Talk:Paul Staveley O'Duffy

Tone
The article reads like a promotional piece written by a self-interested party, which it apparently is. While it's far from the worst such in Wikipedia, the article could be improved by removing the unsourced opinion and general puffery.Studerby (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing puffery is my life's work; I'll put this article right near the top of my list and try to sniff out the puffs and POV. Yes, it reads like a press release, but most of the claims should be easy to verify and reference. Much of it feels like a cut and paste from some existing promo, but a quick google didn't reveal any obvious plagiarism. Perhaps he or his management have had a go at creating a wiki article for him, particularly as there's no other wiki work from that particular IP address? To be fair, and assuming good faith, the revision replaced a fairly dismal four-line article and at least gives us somewhere to start. Little grape (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Started work on this; couldn't find anything that was an obvious fabrication, so I think it's just management puffery rather than a catalogue of fibs. Added some references, took out lots of opinions and gossippy stuff. Can't find anything supporting the 'run over by a car' stuff - can I suggest the editor who put that in comes back and gives us some supporting information? I'll pick this up again next week and do a bit more tidying. Little grape (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done; removed templates. Again, would be helpful if original major contributor returned and helped with more cites, but at least all the music cites confirmed now.Little grape (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)