Talk:Rossana Reguillo
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Hello there
editHi Leks753. Your article is very good, exist some reason you dont push it to a public article? Grate job.
- Hi there,
- Thanks for your kind comment. I will do so. Cheers.
NPOV dispute
editArticle reads to me as though it were likely published or commissioned by the subject. Reason being, nearly every paragraph of the article illustrates a subjective tone peppered with such verbiage as ample.. work', 'prominent social scientist', 'academic rigor and passion', etc..
Additionally, regarding statement 'She has constantly assumed a position where her roles both as a social researcher and also as a citizen have allowed her to frame a nuance understanding of social issues'. According to whom? I realize there could be some argument to the aforementioned note as they do have some citation but this statement here is actually what caught my attention the most. There are no citations around it and it is the type of statement that would not be appropriate for a 3rd party to make of another. So I ask according to whom?
I feel this article has significant room for improvement both in it's subjectiveness, and neutrality; as well as it's overall scope and layout. Having read thru the article, I am left with the feeling that I just finished reading a list of the person's accomplishments but I still have no idea why I should care who they are or what makes them significant. The article just jumps from one thing she can be cited for, to the next with no real substance in between or tying it together. The lists and reflist which follow the main article are also EXTREMELY too long.
All of this, the manner in which the article very directly does nothing more than list accomplishments, and the questionable non-neutral manner in which statements are written; leads me to question the overall neutrality of the article.
My apologize for not providing adequate feedback at the time I originally posted the tag. And please do not take my feedback too harshly, I'm a tough critic and don't mean much by it other than hopefully this feedback can be constructive in some way as to help you improve your content. Thanks for being a part of Wikipedia. Have a great night! :) David Condrey (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)