Talk:Rosalind Hall

Article Improvement
ChristensenMJ: I didn't want to start an edit war and decided to take things to the talk page. I noticed that my article organization from earlier today was reverted. I'm setting out on a project to improve this article (I think we can all agree that it needs a lot of work). I don't get lots of time to work on Wikipedia, but am hoping to make a number of expansions and improvements to this article over the next few days. I do think that this article merits at least some subdividing (and certainly will need some when important additions are made). As my time is limited, I certainly would welcome any help you'd like to give. I've been starting with researching more sources to address the maintenance tag and get it off of there, but also hope to add prose. I will wait until that prose is added before adding sections again, but do hope you won't oppose me adding them again at that point.

By the way, I have declared a conflict of interest here, but don't believe it should be a problem. It is true that I know Ros, but I'm acting here as a Wikipedian who sees an article in desperate need of improvement. Hopefully any bias will be kept well in check by focusing on much better sourcing. Kenmelken (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your note and efforts, Kenmelken. I think it's great to work on improving the article, as you have explained.  As you noted from my edit summary, I still think that an article that is only a relatively few sentences/paragraphs doesn't need any/many section breaks.  If there are notable items that are added that would significantly change the length, not just strengthen some of the non-referenced materials, etc., then it may be warranted.  Thanks again for your efforts, and for the important COI disclosure. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Today during my lunch break I added some fairly large and significant additions to the article. There was nothing previously really detailing any career highlights during her tenure at BYU, so I've added those which I can support with good sources. I still have more to add likely tomorrow, but I do think at this point the article is large enough to merit at least some division/organization. I'm thinking we take the first sentence as a lede (which could also use a little work), then label the next four paragraphs as "Education and Career" and the final three smaller paragraphs as "Recognition". Any objections to that? Kenmelken (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I just glanced briefly at the new content added.  Now, with being clear that I don't have any feeling, or view, that I "own" this article.....I would suggest that some of the wording and tone be scaled back some.  Work to keep it more "factual" and "encyclopedia-like." This might include removing words like "prolific" and "high number" - particularly with the added COI aspect, just so it's more npov and/or objective, rather than as subjective.  That type of wording is usually removed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)