Talk:Peter Gaehtgens

Issues?
It would be helpful to know the issues in order to address them. T om ea s y T C 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't referenced, has POV issues, has notability issues, needs cleanup, needs to be improved to meet Wikipedia standards, and about five other things.  Enigma  message 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you see further limitations, mention them. It will help other editors to contribute in a constructive way. It's always a good idea to be specific, when one sees shortcomings. Wikipedia knows the nice To-Do tool, but that might be overkill for this stub-like article. T om ea s y T C 16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I could tag it with all the relevant tags, but as a courtesy, I condensed them into one. If I added all the tags, you'd barely be able to see the article for the tags.  Enigma  message 16:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that your initial tag without a single hint on the talk page as to what you object does not help anyone. The few you mentioned is of course already enough to start with. I can only suggest this, but for myself I find it a good policy to give at least one specific to any generic tag I add. Otherwise, I find them only disturbing. T om ea s y T C 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Next time you create an article that needs to be tagged, I'll try to remember to add all the tags instead of condensing them. :)  Enigma  message 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * BTW, is referencing still a problem? Which statement sounds POV? T om ea s y T C 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Referencing looks fine now. The second half of it is POV. "Gaethgens was a leading proponent of the country-wide introduction of tuition fees at German universities. It was for this reason that he was heavily criticized by the public. ) On November 2, 2005, during the last year of his tenure,[2] this criticism culminated in an attack by four protesting students who smashed two cakes in his face amid a plenary session at the University of Tübingen.[3]"  Enigma  message 17:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree to the first sentence you quoted. "leading proponent" needs to be backed up by sources or removed. The second sentence, however, isn't that mere quoting of facts? T om ea s y T C 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)