Talk:Irene Pepperberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Merging w/ Dr. Irene Pepperberg

Re: merging the page 'Dr. Irene Pepperberg' into this page - certainly, both pages refer to the same person. Charivari 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely the same person and should be merged. -(the previous comment was unsigned)

Merge completed. --Hetar 07:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup proposals

Regarding the cleanup templates added by Akidd dublin, I'd appreciate more specifics on what's wrong with this article. For my part, I saw a TV documentary about Dr. Pepperberg's work which was shown on the BBC (in the Horizon thread, if memory serves) many years ago and was greatly impressed by the results she has achieved. There definitely needs to be a Wikipedia article about Dr. Pepperberg and her work, and if the present article is deficient in some respects then it deserves to be improved, but at the moment I would find it difficult to understand what's so bad about it.

"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup."

"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and conform with our NPOV policy, this article or section may require cleanup."

• The latter includes "quality standards", so the first template is redundant.
• What quality standards specifically? Why is the article not neutral? It may read as moderately enthusiastic, but is that wrong? By all means add more information on criticism of the work if you can find any.

"The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view."

• Let's have more information on the subject from a non-American perspective. I haven't any; have you?

"The introduction to this article is too long."

• Introductory paragraphs are meant to state why the subject of the article is important. The present introduction seems to do just that.

"rewrite - probably research promotion"

• I think that the above comment belongs on the Talk page, not in the article.
• What evidence is there for "research promotion"? The words "probably" and "looks like" (in the edit summary) don't seem to me to be sufficient grounds for complaint.

But I could well be wrong. What do other people think? Charivari 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The article is fine. The criticisms are unfounded. Fnarf999 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

{{cleanup}} {{advert}}

I have removed the template about introduction. 
This article looks like based on good will. 
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an internet service.
Referals to websites are alright.
Many people use this for advertising, and to promote their biography.
I appreciate the detailed reply/the tone of it, and do not insist to keep up the templates.
When i included them, i thought this article looks like a biography, research promotion.
I suggest to rewrite the article, but it is not in very needs.
moderately enthusiastic - that should be fine. Rules are not to fulfil them literally.

I have added this article to budgerigar, it looks related, and added the weblinks from "context speaking budgerigars" (which does not meet several wikipedia standards) Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 17:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)