Talk:Mark Brindal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Portal	Mark Brindal is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Excessive quote

Is there a way we can boil down the 307 word quote (compare to 217 words in the rest of the article) from PollBludger.com (a blog?) to something that is more encyclopedic? Sorry if I removed too much, but I felt that whole copy/paste from the other site seemed totally out of place. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Only the front page is a blog. Timeshift (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think that site hardly passes WP:RS. And that still doesn't address the fact that over half the article is a copy/paste from something that is not very encyclopedic in tone. Can it be rewritten? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It does actually. We've had discussions on other pages in the past (don't ask me which ones, I honestly dont recall), and those who follow WP:RS agree pollbludger is an RS. And perhaps it could be re-written, but my issue is that the quote is laden with information. How could it be rephrased that isn't a quote, includes all the info, without making it bloated? Timeshift (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I rewrote everything from "That came to an end..." to the end of the paragraph and added a different citation, so at least that part can be removed. And maybe a third set of eyes can do the rewite - I don't know enough about the man, Australia, or Australian politics to rewrite it, as you've seen :) Can I take out the last three sentences and slap a {{essay-entry}} or {{inappropriate tone}} on it? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the extortion bit? Btw, what is a "retiremed"? :P Neither tag is really appropriate, as it isn't an essay, or an inappropriate tone... Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Um - actually - my two biggest concerns here are a) the amount of material and b) the tone. The paragraph totally reads like someone's opinion piece. There are several statements in there that desperately need references, though the PollBludger article doesn't provide anything.

This may be a bigger issue than just this article. A quick search for "pollbludger" on wikipedia [1] shows a disturbing four very similar instances (19 hits total), where it says "The following quote is from pollbludger.com". Literally three of them say exactly that - on Electoral district of Heysen, Ted Chapman (politician), and Iain Evans, as well as this article. And nowhere do I see a discussion of whether or not PollBludger is a reliable source. I found a comment in a DRV does seem to indicate some reliability, though the tone is again mentioned as not encyclopedic.

To your point, though, I feel like "inappropriate tone" is about right. Unless you feel like rewriting it? Or getting a third opinion? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)