Talk:Ellen Dannin

Removing the "This article has multiple issues" template
MathPerson here. I recently made a number of changes to this article.

I believe that the "This article has multiple issues" template can now be removed because the issues raised there have been addressed.

Two issues are raised in this template: (1) more citations are needed (2) the neutrality of this article is disputed.

Regarding (1): I have recently inserted a number of citations that document claims made in the article.

Regarding (2): Although no examples were cited, I did notice a few bits of wording that could be regarded as non-neutral. I have recently removed the examples of non-neutral language that I could find.

If anyone has either (1) examples of statements in this article that need citations, or (2) examples of non-neutral language, please enter them below. I'd be happy to fix them up. (Or, you can!) Otherwise, if nobody has any objections, I will plan to remove the template in a week or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathPerson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just passing by, but there's much that isn't sourced, and neutrality may well still be an issue. 'Research interests' may easily be interpreted as a promotion on behalf of a single book, with largely unsourced descriptions of its content, and whose notability hasn't been established. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right: The largest pararaph in this section is basically laudatory reviews of the book. I suggest that I remove the reviews of the book, and shorten the summary of what the book covers. My goal is to make this page neutral enough to remove the "POV" (non-neutrality) complaints. So, while I'm at it, is there anything else that is non-neutral? MathPerson (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the education and career sections lack inline cites, and I'm skeptical about the use of a subject's resume as a source, in this case for college achievements that probably don't merit mention here anyway. Strictly speaking that's a sourcing rather than a POV issue, but the one bleeds into the other a bit. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll try to dig up cites for education and career. I think the subject's CV is acceptable because it would have been gone over with a fine-tooth comb by the Penn State search committee before she was offered the job there. MathPerson (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I just made many revisions and some updates and added more citations. Most changes are in "Research Interests", to (1) de-emphasize the book, (2) add more info about her other writings. As far as I can ascertain, all "opinions" are removed. A few statements still refer to Dannin's resume, which, as I've noted, has been vetted by others; moreover, "Living persons may publish material about themselves" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source) Is there anything that is still "non-neutral" ? MathPerson (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, seeing no objections or further suggested changes, I'll remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathPerson (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)