Talk:Michele Oka Doner

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michele Oka Doner. 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/20140520005113/http://www.dieudonne.org/main.cfm?chID=2&inc=press-detail&ID=154 to http://www.dieudonne.org/main.cfm?chID=2&inc=press-detail&ID=154
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520004608/http://dieudonne.org/PR/DD_OkaDoner_AdamFuss_interview.pdf to http://dieudonne.org/PR/DD_OkaDoner_AdamFuss_interview.pdf

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) 10:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Article cleanup
This article needs a bit of pruning and cleaning - several of the references are stale, there's a lot of clutter and extraneous information, and in general the thing seems to a bit too promotional, with laudatory quotes sprinkled throughout. Over the next few days I'll take a stab at tightening it up a bit. Comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add that a substantial percentage of the edits to this article have come from a succession of single purpose accounts, which may account for the departures from encyclopedic tone. I've noted the abundance of quotes - in many instances, simple descriptive prose, with a cite to the relevant article or articles, would be much more useful to the naive reader, and would have less of a promotional flavor to them.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed a couple of commercial links from the publications section, a dead link, and two or three Catalogs, the latter as more befitting a CV than an encyclopedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, this article has been pretty heavily edited by SPAs over the years. I also noted a link back to this article on the subject's website.  These two things together suggest (though of course don't prove) that many of the edits to this article have been made by people whose first interest may be in promoting the subject, or burnishing her reputation, or creating a kind of prose CV for her rather than writing an objective, neutral and informative encyclopedia article.  If that is the case, by and large it's not a massive problem for this article.  The subject is highly accomplished, and has over the course of her career garnered a lot of attention and praise; and unlike a lot of articles that are edited by associates or others affiliated with the subject, this one doesn't try to make a lot out of a little, or (worse), something out of nothing.  It's more a matter of tone and emphasis.  The article in places reads a little like a book flap; and in others, like a laundry list of accomplishments, and needs to be objectified some.  My aim with my edits is to reshape the article into something a bit more directly informative, using declarative sentences to describe the what / where / when of the subject's life and career, with one or two quotes to reflect critical reception of one or two specific undertakings.  I welcome comments or discussion on these issues.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)