Talk:Chris Hosea

References & Notability Concerns
Hello fellow editors. I'd like to introduce myself. I am a poetry and art enthusiast. Very new to editing Wikipedia entries; am so appreciating all the guidance and support I'm getting as I get started.

As you can see, there is a yellow banner currently atop the entry to this page. It calls into question the entry's neutrality, as well as the quality of its supporting references.

When I asked Jay8g for help with the flagged concerns, they suggested there were "very few" independent references, and a lack of quality, third-party references called into question the subject's "notability" in their field and qualification for a Wikipedia page.

However, as of today, all 31 of the entry's references are made to independent, third-party sources that adequately affirm the subject's notability in their field, a fact attested to certified field authorities (such as John Ashbery) and established institutions (including the Academy of American Poets, the Poetry Foundation, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. (See below for more.)

As you will notice, I address these concerns directly and in detail in my 25 June 2024 reply to @Jay8g, which is copied below.

Grateful, again, to @Jay8g for their helpful concerns, and to @Masterzora for their updates to reference style.


 * Note that, in my 25 June 2024 reply to @Jay8g, I misunderstood and overestimated the scope of @Masterzora 's work. As @Masterzora recently pointed out out on my Rocinante108 talk page, they "did not 'confirm the existence, authority, independence, and correct citation of all 31 references'. My edit was more mechanical, focusing on the form of the citations, and I did no work in verifying the suitability of any of the references."

Thanks to this correction, I've removed my original claim about the extent of @Masterzora 's work in the edited chain below, but have left it on my user talk page for context.

I have also included @Masterzora 's clarification in the below.**

What follows is the exchange with Jay8g copy/pasted my Rocinante108 talk page, so it may be convenient to editors working here, on the page: -


 * Hi Jay8g, I appreciate your attention to my updates to this article. If you could characterize or specify portions of the article that need to be addressed, that will help me make edits to ensure better neutrality. Looking forward to learning more. Rocinante108 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[ reply]
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Hello Rocinante108. You used the  template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.
 * } Hello again, Jay8g. I have revisited recent edits made to page Chris Hosea. Thank you for indicating they needed revision for neutrality and to avoid suggestion of COI. I've cut unsupported statements, deleted wordy passages, added third-party references for selected new claims, and inserted a critical take from a negative review. Really appreciate your help as I am a new editor. Can you suggest further changes that may help improve the entry? Rocinante108 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[ reply]
 * Courtesy ping: @Jay8g Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[ reply]
 * } Hello again, Jay8g. I have revisited recent edits made to page Chris Hosea. Thank you for indicating they needed revision for neutrality and to avoid suggestion of COI. I've cut unsupported statements, deleted wordy passages, added third-party references for selected new claims, and inserted a critical take from a negative review. Really appreciate your help as I am a new editor. Can you suggest further changes that may help improve the entry? Rocinante108 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[ reply]
 * Courtesy ping: @Jay8g Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[ reply]


 * Hi Rocinante108, I just looked at the article and it still doesn't match the formal encyclopedic tone expected of a Wikipedia article. It sounds more like what someone would post on their own website or some place where they promote themself. It also appears that very few of the references are properly independent, which is never a good look and brings into question the notablilty of the article subject (to be clear, I haven't done any research to tell if it is a notable subject). If you want more advice, I'd suggest checking in at the Teahouse to discuss with people who have more experience with this type of issue. Thanks! :Jay8g [ V•T•E] 20:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[ reply]


 * Hi @Jay8g, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions about improving article Chris Hosea. As a newbie editor, I appreciate your care and concerns.
 * You assert, in your message of 11 June 2024, above, that "very few of the references are properly independent."
 * However, currently, all 31 references are, to the best of my knowledge, from independent third-party websites, organizations, publications, &c.
 * It does seem, in fact, that, currently, all references cite independent third-party sources.
 * Some, indeed, are organizations and publications that are established authorities in the subject's professional fields of poetry and art, including: The Academy of American Poets, The Poetry Foundation, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Poets & Writers, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, and others.
 * As for the "notability" of the subject, the references authoritatively support the fact the subject is:
 * (1) the recipient of Walt Whitman Award (which the Library of Congress lists as a US literary distinction); (2) the award was judged by John Ashbery, whose (highly vetted) Wikipedia entry begins: "Ashbery is considered the most influential American poet of his time"; and (3) news of the award appeared the day it was announced in mainstream press organs with extremely broad readership, such as the Associated Press and the Huffington Post.
 * Thanks to your helpful comments, I believe we are left with this question:
 * Are there *any* *non*-independent, *non*-third-party, *non*-verifiable references among the entry's total of 31 citations?
 * If these exists and may be pointed out, it would be most helpful in continuing to improve the article.
 * Grateful for this help. Appreciate your experience, time, and input. Thank you! @Rocinante108 Rocinante108 (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[ reply]
 * To be clear, I did not "confirm the existence, authority, independence, and correct citation of all 31 references". My edit was more mechanical, focusing on the form of the citations, and I did no work in verifying the suitability of any of the references. Masterzora (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

-

Now directing same question to any and all here, at the entry's talk page:

Are any current references *not* properly cited to independent, third-party sources?

What other changes may need to be made to fully address and correct for the complaints flagged in the current yellow banner?

So appreciate your time and help! Rocinante108 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)