Talk:Debra Ruh

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debra Ruh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113192532/http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/biztech/articles/061106/6tecaccess.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/061106/6tecaccess.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Most notable awards

Ruh and TecAccess received a lot of awards. I would like to zone in on the most notable awards - and particularly for Ruh herself. And, they either remove the non-notable ones, or perhaps put them in a note. Any input is appreciated.

I also posted a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability#Debra Ruh.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - the awards from regional organizations and some of the other awards were put into notes. I put the ones in the body of the article that seemed most noteworthy.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Board member / advisory panel

She has been on the:<ref name="RD" />

• Olmstead Board
• Veterans' Employment Board
• U.S. Business Leadership Network Board (USBLN)
• Virginia Business Leadership Network Board
• Virginia Council of CEOs
• Advisory panel member of the Parent Educational Advocacy Training Center
• Advisory member of G3ict, a U.N. organization that supports information and communication technologies accessibility

Are there other sources for these? I have only seen G3ict mentioned elsewhere.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, people with a close connection or COI cannot make direct updates to the article, but can {{request edit}}s. So, if you have secondary sources, like newspapers, magazines, or books - or other reliable, secondary sources, you may provide that information here. Then, the content and/or sources - as well as the wording (tone, verify covered by the source, etc.) - is reviewed before the content is added to the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Excessive factoids

Hi Cullen328,

You mentioned on the Afd discussion that the article was bloated with too many factoids and details. I removed some and moved some content to notes. The Afd discussion is now closed as "keep".

Do you mind taking another look now? For instance, if you think that some of the content in "Notes" would be better deleted, that would be fine now.--CaroleHenson (talk)

As I stated in the AfD debate, I think that the article needs a major trimming. For example, the lead of an article should summarize the most important points of the entire article. Phrases like "weekly podcasts and regular Twitter discussions about accessibility" and "She has participated in panel discussions" seems out of place to me. Do reliable, independent sources discuss these endeavors as an important part of her life story? These are the routine activities of someone like her. Similarly with mention of her book. It should only be mentioned in an encyclopedia article if it has been independently reviewed. A Wikipedia biography should summarize what completely independent sources say about the person, and trimming out extraneous material results in an article that is both more neutral and less promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328, Ok, the details here help. Breaking this down:

• For example, the lead of an article should summarize the most important points of the entire article. Phrases like "weekly podcasts and regular Twitter discussions about accessibility" and "She has participated in panel discussions" seems out of place to me. Do reliable, independent sources discuss these endeavors as an important part of her life story? These are the routine activities of someone like her. -  Done
• Similarly with mention of her book. It should only be mentioned in an encyclopedia article if it has been independently reviewed. - I think the book should stay because it's mentioned on a number of sites about disabilities and in news articles. (This is a good tip, though, for inclusion of books in articles for future editing - i.e., lists of publications where I don't find anyone other than the author mention the book(s) or publication(s).)
• A Wikipedia biography should summarize what completely independent sources say about the person, and trimming out extraneous material results in an article that is both more neutral and less promotional. - Yep, except for the use of Ruh Global for two sentences about the company and its objectives (backed up with another source), the sources are independent sources. I removed information about regional awards and some less notable content from the article.

How does it look to you now?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've sent this article for a peer review - see above for link. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Thanks, Some Gadget Geek!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that the peer review was archived, then reinstated. Since there has been more than two months that have passed without any comments, I have asked for at least some high level input about the article on the peer review request.—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Other sources

If someone is interested in expanding the article, there may be other content at the following sources: PBS, NBC, NPR, INC, Publishers Weekly, Fortune Magazine, America’s Best, and Bloomberg Business Week.

This was in a list of sources identified in a bio - I was able to find sources for the others in the list.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

News release tag

Hi DGG,

You added a {{news release}} tag on the article. Is there something in particular that you think needs to be done to the article?

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It reads overall like a press release, especially in view of the article on TecAccess. e.g. "The firm's objective is to help ..." The claim that "For instance, by 2008 she trained and found jobs for 30 disabled Iraq veterans" is trivial. It's not usual to include a description of an individual talk, especially saying such an unprovable and vague statement as "They planned how to use that information to meet their 2030 goals for education, employment, poverty reduction and information technology. " The map is irrelevant. The part about her daughter seems over-personal for an encyclopedia, and seems a paraphrase of http://abc7ny.com/archive/7287407/--which itself is much more a press release than a news account. But at least its related. The part about her son is not. (Fwiw, I put on the tag without noticing the AfD or the prior discussion here, just based on the contents) DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

DGG, That was very helpful input. I made those changes, plus made edits to the paragraph about UN's G3ict EmployAbility Task Force. How does it look to you now?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I see the tag was added back. I removed moved of the intro. The rest is essentially a summary of her work life. I have regularly worked {{request edit}}s and continually work new pages - and brought up the issue of promotional tone on the peer review (nothing identified to fix) and am not sure why there is such attention to removing content, but hopefully the editor is happy now. Sorry for being so snarky, just very frustrated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)