Nadavangel

February 2015

Hi, Nadavangel, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions. You removed the PROD at Marshall P. Baron, as is your right. But I hope you're aware that I didn't prod it just for lack of references. The article is still far too promotional and subjective. There's much too much unsourced praise (compare the guideline WP:PEACOCK), and all direct quotes need a footnote — none of them have it, as far as I can see. There's even in one place a speaking voice in the text, an "I" — "A quote from John Russell, former art critic at the New York Times brought vividly to my mind the music critiques written by Marshall Baron." What..? Brought to whose mind? Please try to write neutrally, as this is supposedly an encyclopedia. See the policy Neutral point of view. Feel free to improve the article before it gets taken to WP:AfD. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Ok thank you Bishonen, I try to improve the article, i see what you mean that you say that is subjective (and an encyclopedia article should not be like this), but i cant see the part that is promotional. The main problem that English is not my native language (you can see that :) ), in the Hebrew Wikipedia we have a template for articles that need editing, do you have something similar? Nadavangel (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Also the main problem in this article is the Music critiques? can we just insert the "POV-section" template instead of delete the whole article? Nadavangel (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We have templates, such as {{refimprove}}, which shows as

or {{npov}}, which shows as

Et cetera. And, as you say, special templates for sections. I've never found the templates do much good, frankly. People put them on, and then everybody ignores them. Yes, it's the "Music critiques" section that's the main problem, but it's a really large part of the article, and I'm afraid the problems with it are far beyond merely sticking on a template or two. It simply can't be left like that.

I don't quite know what to tell you about the section being too promotional, beyond what I've already said. It reads like a flowery obituary. It's full of unsourced praise. I'd help fix it if I could, but I just don't know how — without footnotes I've no idea where all the stuff comes from. And I'm not quite up for a major research effort, I'm a bit too busy. I understand your concern about language (even though I don't see much wrong with your English).

I'll tell you what: I'll stub the article, as I said, as soon as I have time. Blank the problem section, and shorten the "biography" table and turn it into prose. That should save the article from being deleted, and also it might draw in somebody else to protest — somebody willing and able to work on improvements.

P.S. Did you see my fix of one of your footnotes?[1] Is that OK with you? Bishonen | talk 18:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Sure, I also sew that you deleted the Music critiques section and I think that was the right choice. If I will have some time in the few weeks i try to edit and rewrite the biography (from table to a paragraph) . Thank you for all your help :):) Nadavangel (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:International Triathlon Union logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:International Triathlon Union logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)