Talk:Janet Burroway

Burroway flagged
This is Janet Burroway. I was dismayed to see that someone has flagged my Wikipedia article as being prejudiced in my favor and more detailed than some readers would find interesting. (I was glad, a little surprised, to see that someone has added to the bibliography three of the four books I published in 2014.) The complaints seem to be made on the same day, so probably by the same person. The article was originally written by someone who had interviewed me for a magazine, but not a personal friend. I don't at all mind if the article is made more "neutral" by someone at Wikipedia, but it is alarming and shaming to be publicly flagged in this way. Can you tell me how I can get the complaints removed? Thanks. Jburroway (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Janet Burroway
 * Please don't take it personally. It's just a method of alerting readers and editors that he article needs work. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the tagging, but it will be a huge undertaking to fix, too much for me to take on. The article really should be rewritten from better sources. It shouldn't be difficult to find news articles about Burroway, and I'd expect the preferred high-quality academic articles are available.
 * If you want, the article could be substantially reduced in size fairly easily, given the sourcing is mostly janetburroway.com and a Curriculum Vita that's not identified further.
 * It might be best wait to see what other editors respond to your requests. A next step would be to review WP:COI if you want to edit the article itself, or review WP:BLP and then request help at WP:BLPN. I recommend WP:BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * TeriEmbrey removed the tags without fixing the issues. I'll re-add them and throw in a blp sources for good measure. I'll also remove content based on clearly inappropriate sources, like an "unpublished interview" or a personal email. Huon (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was still working on this. Maybe, you could help fix the issues instead of just retagging. TeriEmbrey (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tags shouldn't be removed until the problems are resolved. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * TeriEmbrey, I was about to do so and just ran into an edit conflict with you. I'll wait until you're done and then see whether I agree with the tag removal or whether more work is necessary. Huon (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unpublished sources have been removed. References to published sources have been added.  Peacock language has been removed. Is there anything I am missing?  While more work can probably be done to this article, I think the major issues have been resolved. TeriEmbrey (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed more peacock language ("indispensable"?) including several paragraphs of "critical acclaim" based on sales blurbs whose sources were not given in enough detail to be verifiable. I'm pretty sure at least one instance of a promotional falsehood remains, and there are several instances where sources are misattributed - after I fixed several other such instances. Huon (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Much improved. Thank you! --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)