Talk:Alan Howard (nutritionist)

COI
With regard to the concern about my connection with the subject and also that I received payment for my time spent researching. I declared both of these on my own talk page. Since creating the initial draft which was accepted, I have not received any payments for the time I spend editing. Before commencing the article, I asked for advice in the Teahouse. I have done my best to provide a neutral point of view and to provide source references as far as is possible. I concur with the removal of paragraphs that are not sourced. I thank editors for their help on many details.

I am removing the maintenance tag. I am also discussing and addressing issues raised one by one. Tomp-uk (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The tag is apposite. You have written 95% of this article and until it gets a thorough review concern remains about its content. Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Although Tomp-uk ceased editing in October 2019, the article is still so much the creation of this one editor. As such,, the COI tag should remain until other editors have significantly added or subtracted from the article. COI does not impune the article - it only signifies to readers that the majority of the content is from one editor who had a relationship with the topic. David notMD (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have significantly edited the article, I concur with the removal of the COI tag. Other editors have further edited the article and added different tags. David notMD (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

dubious tag
In the section on The Cambridge Diet, the Dubious tag was inserted. I have now reviewed the reference and the text. I modified the text and added a better reference. I then removed the Dubious tag which I now realise I should not have done. I am asking for an editor to review the text and the reference then assess whether the tag can now be removed. Thank you Tomp-uk (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking my edit and removing the Dubious tag. I notice that my "Request for edit" is still in the queue. Will this get removed automatically or do you need to do this? I'm now working on additional secondary references. Tomp-uk (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a "Request for edit" reviewer. I did edit the article a bit and added "citation needed" for statements currently without any references. Carry on. David notMD (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at the cn tags. When I either supply a citation or remove the text, can I also remove the cn tag or do I need to go via the Request for edit process? If I need to use the process, can I list them all in one request or must they be individual requests? Thanks David. Tomp-uk (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like we edited at the same time; I was marking the request as answered., please check my edit. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now added citations for each of the statements that you identified. I have also made a request to edit, asking that the article be reviewed and the two tags at the top removed. Are you able to help with checking the citations? Thank you. Tomp-uk (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to review citations and secondary sources
This article has two tags applied regarding multiple issues and primary sources. I have edited it to add citations and to provide more secondary sources of which there is a list in the section above this one. This edit request is asking for a review of these changes and the removal of the two tags. If one or more tags cannot yet be removed, please help me understand what else needs to be done? Thank you. Tomp-uk (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has been detagged. Remember when you're adding citations, make sure they go after the period or punctuation. Don Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 21:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , at the very first glance, refs 1 through 8, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 17 are primary sources. That's 76% of the total. Care to explain why you chose to remove the primary sources tag on request from a paid editor who has been actively editing the article? It would help if you explained about the other tag as well, because I am seeing a number of unsourced or poorly sourced claims. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure all the sources you identify as "primary" necessarily all look particularly "primary" to me, but in order to avoid disappearing down yet another unconstructive pissing contest about the meanings of "primary" and "secondary", might I respectfully suggest that a more wiki-positive use of the parties' time here would be to find and insert better sources - not necessarily as replacement sources, but as complementary sources.  And I am indeed grateful that you belatedly take time at least to spell out which sources you have in mind.  Alan Howard has not, over the years, been exactly publicity shy.   I strongly suspect that you will have little difficulty in finding additional sources more to your liking and - within reason - more sources is usually a "good thing"!
 * My own position comes from the belief if you find something you don't like about a wiki entry, it is a whole lot more helpful to improve the situation than simply to insert irritating little flags at the top of the page which distract the reader and piss off the vanishingly small proportion of wiki-contributors who actually hang around for more than a couple of months and actually help build wikipedia into something bigger and, one would hope, better.  Wikipedia has roughly |line|2-year|~total|monthly 400,000 registered editors.   Around 9,000 of those have made at least 10,000 edits.   That looks like 2½%.   Sad or what?


 * Success Charles01 (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , nice to meet you! If wiki-philosophising is what you're after, JIMBOTALK is thattaway. Alternatively, you are welcome to address the issues with the article so it can look all tagless and pretty, unless it is your contention that our unsuspecting readers be let into a neat looking paid-for hagiography just because you "strongly suspect" something? Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was just referencing Talk:Alan Howard (nutritionist) and saw that more secondary sources were indeed added. Please feel free to add the tag back if necessary. I suppose I didn't break down the percentage citation number as you did (very helpful). Perhaps an inline tag will be better for the editor to follow along? Don Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 16:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , perhaps! I personally prefer putting one tag at the top instead of cluttering the whole page, especially when the issue applies to the whole article. But I have no strong feelings about it, and know of no policies/guidelines preferring one over the other. Do please revisit WP:COIRESPONSE though. Responding to requests from paid editors requires a lot of work, or the whole purpose is defeated. I didn't know of anybody other than brave enough to take this thankless task. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)