Talk:Jamie Sorrentini/Archive 1

Archive 1

No good sources for early life

The only source for the "early life" section is publicity material of the subject. The section should be removed, according to WP:SELFPUB. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Per the page you cited, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagging and removal of sources

Please, discuss on talk page and explain why there is the tag and why there are attempts at removal of sources. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

External links removals

These removals from the EL sect are entirely inappropriate. This even included removal of link to her official YouTube channel. Most confusing. Please do not do this again without discussion on talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception is relevant

Reception of the actress, her films, her performances - this is all directly relevant and pertinent to her biography and this info should remain in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Peacock puffering

I removed a bunch of peacock puffing from this article, which strayed far from neutrality [1] - it has been replaced.

Specifically:

1. In the lead "received positive reception" is weasel wording. No doubt it did, and possibly negative comments too. But whether "A Hobo's Christmas" received plaudits is peripheral at best to the subject of the article.
2. She appeared in Parade as a cast member, fine. But describing it as "Tony Award-winning" while factual sounds like you are buttering her up before introducing her, not writing a neutral article. If she'd won the Tony it would fine to mention in a lead, but not when she's just a cast member.
3. "Her performance in 2002 in the play Birdy's Bachelorrete Party was reviewed favorably by Theatermania." does not belong in the lead. We aren't writing puffery where we cite every favourable review.
4. The movie received positive reception by the Sacramento Bee,[4] and the Los Angeles Times Syndicate;[5] and the Houston Chronicle characterized it as "a warm-hearted drama about lifestyle conflicts, family resentments and family love" This is more indirect puffery.
5. In a review of the movie for The State, Ray Benson singled out Sorrentini's performance (credited as Jamie Mills), commenting, "The children are Kathy, played by Jamie Mills, and Bobby, played by Harley Cross. ... The two youngsters turn in good performances." again, my problem is UNDUE - why are we singling out this one review? Because it is sooooo glowing? Not neutral and dispassionate.
6. The production was included in the book The Best Plays Theater Yearbook 2002-2003 Not relevant. If her performance had been maybe, but this is just an attempt at flattery by association. She was simply a cast member.
7. In 2000, Sorrentini appeared in a Harold Prince-directed production of the 1999 Tony Award-winning musical Parade, as part of a U.S. national tour. She simply "appeared" in something, yet hear comes the indirect puffery again.

I also trimmed the links, and was reverted.

1. Youtube links to probable copyvios
2. Jamie Sorrentini Talks About The Acting Center - is another youtube, alteady removed by the uploader.
3. TV.com, yahoo and TVguide contain no additional information.

In short Cirt's revert is inexplicable and looks like bias.--Scott Mac 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The bias here looks like Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs). This information is all directly relevant. The YouTube link is her official youtube channel. The other links are directly relevant. Reception is relevant about the actress in the biography about the actress. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Okay, I removed it from the lede.
2. This is relevant. It goes to the noteworthiness of the role and the play itself.
3. Okay, I removed it from the lede.
4. It is descriptive material about reception of the production, and relevant to this article. It is a mere one-sentence of sourced material.
5. Perhaps you can add other sourced material, but there is no need to remove this sourced material.
6. Relevant. Goes to noteworthiness of the production and her role.
7. Relevant, goes to noteworthiness of the fact that she landed the role in such a noteworthy production.

-- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

See also sect

Please, do not remove relevant links from See also sect. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

These are not relevant. "See also" should be links to relevant articles not already linked in the article. Why link to a list? That doesn't help the reader.--Scott Mac 18:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why remove the entire sect? Can you suggest addition links to add? -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not one of the link in the section adds anything for the reader - thus we remove it. No, I can't see any others to add, but we have a section IF there's relevant links, we don't go hunting for them in order to have a section.--Scott Mac 18:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are relevant links. It looks like you are removing them just to remove the entire sect itself. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are they relevant? Lists don't provide the reader with any new information whatsoever.--Scott Mac 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They suggest to the reader additional information on other articles relevant to the subject of this one. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony-Award winning play

This is notable and belongs in the lede. It shows why the play is noteworthy and why it is noteworthy of inclusion in this article. Without it, the reader has no idea why the play is noteworthy or the fact that Sorrentini was successfully cast in the play, other than the fact that it is a blue wikilink. That is not sufficient context that the play is noteworthy. -- Cirt (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, you are simply objecting to every change in order to keep this your way. You and I can argue back and forward, but I think it is better if we get more eyes. It is difficult to get consensus when it is 1vs1. I'm going to post this at the BLPNB and ask for feeback.--Scott Mac 19:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It is quite disturbing as to why Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs) is investing so much time and effort in order to remove sourced positive material from a BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it disturbing? The material is unduly positive, and we should be working for neutrality. Since you and I can't agree, I'm seeking wider input. Let's stick to the content.--Scott Mac 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Positive, yes. "Unduly positive", certainly not. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I don't see any particular problems with Scott's edits. This is a marginally notable actress, and the article did have a lot of fluffy filler, referenced to sources that barely mention the subject. Gigs (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits removed sourced information directly relevant to the subject of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Update

1. I removed quotes and trimmed down material, per above suggestions [2]
2. I removed more quotes and reception text, per above recommendations [3]
3. I removed sourced material, per above suggestions [4]

The purported "undue" issue has now been resolved, as the amount of text devoted to the content that was complained about on the talk page, has been drastically reduced. Therefore, the tag has been removed from the top of this BLP page. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)