User talk:Alvarofontan/sandbox

Article review

A few general comments:

There is a lot of information from offline sources. While not strictly forbidden, it makes verification of the facts in this article very difficult. Since this is a known COI edit, there is more than the usual suspicion. I would like to see more references to online sources. I would also point out that some of the links to the Oregonian article expose the user's library card information and password. I would suggest that the cardholder and the library probably would not appreciate this security breach.
As is typical with articles written by the subject, or by one of his agents, this article is very heavy on the good stuff and not so much on the bad stuff. There are four separate sections on each subtle different type of his good works: as an educator, philanthropist, preservationist, and general recognition. Certainly Dr. Pamplin's good work should be recognized, but one section should be sufficient. I think this should be collapsed down into a single section.
Related to above, not enough criticism of Pamplin. For example, there is no mention of his Ross Island donation, though an article about it is included as an external reference. This material should be included in the article itself as Ross Island is a significant part of his legacy. This article discusses more issues around the details of the donation, which got ugly at various points when Pamplin wouldn't accept responsibility for cleanup of the land he was donating, and the curious fact that no one can actually visit this "public" land should be discussed. There is brief and vague reference to criticism of Pamplin Media Group; that should be fleshed out a bit.
Would also like to see more about his father here; the 2002 Jacquiss article cited here, while dated, alludes to him being in the "shadow of his father" who built the empire.
Works authored: are all these really significant? All these works are listed (in the same order) on Dr. Pamplin's website. I think a title like "Selected works" with a focus on his business-related and historical works would be sufficient.
As noted, don't list news stories as external links. Use these as references and include in your citations.

I hope you'll take a look at these suggestions and incorporate the changes here. There is definitely some good work here, so keep working on it. There are some style issues as well that I may try to address myself. --Esprqii (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading through this and posting detailed comments. I'll be thinking it through and responding in detail probably next week. --af (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources: Thanks for removing the non-functional URLs. My intent has been to faithfully cite facts without reinterpreting them. I am happy to help facilitate review; I could send you the articles by email or regular mail if you like.
My intent isn't to emphasize specific things, but to present something that's organized and easy to read, and to reflect the way his career has been covered in independent sources. (Many of the sources cited have been only about one element of his career.) Collapsing them all into one section seems like it would result in a more confusing article, but of course, I would be happy to see how you would approach that. Maybe you have a clearer vision of how it can read that I'm not seeing
From a national perspective, Ross Island Sand & Gravel is one of many of his business ventures. I have not gone into detail about any of them, but there is probably room for expansion on all of them.
The article of his father is already linked in this one. As with Ross Island, if there is additional, substantiated information you or anybody else would like to add to the article, there is nothing preventing further additions. I believe my draft is an improvement on the current stub, but I understand that a Wikipedia article is never finished.
I'm not trying to make any judgment about which of the books were more or less significant; they are all published works, and are listed in chronological order (same as on his site).
The only news stories listed as external links are already in the present version of the article; moving them inline, or removing them, is fine with me, but I would be reluctant to delete sources without input from others like yourself.

--af (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My chief concern is that as an employee of Dr. Pamplin's, you are not writing a balanced article. You have several sections about his great works, but barely a negative word. Your evasive comments above about the Ross Island debacle suggest that you may not be able to write this article at all. The event I referred to was well publicized and should be covered in any rewrite. In fact, it is mentioned as an omission on the talk page of the current article. Of course you can't write everything, but as someone who is attempting to rewrite the article completely and who has a COI, you must be extra vigilant in presenting as much balance as possible. I suggest you try rewriting a couple of sections to get started and I'd be happy to give more feedback. --Esprqii (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esprqii, I am not trying to rewrite the article, I'm trying to expand it - my proposed version doesn't remove anything. The article has been very short since it was started in 2006, giving very little information about someone with an extensive, varied career. The talk page you mention also indicates a need for more information about several topics I have addressed: Dr. Pamplin's role as a minister, biographical information about him, mention of R. B. Pamplin Corporation. The current version of the article seems to be written mostly from an Oregon point of view; my draft aims to broaden that perspective. I have included national publications like Forbes, The Chronicle of Higher Ed, The American Journalism Review, Editor & Publisher. I believe this version offers a more complete and broad perspective than the current stub; I'm not sure why you say my earlier answer was evasive, I genuinely believe that you and others will have good ideas on how to further improve the article.

I am happy to take your recommended approach and add to one section at a time. --af (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's start with the lede. Let's shorten that a bit. I think we can agree that he is best known as an American businessman and philanthropist, possibly a publisher. The others are tangential, right? He's not known for his farming or ministry really, and his writing stems from the others. Also, I think the item about his wife and where he lives should move to a "personal life" section later.

I would like to see a more a recent listing of his ranking in terms of wealth in Oregon. 2001 is way outdated.

The rest of the lede seems fine. --Esprqii (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the specific suggestions. I agree, I have not supplied much independent coverage about his role as a farmer; removing that seems reasonable. I do think there has been a great deal of coverage of his role as a publisher, minister, historical preservationist, author and educator. It's OK to move the information about his wife and his home to a separate section -- but isn't it discouraged to have a section with only one sentence? What do you suggest? Maybe we could change the heading "early years" to "personal life" and add the sentence there? Perhaps "Education" should be rolled into that section as well? I don't have a more recent ranking of his wealth, but adding that information would make sense if it can be sourced. I will post some of these items to the article (though it won't really be a free standing "lead section" until we have other sections). To move us in that direction I will also add the "Business" section, which I believe is well sourced and more accurately reflects the breadth of his business holdings than the current article. --af (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about being a minister either. The lede gets watered down if it has too many things. What is he most noted for? I'd list a couple in the first sentence, and if he's got other claims to fame, list those in the second sentence. You could add the section about where he lives to the early years section with a rename if you wanted, or reword it to fit ("He married Marilyn in xxxx and they still live in Portland") I like the idea of rolling up Education into Early years, and your Business suggestion sounds fine. --Esprqii (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I have incorporated them as best I can, and also added two sources (Dworkin and Griffin) that support his various roles in his career. I have posted the entire article contents; I will be watching the article and its talk page in case you have other concerns or ideas. --af (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were still discussing it section by section before you posted your COI edits, but fine. I'll make my edits there. --Esprqii (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]