Talk:Gregory F. Rayburn
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
General comments edit
A neutrality tag has been added to the article, which is probably not appropriate at this point, since there is currently no dispute over the neutrality of the article. Generally, that tag should be used only to denote that there is an on-going discussion on the article's talk page that includes a dispute about the neutrality of the article. The tag should not be added merely because an editor believes the article has a neutrality problem.
That said, I am not removing the tag.
My two cents: the article does need some work. Part of the article reads like a resume for the subject of the article. Another editor has rightly questioned the use of the term "expert" (or "expertise") to describe the subject of the article or his qualifications.
Generally, the status of "expert" is something that must be accorded someone by someone else who is qualified to grant that status. While I don't doubt that the subject of this article may be an expert in his field (I don't know, since I'd never heard of him before), we probably should tone down the unsourced rhetoric a bit.
There also might be some question as to whether this individual is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and I'll leave that issue for other editors to discuss, if desired.
In the mean time, I think I'll change the language from "expert" or "expertise" to "knowledgeable" or something like that. Famspear (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I am noticing that some of the material in the article is sourced to none other than the Linkedin page for Gregory Rayburn himself. Obviously, this is problematic in terms of lack of reliable sourcing, and in terms of the article largely appearing to be little more than a resume for Gregory Rayburn (although there is a bit of "negative" information as well). Famspear (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the neutrality issues have been addressed by either eliminating the info or providing a third party reference.Americasroof (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)