User talk:G9m9brown/Theybie

= Reagle's review =

, great start!

Is this intended as a complete replacement? If so, I can imagine the removal of the "Criticism" section as well as some of your sentences could prompt concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL tone. (I included a few templates highlighting possible issues.)

If the intention is to replace the "Criticism" section, perhaps you could so with with a "Controversy" section, which would discuss this as a contentious issue explicitly. Remember, Wikipedians are serving the reader with an accurate representation of what prominent and reputable sources have addressed about the topic -- whether right or wrong. If there is criticism or controversy, readers will want to be informed about that too, (in WP:BALANCE with what reputable sources have noted in due WP:WEIGHT.)

Achieving this is hard, but good heuristics include:


 * Could someone tell what your particular view is from reading your contributions? If yes, you're not there yet.
 * Would someone with whom you disagree nonetheless conclude you've represented their beliefs accurately? If no, you're not there yet.

If there is in fact, no discussion of criticism or controversy to be found in reputable sources, then the existing Criticism section should be discussed on the talk page as possibly violating WP:NOR and not using reputable WP:Verifiable sources.

So, please look over your prose once more with this in mind, speak with me if you like, and proceed with porting your content over.

-Reagle (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)