Talk:Paul Shambroom

"Unreferenced"
In this edit, Alanraywiki added a source for a single assertion and removed the template saying that the article lacked any sourcing.

Strictly speaking, Alan was right. The template asserted that the quantity of sourcing was zero; the quantity was now above zero; ergo, the assertion in the template was now wrong. However, this article embodies hundreds of assertions, of which just one is now sourced. The percentage of sourcing is tiny, and so the choice is between (a) generalizing slightly and (b) drearily adding "unreferencedsection" and "fact" tags. I opted for the former. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article definitely needs more than one reference. I probably should have replaced the "unreferenced" tag with Template:Refimprove, but I'm fine with either one. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. &para; As of yesterday, this "article" was a poorly formatted CV with the addition of two short and very poorly written sentences to the top. I've since merged the latter into a single short sentence. However, it cites Parr and Badger's book. I happen to have a copy, and sure enough this does have a favorable write-up for one of Shambroom's books, which elevates Shambroom into a select minority of photographers. Shambroom certainly merits an article worth reading; I hope that somebody will create one. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely a WP:N photographer, but y'all were right to complain about the resume. Turns out that resumes are copyrightable, we can't use that part of the article, and cutting it out leaves an article that at least more clearly needs to be expanded. I'll check if this article has been added to all the WikiProjects.  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  04:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)