Talk:William Danby (coroner)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Death Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2012 comment

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for taking an interest. However I do have a problem with the "C" for quality, since I am at a loss to know what anyone would expect me to do to make it better.

This class tells me that my article "is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup."

Please help me.

This says that it may be "missing important content". Since I have provided every single piece of information discovered about this William Danby so far, what more am I expected to do?

Or that it "contains a lot of irrelevant material". Please tell me just what is thought to be "irrelevant" in what I have written (and I assure that I can find nothing in it which isn't relevant) and I will happily remove it.

The classification, suggesting that the article doesn't, says that it "should have references to reliable sources". What on earth does this mean? Either that the several sources I have cited are unreliable, or that I have made statements unsupported by sources at all. I can find no example of either failure. Please explain to me precisely how I have failed to meet this criterion.

That it may still nevertheless have "significant issues" may well be true, but hardly helpful to someone anxious to improve it! Same with "substantial cleanup", wouldn't you agree? Peter Farey (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic