Talk:Steven A. Beebe

negative tags on article

There were some negative tags, about primary sources and about neutrality and about external links, which I just removed because I don't see the issues. The tags pointed to this Talk page for discussion. If someone does see some issue, please do explain it here. By the way, i found my way to this article by a posting at a noticeboard, mentioning this article as a product of students in a class. It seems like a fine work, to me! :) --doncram 02:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you were a bit quick to remove the tage. It would be better to discuss your reasons for disagreeing with them before removing them. At first read through the article I have to question the use of references too. The article is a good start but there are clearly some problems (many easily fixed):

• Bare URLs (rather than proper citations) as refs
• Blogs are generally not reliable references... anyone can write whatever in a blog.
• POV comments such as "Beebe's most acknowledged appearances."
• Fuzzy time periods such as "This past fall."
• The YouTube video as a ref may be questionable. It seems to be used properly as a ref to what he says in the lecture, but it is not clear what the College means by "Standard YouTube " permission or copyright (Idon't remember the exact term).
• There are quite a few primary refs in this article.
• There really isn't that much here to show his notability. Most of the sources are primary refs showing what he said, or PR/bio type pages.. Where are the independent reliable sources?
• inline external links in (OK, I see you've mentioned that already). Meters (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

external links

Oh, okay, i see that two external links were used within the main text, which seems not best, per some guideline or policy. I just changed from "Beebe has co-authored 34 books and articles with Timothy P. Mottet on the topic of instructional communication." to "Beebe has co-authored 34 books and articles with Timothy P. Mottet on the topic of instructional communication." Note that neither of the sentences is actually sourced by a specific reference. The latter sentence's two links are currently redlinks, suggesting that perhaps articles on those topics ought to be created. The external link to a profile about Timothy Mottet could be used in an article about him, but it does not particularly support the sentence because it does not mention Beebe there. Does this make sense, or not? I'll watch here a bit, but feel free to post to my Talk page if I don't see a response here. --doncram 02:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)