Talk:Stay LDS / Mormon

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Tedder in topic NPOV

NPOV

edit

I chose the NPOV tag rather than the {{advert}} tag; either one would work. The article is straying further from the neutral point of view that Wikipedia articles should strive for. tedder (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The tag is very cool if it attracts interested editors. The only sentence that is conceivably not straightforward, observable and verifiable fact, I imagine, is the third-and-last one:

The site's individual bloggers and visitors share their own experiences as a means of providing support to others of an informal, pastoral nature.

I have posted a couple of notices for help (for example, at the LDS project talk page). Thanks! :^) ↜Just M E here , now 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
You are right- the two things that caught my eye were the "type of site" sentence in the infobox and the "providing support of an informal, pastoral nature" sentence that you saw.
We both have biases- I make it clear on my user page that I'm atheist. That's perfectly okay, though. I'd rewrite this article if I had the ability to do so. It isn't bad, it just shouldn't promote the entity. tedder (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I just went through it quickly. Comments? Between what the three of us (tedder, JHN, John Carter) have done, I think it looks much better. My only other complaint (not related to the tag) is the excessive seealso list. As WP:SEEALSO says, "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical "perfect article" are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one." I think a dozen wikilinks may be excessive- somewhere in the range of four seems more suitable. tedder (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I cut the external links to Bloggernacle, the fellow middle-way community (to Dehlin's) New Order Mormon, an LDS apologetics online community (FAIR blog), and the two disaffected LDS online communities. ↜Just M E here , now 19:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great work. It was fun to collaborate and improve this so quickly. tedder (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply