call that would set him on the path to become South Florida's first black anchor" - no sources for this peacocky sentence.

AGAIN, referenced....read the references next time

  1. my.highschooljournalism.org is not a reliable source. It's used at least 8 times.

Your POV

  1. MiamiNightOut.com is not a reliable source. It's used at least 9 times.

It's reliable

  1. "...to learn the news business from the bottom up" - Improper tone.

Referenced in just that way

  1. "It wasn't terribly exciting...'" - Improper tone.

His exact quote - read the references, please

  1. "...it did hook him on the business..." - Improper tone.

Again, referenced quote

  1. "He did everything from processing the film, to news writing, to producing, even substiuting for on-air talent." - No sources

See above

  1. "He even found time to complete his education..." - Improper tone.

WP:SOFIXIT

  1. "WPLG (chanel 10) offerd him a three-year contract as a reporter / weekend anchor..." - No sources

READ THE REFERENCES - it IS referenced

  1. Unnecessarily long quotations on section "Dwight moves to South Florida"

Your POV

  1. Title of section "Dwight moves to South Florida" has an improper tone.

Nope

  1. "He quickly established himself as a prolific street reporter..." - peacock terms.

Nope -- per referenced sources

  1. "...working half a dozen stories per day." - No sources

Referenced....you DO see that little number next to that sentance, dont' you ;)

  1. "...including the Miami River Cops Case..." - No sources. Clarify.

See above

  1. "He also managed to score..." - Improper tone.

No - per references

  1. "...the first one-on-one interview of President Clinton's presidency..." - No sources

REFERENCED

  1. "More than anything, he remembers the rigid ground rules..." - peacock terms.

Nope - his exact quote

  1. "He was bumped up to the weeknight anchor desk..." - Improper tone.

Nope - per the references

  1. "...the legendary Ann Bishop..." - WP:NPOV.

Nope - per sources

  1. "He's since shared anchor duties with Diane Magnum, Kristi Krueger and Laurie Jennings..." - No sources.

Read the references with that

  1. "Dwight Lauderdale was known, among many things, for his sense of style" - Weasel words.

ARE YOU READING THE REFERENCES ON THIS - THEY'RE THERE!!!!!!

  1. "He always wore sleek suits and had impeccable diction on air.." - No sources and non-neutral.

PER SOURCES

  1. Undue weight to quotes of Mr. Lauderdale praising him on "On Camera" section

Open up an RFC on it, if that's the consensus, that by all means, refactor them. (By the way, I claim IAR on that, you get a better idea of what he's like by those quotes, and he DID retire, so what do you expect his co-workers would say ?  :)

  1. "This passion to "get the story right" led him to..." - peacock terms.

Nope - again, per sources

  1. "Dwight Lauderdale's road to success..." - peacock terms.

Per References

  1. "...had it's fair share of bumps and obstacles." - Improper tone.

Your POV

  1. "...briefly went from delivering the news to making the news..." - Improper tone.

Nope - again -- READ the references, it's actually direct quote

  1. "...learned that he might be a candidate for corrective eye surgery after viewing a news story about this surgery on his own station..." - No sources.

Lay off the crack, it's sourced :) (Yes, I'm being funny)

  1. "He never had a problem reading the telepromter, which was 20 feet away from him.." - No sources.

Again, it's sourced, just look

  1. "He would, however, have a problem if he had to read from a script without his glasses..." - No sources.

Do you see the little number at the end of the sentance....it called a reference, click on it and you can see my source.... :)

  1. "It happened only once in what he refers to has his worse case scenario..." - No sources.

See above

  1. Overuse of quotations.

RFC it, if consensus agrees, no problem

  1. Section entitled "Things you may not know about Dwight Lauderdale" - Improper tone and unnecessary trivia

Read the comment in the source -- IAR. It improves the article. I realize this can be challenged, and if a consesus is reached that this shouldn't be here, I won't war to keep it in.

  1. Section "References" should use {{cite web}} templates (and reliable sources, of course).

See the numbers at the bottom....... :)

--Damiens.rf 21:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Damien.rf you're being difficult. You've been blocked before, please stop before you get another block. 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to believe that, because other websites publishes good opinions about this guy we should copy these opinions as if they where facts. You're plain wrong. We can use references only for backing up facts!
Also, we can't repeat the terrible tone used in the "references".
Please, improve this article or I'll have to stubfy it again. --Damiens.rf 17:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: It appears that some of the tags at the top of the article are quite relevant, but the sheer number of them is a overwhelming to the point of being unhelpful. I think it would help if, instead of one person working on the article and the other critiquing them, you both worked together on the article. If you see a change that needs to be made, just go ahead and make it. If it gets reverted, discuss on the talk page. BradV 21:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There are also some helpful tips at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). BradV 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I went through the sources in the article, and after excluding the dead links, came up with a total of four references. They are as follows:

It appears that if we remove all unsourced information, and inappropriate opinion pieces such as can be found in the interviews, we won't have much of an article. However, I suggest that it may the right thing to do, and to build on that as new sources come available. Your thoughts? BradV 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I also found the following:
BradV 21:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seem you independently came to the same conclusion I firstly had: that the easiest path to a Good Article on the notable news anchor Dwight Lauderdale probably involves stubifying the current article and starting from there, accepting only sourced facts.
Another editor recently tried to start cleaning up the article and described the experience as a something that gave him an "headache"[2].
To state it clearly, my thoughts are: Yes, I support your suggestion that "this is the right thing to do".
Indeed, stubifying an unrecoverable article is not the end of the world. It's something that have been successfully applied a lot of times [3] [4] [5], including with other news anchors[6]. --Damiens.rf 03:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

BradV I don't see many (see my response to Damiens.rf above) of his complaints as being valid. He claims unsourced information multiple times, when all information is sources, and in many cases, any claim (i.e: "Legendary anchor") is a verbatim quote from the sources. Also, he makes a rather wild claim about the myhighschoolnews website as being not verifiable or something like that. Despite it's name, it's actually owned by the American Society of Newspaper Editors take a look.

Btw - you pointed out to me that the link I had for the Dwight Laudedale interview has been changed, I'll fix that promptly, as that legitimetly can cause problems and make it look like I'm trying to fake sources :)

As far as the interviews themselves, I'm not keen on removing the quotes, if that's what you mean. However that doesn't mean I'll get pissy and war about it either. My reasoning for the quotes is it gives a more complete picture of Dwight Lauderdale (yes, I'm biased, I live in South Florida, and yes I actually admire his work). Howerver, if you belive it's causing problems such as Undue, I will strike them.

Thanks for your review—KoshVorlon 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ps: Thanks for the additional follow up on additional resources !  :)

I think you missed a link up there this one http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=miamii&p_multi=MH%7C&p_product=MH&p_theme=realcities2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=Dwight%20Lauderdale&s_dispstring=Dwight%20Lauderdale&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&xcal_useweights=no&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0= I realize it's long, but it does work!  :) KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dwelling on who said what and whether or not it was helpful is not contributing to the overall quality of the project, nor of this article, so I won't comment on that. However, you do need to make sure that you are not being overly defensive, and that you keep everything in perspective. Your thoughts on what we can do to make sure that the article follows the Manual of Style would be appreciated here. BradV 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I hear you. I realize the hidden comment you reverted looks 'OWN'ish. It's just an echo of what policy is on a BLP page. DOn't worry, I won't put it back ! I'll read through the manual of style and then I'll be able to answer your question!
Thansk! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding following the manual of style - I just checked it and this article appears to follow the WP:MOS nearly to a "T". The only thing not following the Manual of style is my use of italics to denote quotes.
MOS doesn't say it totally shouldn't be done, but neither does it support it's use. I claim IAR on that, as using italics allows the quotes to stand out, and if the reader wishes, he or she can skip that portion and still get the main ideas expressed in the article. I realize anytime anyone claims IAR, that claim can be challenged, and if consensus exists, a change can and will be made to reflect that consensus (with VERY few exceptions - BLP..etc..). If you're seeing anyting amiss, please let me know and I'll be happy to fix it.
Thanks! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Take a look specifically at WP:MOSBIO for biog articles. Also the references need to be fixed -- I started to do it yesterday but the rest need work -- either enclose the URL in single square brackets appending a link title eg [http://www.somelink.com Some link], or just use the bare URL with no brackets and no title. If you use brackets without a title, the link just displays as an unhelpful numeral - see WP:CITE for more help. – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The other thing that would be helpful is to give the references names so they aren't duplicated in the reference list. E.g. <ref name="example">www.example.com</ref> BradV 19:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

italicized quotations

Kosh, mate, there is absolutely no reason for italicizing the quoted comments of various parties. If you want readers to read your article, then conform to existing norms. Wikipedia is not an exercise in re-stylizing formats because they may look more exciting, or distinctive, or creative, or something of that nature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it conforms to conventional standards. Those standards are explained in WP:MOS#Quotation_marks and WP:MOS#Italics. Also, the "dead link" in the first sentence needs to be repaired, or eliminated—not overlooked, or hidden in the coding of the edit-box. (You will note that I left a "hidden note" for you in there myself, hah!) Toby Ornott (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Toby,
Per WP:MOS, it's not dis-allowed:
Quotations in italics For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italicization is not used as a substitute for proper quotation formatting.Italics within quotations Italics are used within quotations if they are already in the source material, or are added by Wikipedia to give emphasis to some words. If the latter, an editorial note "[emphasis added]" should appear at the end of the quotation ("Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest" [emphasis added]). If the source uses italics for emphasis, and it is desirable to stress that Wikipedia has not added the italics, the editorial note "[emphasis in original]" should appear after the quote.
(at least, the way I'm reading it -- I'm more than willing to be wrong here! ) ) So I disagree with your first sentance. However, the dead - link definetly needed to be pruned and I have done so. The "Where" was removed as that's a referenced statement shown "where" at the end of the paragraph. :)
Thank you KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 21:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No, mate. You misread the WP:MOS#Italics.
I will try to explain—
In the first sentence (of the subsection Quotations in Italics), it says: "For quotations, use only quotation marks...not italics. In the second sentence, it clarifies that instruction with the examples–both of which are clear: "NOT because it is a quotation", and "NOT as a substitute". Continuing on (into the subsection Italics within quotations), it further states: "Italics are used within quotations if they are already in the source material, or are added by Wikipedia to give emphasis to some words." This instruction then begins to explain a necessity for an editorial note ([...]), and where and when to add it.
Sadly for you, mate, Wikipedia's instructions very well DO disqualify your interpretation (and use) of italics for simple quoted material.
Now then (moving on into the where)—
Sometimes readers need to be taken hand-in-hand and pointed in the right direction. A writer can not always expected a reader to look for details. Thus, in the two sentences (He describes his parents as "hardworking". "My parents," he says, "were strict...") a reader wants to know where Lauderdale has described his parents: to a friend (?), a bar room audience, an assembly of scholars, or a mere interviewer in a office (?) A writer can not expect a reader to read those two sentences and then look for the answer. A writer must command his authority (to write) immediately, by saying something on the order of: He describes his parents [in a interview with 'Miami News'] as "hardworking". "My parents," he says [or add it here], "were..." Either way, the reader wants to know WHERE. Toby Ornott (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
In any event, italics or not, there are way too many direct quotations here for the size of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I removed most of the quotes and took the italics off those that remain. heat_fan1 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good show, mate. I think you are doing a remarkably good job of cleaning and polishing this article. Toby Ornott (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I second that. --Damiens.rf 16:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dwight_Lauderdale/Archive_1&oldid=1136683167"