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 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
Siim Kabrits is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles
Which parts? I'd be happy to improve these. Also, the previous version was overrun because it was very short and outdated (nothing after 2012 was covered). Kirjamarssal (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
section "In December 2013, the Riigikogu passed ..." is promotional and redundant in this person's article
chapter "Entrepreneurial activity" is too specific and in places promotional, e.g. too detail info about the company "Shroomwell". Maybe @Kruusamägi wants to add also something related to this discussion?
Controversial things seem to be missing from the article raising questions about the neutrality of the article. If the things presented are cherry-picked, then the picture painted may be misleading. Ivo (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not gonna debate that. Eye of the Beholder.
2. Point taken, will revise that in the coming days.
