Talk:Sea Turtle Restoration Project

Article issues
I just did a technical cleanup on the article. It basically cites and echoes STRP and its affiliated websites. All these claims need to cite reliable sources or notability is in question. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just did a major edit to make the pages more neutral and to clean up some of the grammatical and spelling concerns. I hope this allow the tag to be removed though it may need a little more work. Leatherbackshore (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Specific issues
Can you give examples of third-party sources that would be appropriate for citing regarding an organization - as it is about the organization I would think information from the organization itself would be the most reliable and accurate. Also can you be more specific of parts of the article that you see as outside of the "nuetral point of view" aspect and provide examples on how to improve that. Can you also highlight what the grammatical, spelling errors you see are. (LBST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatherbacks (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the issues: 1. Sources: The best guidance for third-party sources is the Reliable sources guideline. In short, use citations from professional news outlets and reputable publishers (newspapers, news sites, books, etc.) as opposed to primary and self-published sources. Furthermore, Verifiability policy says that self-published sourced should only be used as long as they are not unduly self-serving, and they cannot by themselves establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. 2. Neutrality: The article in its current form is a slightly watered down version of the STRP's websites. An article based on the STRP's view of itself is obviously unbalanced, bordering on propaganda. 3. Copyediting: The copyedit tag covers style and tone as well as grammar. I resisted using the   tag. In Wikipedia, loaded words and phrases like "dilemma," "plight," and "accomplishments" are problematic. The "Key accomplishments" section is repetition in a style all too common in the classic hard sell. Its bold and bullet-point style needs a cleanup at the very least. Finally, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Would including other references resolve this issue. If not can you give me more specific edits of what would solve this for you.

When compiling this article I did become familiar with all the above and also looked at about 10 more other pages on non-profit organizations and used them as a similar template none of which had these flags. This included using the heading "Key Accomplishments". [LBST] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.190.191 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)