Talk:Richard Fitzwilliams

[Untitled]

I met Richard many years ago when he was the dynamic editor of the International Who's Who. In my opinion, he was the best thing that ever happened to that publication. Under his guidance this publication went from strength to strength - entirely due to his efforts. Since then he has turned his not inconsiderable talents to being a PR Consultant, royal commentator and film critic - a unique blend of gifts Dziadzia (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) D.Coltman MD Justaboutmanaging.com

Issues

The external links seem to be mostly his articles not articles about him thus leading to a lack of references. The tone of the article is very hagiographic. NtheP (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the primary author of the article points out above that Fitzwilliams has not inconsiderable talents, and that he has a unique blend of gifts. (Unlike WP's other biographees, with their inconsiderable talents and humdrum blends of gifts.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

International Who's Who

Much of this curious article is less about Fitzwilliams than about the International Who's Who. This section appears to be sourced, but I can't make head or tail of the sourcing, and for this reason I am very reluctant to shunt the section off to a new article on International Who's Who. However, if this material is worthwhile, this is what should be done with it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No response, so I simply deleted this stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead links

I looked in one section and found that a remarkable percentage of the links were dead. Here's what to do. Go to wayback.archive.org/web and there find the most recent good version, and then plug its URL in the place of the dead URL.

I'm not going to do this myself as it's clear that Fitzwilliams (of whom I had never heard until minutes ago) has at least one dedicated and energetic admirer, who surely has the energy to do this work. -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes

Here is how to make them.

(Make sure, of course, that any source is reliable (according to Wikipedia's criteria).) -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I have created one working footnote to demonstrate how this is done. Now the person or people intent on writing up Richard Fitzwilliams (of whom I had never heard until I encountered this hagiographic Wikipedia article) should create proper working footnotes for all the other assertions. -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

actually, the work can be much diminished if the material is first edited to be a proper non-promotional article, which will not need quite as many of the links to his various works. I'm doing that now. As for fixing the remaining ones, I agree with Hoary: it's Dziadzia's turn to some some proper work here, instead of just promotionalism,

there was of course an alternative, which I seriously considered, which was deleting the article under speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G11, a purely promotional article which would take more than normal editing to make encyclopedic. If the material should be restored, that might be the simplest course. I think the editorship of IWW is sufficient for notability , or deletion via AfD on the basis of borderline importance would be yet another possibility. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have trouble arguing against deletion. When the sources are added in the proper way, they should not be used in any way that suggests that they say more than they do: I have already had to cut assertions that came with a footnote pointing to a source that turned out only to say half of what it was used for. If I see more of this kind of thing, I'll happily propose deletion myself. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) PS actually the source did back that up, so I've restored it. (I must have been too sleepy the first time around.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken an honest stab at addressing some of the footnote issues. The remaining tags however, could probably use some updating or adjustment, but I'll leave that up to the admins who have been patiently watching over this article. Regards,  -- WikHead (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

promotional content

I have removed the long list of royal events covered, but left the references, which sufficiently give the details without their being repeated in the text. Ditto for the list of PR clients, which is promotional both you the subject, and for them. If these are restored, I shall probably follow Hoary's suggestion about deletion, because it will have been shown to be impossible for a non-promotional article to be written. (There would be an alternative open to me as an admin, which is to have User:Dziadzia blocked as an entirely promotional account; I have given a formal warning to that effect.) DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to have this deleted

Dziadzia changes

has lectured at the [[National Army Museum]] on war on screen.<ref> 'From the Romans to the Middle Ages', 6 September 2007.{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}</ref>

to

has lectured at the [[National Army Museum]] on war on screen.<ref> War on Screen 6 September 2007.[http://www.nam.ac.uk/] </ref>

The string "fitzwilliams" appears nowhere in the page http://www.nam.ac.uk/

Even when the footnotes are not misleading, Dziadzia still refuses to format them properly, leaving others to do the work.

If I find on my return from vacation that in my absence DGG or somebody else has sent this to "Articles for deletion", I shan't be at all disappointed. -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this guy needs a holiday.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.229.128 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)