Talk:Mark Okerstrom
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Victoria at ExpediaGroup in topic Sourcing discussion from The Teahouse
| 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 C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Sourcing discussion from The Teahouse
editThe following discussion of sourcing in and approval of this article when it was still a draft occurred at the Teahouse. I reproduce it here because of its relation to the initial state of the article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, my name is Victoria and I am a representative of Expedia Group. I am a paid employee of the company and therefore have a financial conflict of interest. I've submitted a new article draft for Expedia Group CEO Mark Okerstrom and it was declined, with the editor commenting that there was a lack of reliable sourcing. This confused me as in the draft I was careful to properly cite all statements with quality sourcing such as The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph, The Seattle Times and Financial Times. (Also, I did make a mistake in missing my COI disclosure but I've added that now.) I've responded to the feedback on my AfC request, but I have not heard anything back. As a new editor, I'm not quite sure if it is best for me to resubmit the draft or get other input first? Can Teahouse editors advise? Thanks! Victoria at ExpediaGroup (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Victoria at ExpediaGroup Welcome to The Teahouse. I tend to agree that the sourcing in the draft looks adequate, and if I were reviewing it, I would probably accept it. However, I'd be interested to know if @Robert McClenon: sees an issue with the sourcing that I have missed, or has a different perspective. For future reference, adding a comment on the draft isn't necessarily the best place to discuss this sort of thing as reviewers don't always watch a draft once they have declined it, and usually the same reviewer won't review a draft twice. If you want to query a decision, you're better off going to the reviewer's talk page, or the AFC helpdesk. But in this case, unless Robert or another user offers a wildly different viewpoint to mine, I would probably just resubmit your draft in a day or two. Hugsyrup 16:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Victoria at ExpediaGroup. I'm not convinced that I'm seeing the multiple reliable independent sources that are needed to establish that Okerstrom is notable. Source 1 is based on what a colleague said, so not independent. Sources 2, 4 and 6 are based on what he said himself, so not independent. Sources 3 and 7 are behind paywalls, and so I haven't been able to check them; maybe they're acceptable. Source 5 looks good. Source 8 is based on what a company spokesperson said, so not independent. That's a total of one "yes", five "no", and two "maybe". Maproom (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- The FT one is decent, although like most such business profiles it has some quotes from the subject mixed in. I don't see that as fully undermining the source though, particularly insofar as it's being used to establish basic notability. If the FT or WSJ does a profile on someone, that goes a long way to establishing notability, regardless of whether the profile includes quotes from the source. I completely agree, of course, that specific facts should not be sourced to parts of an article that are simply quotes by the subject, and this may need work. However, bear in mind that the core criteria when reviewing a draft is not whether it is flawless, but would it pass an AFD. I would be very surprised if this article, given its sources, would fail an AFD. Hugsyrup 16:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- It appears that User:Maproom and User:Hugsyrup have done more detailed reviews than I did, and I thank them. In hindsight, it appears that I didn't do a detailed review because I was annoyed at the lack of a conflict of interest declaration, and because I know that I have a difficult time giving a neutral review to a draft by a paid editor, so I don't always try. As to how to get comments on a draft, I agree that adding them to the draft is not usually the best way, but would add that one of the best ways is this, to ask for advice at the Teahouse. I agree that it should pass AFD, because I won't vote to Delete, and I am something of a deletionist. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have now approved the draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- It appears that User:Maproom and User:Hugsyrup have done more detailed reviews than I did, and I thank them. In hindsight, it appears that I didn't do a detailed review because I was annoyed at the lack of a conflict of interest declaration, and because I know that I have a difficult time giving a neutral review to a draft by a paid editor, so I don't always try. As to how to get comments on a draft, I agree that adding them to the draft is not usually the best way, but would add that one of the best ways is this, to ask for advice at the Teahouse. I agree that it should pass AFD, because I won't vote to Delete, and I am something of a deletionist. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- The FT one is decent, although like most such business profiles it has some quotes from the subject mixed in. I don't see that as fully undermining the source though, particularly insofar as it's being used to establish basic notability. If the FT or WSJ does a profile on someone, that goes a long way to establishing notability, regardless of whether the profile includes quotes from the source. I completely agree, of course, that specific facts should not be sourced to parts of an article that are simply quotes by the subject, and this may need work. However, bear in mind that the core criteria when reviewing a draft is not whether it is flawless, but would it pass an AFD. I would be very surprised if this article, given its sources, would fail an AFD. Hugsyrup 16:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Thank you to DESiegel for approving the draft. Also, thank you to Maproom, Hugsyrup, Robert McClenon, and AlanM1 for your advice and feedback at the Teahouse. Victoria at ExpediaGroup (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)