Talk:Kenneth L. Williams

Speedy Deletion?
We link to this page from several articles on snakes, do the links themselves make the article notable or do we want those links to remain red? WilliamKF (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a forum post that purports that he is an expert on Lampropeltis triangulum:



His Systematics and Natural History of the American Milk Snake, Lampropeltis triangulum is cited 13 times according to google. WilliamKF (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The links themselves don't make him notable. Have a look at WP:PROF, and try incorporating some of the criteria on there into the article. I won't delete it for now, because I think there's an excellent chance that you can get at least an assertion of notability in there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. WilliamKF (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He co-authored this paper discovering a new snake species: JOURNAL OF THE OHIO HERPETOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Volume 5, Number 3, 1966 A New Snake (Geophis) from Mexico Hobart M. Smith and Kenneth L. Williams. WilliamKF (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's helpful (although I have no idea how frequently new snakes are discovered, so I'm a little lacking in context to evaluate that). Has that discovery or any of Williams' other work, been written up by people independent of him?  That's what would be really helpful.
 * Incidentally, this page is still listed for speedy deletion, which means that another admin may delete it. If one does, let me know on my talk page, and I'll take it up with them and hopefully get it undeleted until you can finish what you're doing now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a cite to Williams that states: Kenneth Williams in his landmark work, The Systematics and Natural History of the American Milk Snake . WilliamKF (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a cite to the same work in Journal of Herpetology v. 34 no. 1 (March 2000) p. 139-42 WilliamKF (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Definately shouldn't be speedy deleted. It satisfies all the notability criteria. When I first read the article there was a lot of setences starting with "he": he did this, he did that. I've made some start with the dates like "In 1999 he/Kenneth did this and this" and then you put something like "This/it/that/name of sujbect basicaly was notable because" It's always best to introduce something before you talk about it. For example it says about him getting his degree at a university (forgotten the name). It makes it seem as though the reader already knows he's got a degree e.g. "he got his degree at the Royal Science University" should be "He got a degree in science at the Royal Science University". Something even better would be to say "At the age of 18 Kenneth was accepted into the Royal Science University. He studied Science there for 5 years. In 1957 he graduated with a masters degree in Science". That was just some tips on how to write about people. Also there are a lot of red links. I doubt that articles will be written about them (these species might be incooroprated into a list article), but still I doubt it. The problem with too many red links is that it distracts the reader and they should probably be removed. Not all, but when there's a list of them all, they should all be removed. On the whole the referencing of it is good. The article is nearly all about his work and not about him, There should be more information on his life. If enough information if gathered then an infobox could be included and a picture would be fantastic. bsrboy (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
In January 2008 KurtRaschke placed the A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. template on this article. It has had much revision since then, although a great deal of it is still by WilliamKF, who may have a conflict of interest. I have reviewed the current article, and all-and-all it seems to be pretty neutral in tone, and to reasonably comply with the manual of style. I am inclined to remove the coi template. Are there any specific current concerns? --Bejnar (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no one has yet to find any issues and the only conflict of interest is that my user name happens to share some characters with the article in question, I am removing the tag. Feel free to readd if you have a real concern other than the similarity of my username.  (Note this is one minor contribution to wikipedia that I have made, clearly not an account set up just to work on this article.)  WilliamKF (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth L. Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611083916/http://vintage.nsula.edu/newsarchive/emerit01.htm to http://vintage.nsula.edu/newsarchive/emerit01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)