This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
Since this is still a relatively new article, it would be a good idea to decide now which kind of citation style should be used when adding references to the article. WP:CITEVAR does say we should defer to the style used by the first major contributor, but currently that style is only a bare url with no other additional information at all being provided about the cited source. This may seem like no big deal right now, but it could become an issue later on because of link rot. Although more is almost always better, there is certain basic information about the source that cited should be provided. This information will make it easier to verify whether the source in question satisfies the conditions of WP:RS, and in particular WP:BLPSOURCES. It will also make it easier to fix broken or dead links in the future. Personally, I think it's a good idea to use citation templates whenever possible, but others may prefer a less involved style. Regardless, it's best to "fix" this now before it becomes a problem in the future. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the reflinks tool on this to get the date, page titles, etc. If someone wants to change it back to a non-templated style, I have no objections, but bare external links are bad.
It's fairly obvious now that all of the sources are directly related to the subject, which brings the actual notability of him into question. I'm going to add cleanup tags, but not going to actually AfD it, since there quite likely are independent sources that can be used.Reventtalk01:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking on that and doing some cleanup Revent. I also feel it would be bad to go back to the bare URLs regardless. "Citation templates" might not be the preferred option of all editors, but they certainly are better than bare URLs and the changes you made seem in accordance with "WP:CITEVAR#Generally considered helpful." Regarding notability, I am not well versed in WP:PROF which is why I think it would be a good idea to get input from WP:ACAD. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This message is for Revent. I'm not sure how this works. Hope you get this message. I have added 2 external links and changed the "research interests" section into prose. Can you please remove some of the clean-up tags now? Thank you for your help. TrueBRONC (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)TrueBRONCTrueBRONC (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The later sections of the article (e.g., "Administration Appointments", etc.) seem more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. Using lists is fine, but Wikipedia article's are not intended to be online resumes so maybe a little more prose, especially for the "Research interests" would work better. I think it would be a good idea to have some people from the "WikiProject Biography/Science and academia" take a close look at these sections and try to make them seem more encyclopedic. That is most likely one of the WikiProjects whose purview this article will fall under so the the editors there probably have had lots of experience improving similar articles. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
