Talk:John Graham of Duchray
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Graham of Duchray article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of John Graham of Duchray be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Biography section
editWikimedia received an email (ticket:2016110210007831) with a request to remove two paragraphs; the second and third paragraphs of the biography section starting with:
"His exact lineage is uncertain."
While the material includes some sourcing it obviously is not in the format we prefer. The contributor is concerned that this has led to the warning messages at the top of the page and requested removal to justify clearing out the warning messages.
I'm not convinced that the warning messages are all related to those two paragraphs. Clearly, the warning about citations applies to those two paragraphs, but the others do not seem so obvious. In fact I'm not quite sure why they have been added and I will separately leave a note for the editor asking for more information.
I plan to respond to the OTRS ticket and suggest that the best action is to leave the material in and hope that someone with interest in the subject will track down the references and convert them to proper references, as well as determine whether the included material is appropriate for the article. While we would normally push for the editor adding the material to take care of this themselves, the author has health issues as well as the lack of knowledge of Wikipedia syntax so that's not a viable request. The alternative is complete removal and let other editors research and add this material as they see fit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Maintenance templates
editI added the following 5 maintenance templates on November 1, 2016 for reasons stated below:
- Notability: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide states that "...any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list." Most sources in the article John Graham of Duchray are him being mentioned in passing and genealogical records. However, it also says that "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand alone article." I'm not sure if this tag should be removed or not.
- Editorial: I'll replace this with a
tag because there are lots of vague phrasing and unsupported attributions.This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information.
- Essay: I'll replace this with a
tag because it reads like a story being told.This article is written like a story.
- Original research: I misunderstood the meaning of this tag. I will remove it.
- Citations broken: The references are all over the place. It's not properly formatted
--Ermahgerd9 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt response.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)