Talk:Averell Smith

(Redirected from Draft talk:Averell Smith)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by David notMD in topic the consulting firm SCN

Citations needed and other stuff

edit

Yes, work in progress, but find citations for statements of fact or remove the statements. I removed all mention of the not-yet-published book, and shorted the article by more than 20% in attempt to make it less laudatory. David notMD (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, true. When the book is published, you might add a link to the Google "preview", here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Kudos for adding refs. However, #2 is an interview (frowned upon), and also does not support the factual statement immediately preceding it. Ref 3# DOES mention the campaigning for McGovern at 13, so use that. David notMD (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

and also

edit

What's the meaning of "peer-based board of directors"? And perhaps one should clarify the distinction between (A) originating such-and-such (which an organization, I think primarily of adults, did) and (B) leading it (which we're told students do). -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

When in doubt, take it out. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

the consulting firm SCN

edit

"the consulting firm SCN" "a consulting firm"

How is this edit an improvement? (It came with no explanatory or other edit summary.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The name of the firm belongs in the Career section, along with a reference confirming that Smith was a co-founder. David notMD (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

"a lot of unreferenced content"

edit

Theroadislong, you added:

{{AFC comment|1=There is a lot of unreferenced content [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 12:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)}}

to this article when it was a draft. I've just now removed this, not because the article no longer has a lot of unreferenced content (I think it has a lot less than the earlier draft did, but I haven't really investigated), but instead simply because (rightly or wrongly) it's no longer a draft. If it merits a different template to a similar effect, feel free to slap this on. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ref #2 is an interview. Can a different ref be found to support the text? Ref #9 has only a one sentence mention of Ace being hired to do PR on the project, with no description of what he did. David notMD (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply