Talk:Chellis Glendinning

Tone and verification
This article seems very promotion, without any clear sources to support its assertions. Unless we can add more sources I suggest returning it to a stub and working back up from sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost 10 years later, this problem persists. Unless an interested party cleans-up this article in the near future, I'll have a go at it...basically removing all OR, web-page references, POV, PROMO, etc. I will try to find some RS, but I anticipate the article will probably go down to a stub. Agricola44 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems tome that the article is pretty well sourced except for the second paragraph. Maybe I need to look at the sources better. Carptrash (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the "sources" are web-pages, blogs, her own material, broken links, etc...all of which are strictly unacceptable for a BLP. Also, OR is unacceptable, as well. Unless you can find legitimate RS to support the text, those parts must be redacted. I didn't want to "intrude" on this article (as it were) if an interested editor is willing to have a go at clean-up. Is that the case with you? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll spend much time on this. You can go ahead and reduce it to a solid stub. I read the article and think "That sounds like her" which I realize is a long way from what we need in the way of documentation. The fact that her papers are collected at the Joseph A. Labadie Collection is, to me, very meaningful Carptrash (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will try to reduce it to a smaller form (maybe stub) in which all info is solidly RS'ed. Agricola44 (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rev't ClueBot false positive, so it is reasonably well there. However, it's picture-heavy and looks CV'ish, so I may refine it a bit more. Agricola44 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)