Talk:Dairy Campus

Multiple issues template on this page

@DGG: While fully recognising the right of Wikipedia editors to place a Multiple Issues Template at the head of this article, as the author I don't like some of the wording. It says: "This article reads like a press release or a news article or is partly based on routine coverage or sensationalism." It may read that way and it is largely based on routine press coverage, although I used every source available to me. So that is fine and if people can help make this a better article, that would be great. What I take issue with is the word "sensationalism", which I actually find somewhat insulting. There is nothing sensationalist about the article.

I also have a problem with the second line, which reads: "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." It is true that I also used the Dairy Campus' own website, so that's obviously a primary souce. But I have tried as much as possible to verify the claims made there through the use of other sources. Omrop Fryslân, the Leeuwarder Courant, the Friesch Dagblad and the Reformatorisch Dagblad are serious news outlets and independent journalistic sources, which cannot be qualified as "sources too closely associated with the subject". In fact, they are not associated with the Dairy Campus at all. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You are right that the wording of the template is not quite right. Actually, I'd go a good deal further, and say that in general, the wording of most of our standard templates is unsuitable to various degrees. There are 3 causes of this. First, each template deals with a variety of possible cases (aggravated by the WP tendency to try to cover them all, not just the most common). Second, the wording has usually evolved with some difficulty in the past, it has a variable correlations with actual current practice, and it can be difficult to change without evoking arguments about basic policy where there is existing ambiguity and disagreement on interpretation. Third, there isa disire for uniformity to make surethaat communication, however inaccurate, is at least consistent.

I'll recheck for the sources. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)