Talk:Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dwang314.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Awkwardly written
editI tend to agree that this article reads like a puff-piece. What the hell is the "Publications and evolution of sociological views" section? Every other section in this article is pretty much OK, but this section makes me suspect that the article's subject has edited it; it's awkwardly written and has a couple of grammatical errors. It includes unnecessary information (descriptions of his books?) and odd, unencyclopedic formatting ("and many more..." under "Other works also include:").
For example, take a look at the article of another Duke professor, Robert Bryant. That's about all you need to see that this article isn't written well. 152.23.250.36 (talk)
POV tag
editThis reads like a puff-piece, full of superlatives about how great the guy is and his amazing past. It does not need adjectives and adverbs about how rich his education was, how amazingly intellectual his upbringing was, or how key figures helped him form his boldly independent views. There is also literally nothing about controversies or opposing views to his theses. It is also not terribly well written overall, and some of the sentence-construction is rather awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.195.145 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing many superlatives in the article. There's an argument to be made for reducing the reliance on primary sources, but that doesn't justify slapping a {{POV}} tag on the article in my opinion, especially without definite suggestions for improvement (where are the reliable, published sources about these supposed "controversies"?). Cleanup templates are not a badge of shame. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)