Talk:Jeremy Iversen

Neutrality issues
I've edited down much of the original state of the article, but I'm concerned at how non-neutral much of this was. Most of it, especially the section for High School Confidential was nothing but an Iversen love-fest. A few of the reviews weren't nearly as positive as they were claimed to be in the original edits of the sections and many are only available through Iversen's site, which makes them unusable. Why? Because we have no way of knowing if they've been edited down, paraphrased, or otherwise altered from their original state. The same thing goes for the links to Amazon. We don't know what was edited, as they frequently paraphrase their reviews or otherwise edit them. Even when they don't, it's common for the publisher or author to edit them to try to make everything look as good as possible. Not everyone does this, but it's common enough to where we can't use the site as a source. As far as the star rating of the customer reviews, we can't use those as sources because they're not only easy to manipulate, but they're by "average Joes and Janes" and aren't considered to be a RS. I removed some of the primary sources and trivial sources such as the S&S pages and the IMDb links. They're largely unnecessary and aren't seen as reliable sources that show notability. I left the one link to Iversen's page since that's really the only link that we have that actually discusses him. Most of the other links are about the books and the controversy that surrounds them. I'm going to keep this one on my watch list. It's been a while since the IP that added the non-NPOV info edited, but I'm concerned about this being used as a form of promotion for Iversen. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)