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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Virtually everything in this article now has at least one source citation. Several facts have two sources. Anything remotely resembling promotional material has been taken out. Yet there are still two paragraphs at the top claiming the article sounds like a "news release" and needs additional verification. Since all issues have been addressed, citations have been added with ISBN numbers for books, and even factual material with citations has been removed, it's hard to understand what the problem is. Why does these derogatory paragraphs remain? And what can be done to remove them?
McCranky (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The templates at the top of the article are not derogatory, but are intended to direct editors to areas of concern. While the tone has been greatly improved, issues remain. For instance, descriptions of books are sourced to the publisher's websites, which are not objective sources. Unless the books are individually notable--and several clearly are, given their coverage by reliable sources--then each one probably doesn't merit a separate passage. Likewise, the subject's website may be used as a source, but with great care, as it's generally not considered objective, either. IMDb is not a reliable source, since it is open to editing by users. Admission of WP:COI is greatly appreciated--this is an interesting bio, and will be further refined. Cheers, 32.216.147.44 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the article really needs is content that can be sourced to coverage of Peter Blauner, exclusively, rather than reviews of his books. If you have articles about or interviews with the subject, or if he's been referenced in publications for his achievements or expertise, such sources would be very helpful. I've thus far not been able to find a lot online. Thanks, 32.216.147.44 (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
