Talk:William H. Poteat

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal 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 because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Continental / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Chopped

This is a wonderful and substantial article, however it has a lot of unnecessary content. It will need to be chopped quite a bit. Greg Bard (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC) The authors of the article would appreciate guidance about which content seems unnecessary so we can trim rather than chop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.63.206 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC) JCvP 00:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs) [reply]

Reset

There has been no response to the request for more specific information about what needs to be trimmed, rather than excised, and no further information since April about the use of original research. In comparing to similar articles in WiliProject Philosophy, it seems that what is termed "original research" sometimes turns out to be an expert's summation of a variety of sources, bringing together their combined meaning in relation to the subject. Therefore I would like to delete the notices for now and invite an editor to restore them, but in doing so to take the time to respond to the request and to indicate specific passages that seem to involve original research so that there can be a meaningful response. JCvP 14:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)