Talk:William Tasman

	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 is supported by the science and academia work group.

Medicine: Ophthalmology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

Page improvements

This appears to be a brand new page created by one user. Although SeanPatrickConnolly is clearly invested in the page, I am concerned about the notability of the subject and that the subject may only be of local interest. As the subject of the article appears to be deceased and thus not subject to the heightened protections for living persons, I did not put up for deletion. Still, I'm concerned about walled garden issues, and the issues I listed here. Hence, I think the multiple issues templates are still appropriate.--Policy Reformer (c) 06:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Reformer, I am not trying to annoy you, but since you were the one to originally place the issues box, I would really appreciate if you were to answer my question about finally getting rid of the issues that I have solved. Every fact in the article is now sourced, and an outside party (Eric) who appears to be an expert on biographies has deemed the subject of this article notable. I can not claim that this article is impartial yet since I am probably not quite impartial myself, but the other two problems make up three of the four issues and I think those issues should now be removed. Also, how should I go about getting rid of the impartial thing? Thanks. SCtheeditor (c) 12:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Request

Policy Reformer, I was wondering if it would be appropriate at this point to remove the thing saying that there are not enough sources and the thing saying that it needs to be verified. I think according to the guidelines I can't do this myself, so I was wondering if you could look over the article and remove them because at this point I think that they are no longer necessary. I was also wondering if you could look into and give me advice about the notability. I think that the first paragraph might sufficiently display that. Thanks.--SCtheeditor (c) 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCtheeditor (talk • contribs) [reply]

Why William Tasman is Notable

William tasman was the ophthalmologist-in-chief at Wills eye for over 22 years. This alone is enough to establish his status as one of the most important doctors of the last century. In addition to that he served as the president of both the American Academy of Ophthalmology (an organization that claims over 32,000 members) and the American Board of Ophthalmology both of which are important national organizations. And as for this being a walled garden, it is a new article so of course links have not been made to other stuff yet that takes time, and yes SeanPatrickConnolly is invested in this, but most ophthalmologist (and many other doctors for that matter) in this country (and abroad) would also understand the importance of this man. I would advise you Policy Reformer to do some of your own research into what the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Board of Ophthalmology, and Wills Eye are before you make any more statements about wether or not Doctor William S. Tasman was "notable" he ran all of these organizations at various times throughout his life, he is the only person to have done that. As for having a global impact, the treatments that Dr. Tasman developed are used around the world so he is relevant on a global level. Also, you guys allow for the current ophthalmologist-in-chief of Wills to have an article so Dr. William Tasman should also have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharonFuller (talk • contribs) 15:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

1. As president of the major professional societies in his field, he is notable by WP:PROF. 2. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish obituaries, I have rewritten the article in our usual format. I've removed personal material and overlinking. We do not use the Dr. title within the article=--it's obvious enough. 3. The importance of Willis is shown in the article about it and does not have to be repeated here. 4. Obituaries in local and alumni publications do not add to notability and are not considered reliable sources. I've removed the worst of them. 4. It would be useful to add publication data for his works, and exact references and citation information for his most significant 2 or 3 articles. 5. In discussing here, it is necessary to only explain the facts, not engage in advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I just checked out some of the edits you made, the look really good, just wanted to thank you for your contribution, I'm kind of new to the encyclopedia format, so I appreciate your help with learning it and I also appreciate your work to make the article better. SCtheeditor ( talk ) 05:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]