Talk:Chet Bowers

Untitled

While I understand that this news should have no bearing on the review decision, it has motivated me to do whatever I can to make this article acceptable for review. I would deeply appreciate any editorial assistance that would both expedite and further that effort.C S Chaffee (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:FoCuSandLeArN for your helpful suggestions! I will edit the page within the next 24 hrs to address your suggestions.C S Chaffee (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed listings of three published books.C S Chaffee (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Restructured Ideas sections to begin with outside references that correspond to the "Ideas" offered. In response to suggestions by User:FoCuSandLeArN.C S Chaffee (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Really trying here, folks.C S Chaffee (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have added a "Critical reception" section with additional outside quotes and sources. If the metadata for the sources already cited is filled out (full titles, etc) I think this is in much better shape than a few days ago. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much to those who have helped out here, especially DES! I have cleaned up much of the unsupported text, removed some of the external links, further resources have been added and the entire page looks tighter and the better for it. I will resubmit it shortly.

Appreciate all help but please do not tag this article without at least an attempt to bring up specific criticism on the talk page first.

As the author of this article, I have appreciated all the helpful and thoughtful editing and advice. The article is better for it. But please resist the temptation to "drive by" tag and make general criticism without first giving me a chance to either defend it as written, defend other's editing, or make changes as suggested. Thank you.C S Chaffee (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — 

Reasonable point, User:C S Chaffee. Please see below. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style, neutral point of view

While well-written, in current form this article reads more like a marketing or publicity sheet than an encyclopedia entry. Please see WP:BETTER and WP:NPOV for suggestions on how to strengthen this article, and make it more encyclopedic. And meanwhile, please do not remove article maintenance tags until the problem has been fixed; these are there to alert other editors that assistance is necessary in strengthening the article. Thank you! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

But,DA Sonnenfeld you have still not given me a specific example within the text of the article that addresses your contention. Tagging an article, making generalized statements regarding its POV and then moving on, is not particularly helpful. Especially when others before you have not tagged the article. Please respond with specific examples needing improvement or remove the tag.C S Chaffee (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with C. A. Bowers

Rationale: Two biographical articles on same individual. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for calling attention to this, User:DASonnenfeld. The C A Bowers draft article originated three years ago. It appears that the original author of the draft lost interest in 2014 and the highly edited version was recently submitted by someone who did not know the article Chet Bowers existed. I believe that C A Bowers should be merged into the Chet Bowers article to avoid confusion and redundancy, although I don't see too much, if any, supported information in the C A Bowers article that isn't already included in the Chet Bowers article. C S Chaffee (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)