Talk:Jack Zigler

Notability and resume issues

I don't think the sources cited establish notability per the guidelines at WP:BIO. Simply having the subject listed on a state professional database doesn't seem to count as being the subject of media coverage. The article also focuses on professional accomplishments in a very resume-like manner. This is why I am replacing the tags placed by another editor. janejellyroll 06:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and it just keeps getting more promotional. Melchoir 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; this is a highly acclaimed member of the scientific/medical community, who not only has been the subject of media coverage himself, but has also been a significant contributor to the media coverage of others. Furthermore, those suffering from back pain, and considering artificial disc replacement surgery, would be interested in learning about his role as the ProDisc's FDA Principal Investigator.

I suffer from back pain and have found the links to discussion boards and webpages from this page have been very helpful. There are too many questionable discussion boards out there dealing with back pain in a dubious way. This page gives the kind of information I would expect from a paid-for encyclopedia.

Dr. Zigler is a world-renowed orthopaedic surgeon. I am an attorney at a large firm in Texas, and we have used his expertise in several health-law related matters. He is the first Dr. IN THE COUNTRY that I confer with for possible expert testimony regarding his area of expertise (and trust me, saying that he has 'expertise' in this area is an understatement). Dr. Zigler has been involved in several high-profile events covered by the Texas media. To say that this page is 'promotional' is true, only if for the fact that this Dr.'s qualifications and credentials are that impressive.

It's promotional due to tone and selection of material. Nobody cares which level of distinction he earned at what university, or where he currently lives with the names of his family. This is the stuff one writes for one's description in a conference program. Add to that the random bolding and off-topic links to commercial enterprises[1][2] and what we have here is an advertisement. Never mind the off-topic promotions other editors and I had to remove from separate articles and the former orgy of search-engine-baiting redirects. I would expect to find this stuff on any other website on the Internet, but I am sickened by its presence in an encyclopedia. Melchoir 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I second everything you've said here. This reads like a promotional bio, not an encyclopedia article. A serious, disinterested look should be taken at this article to access whether the subject meets WP:N standards. If standards are met (I am still doubtful whether the sources cited represent "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"--my specific concern is that some of these sources may be professional publications with some sort of financial tie to the subject), then the article still needs to be trimmed. The insertion of off-topic promotions that has gone hand-in-hand with the creation of this article is a giant red flag. Other articles have had promotional style bolding and links added by editors associated with this article. I fear that this is less about helping the Wikipedia project than helping the subject gain new clients. janejellyroll 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I am a Dr. myself, and trust me, this man is at the top of his field. He is asked, nay BEGGED, to speak around the world on spine arthoplasty and disc replacement techniques in general, and his contributions to this area of medicine are INVALUABLE. Let's stop knit-picking over pieces of this biography, by the way; I've seen far worse (and misinformed) things on this site.

If I disagreed with your assessment of the person, then I would already have nominated the article for deletion. Sadly, the worthiness of a given article's subject does not prevent the article itself from being a disgrace. Ergo the necessity of voluntary editorial responsibility and, in its absence, cleanup tags. Melchoir 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to take down the "Resume" warning -- this is in no way written like a resume as it currently stands!!

You're right, I suppose. Right now it only reads like a advertisement. janejellyroll 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Can we also take a look at the "notability" issues? I think the article steers clear of those problems, as well...

Are there any sources at all to show that he is the subject of a non-trivial media report? I'm not talking about him being quoted in an article about somebody else or a bio on a industry website, but articles about the subject. This will help a great deal in meeting the requirements of WP:N. janejellyroll 04:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

The external links should not be visible in the article. Please turn them into proper references or move them to the External links section. The article uses far too much bold-faced text. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). In general, the plainer the formatting, the better. Also, the point isn't to document every single instance of the subject being quoted in the newspaper. "We got a soundbite from the subject" is the definition of a trivial media mention. I hope this helps you figure out ways to improve the article. Good luck! WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)