Talk:The David Pakman Show
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The David Pakman Show 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days  |
 | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.davidpakman.com/about/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2011030610013565. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en  wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Article clean up
editI've been going through the page and cleaning it up a bit. The article still has a number of areas that have insufficient sourcing, self-sourcing, or do not have sufficient sourcing to indicate notability (and thus why it should be included in the article at all). I think the next areas to focus on are the show's history (has a number of entries which probably shouldn't be included) and all the appearances (in the "Content" section, may need condensing or trimming if non-notable). aismallard (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I've cleaned up a lot of the content section, removing primary sources and appearances which do not appear to be backed by any RS. A couple subsections within it still need pruning, but it should be in a much better state. The next two portions which need more work would be the opening and the history section, which are currently very long and not well-sourced. aismallard (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)