User talk:Maggie3027/Sandbox

Hi Evelyn,

I've had a chance to take a quick look at this re-write and I have a few basic comments that I wanted to run by you before we get too deep into this. The first is with regard to general format. In general the article seems to be organized into sections on each of Woodward's books. I think it is fine to discuss each of his books and the critical reception of each, but this should not be how the article is orgnanized as a whole. We need to keep in mind that this article is intended to be a biography as one would find it in an encyclopedia, and should be organized as such. Most biographies on Wiki that I have seen, and all of those that have received high ratings, are organized in chronological order going through the individual's career. For example, the article would begin (that is, begin after the introductory paragraph and TOC) with childhood and early career, and then move in chronological order through the various notable points in his career. In this way his reporting on watergate would come well before his reporting on the Clinton and Bush administrations. Once his career has been covered, then there could be some sections on his acclaims and criticisms, books, etc.

Also, I wanted to mention a little bit about the use of quotes showing Woodward's acclaim. Of course it is important to show in the article that Woodward is well respected by his peers, but there should be a specific space for that in the article and it does not have to be reinforced thrughout, I am speaking particularly with regard to the introdutory paragraph. The article as a whole needs to adhere pretty strictly to a nuetral and factual tone, and over use of quotations in acclaim of Woodward can make the article itself seem to acclaim him.

In general I think the article is well written, though it is obvious you are writing from a journalistic background. I mean no disrespect at all to the journalistic style, but it does lend itself to a certain prose that promotes the use of vivid description. Such description can be wonderful, but unfortunately would be ill placed in an encyclopedia. Here in Wiki we look more highly on the writing style of the lawyer: drab, dull, straight to the point, and very well referenced.

Before taking another look at this article, I would recommend you review these Wiki guidelines: WP:LEAD, WP:Live, and WP:STYLE. Hope that helps, and I will be happy to look at this again once you have made some amendments. (Morethan3words (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi Morethan3words,


 * Thanks for the constructive comments. I've read through the Wiki guidelines and I'm going to start going through the article to make your suggested changes. I've looked around at some of the other entries that are bios of living people, and I see what you mean.  Are there any specific entries you would hold up as good examples?


 * My other question, after reading the guidelines you suggested, is (once we have reached a consensus on a revised, neutral entry) would it make the most sense to ask an administrator to delete the current Bob Woodward article and replace it with what we come up with here? All this revision does stem out of the "unsourced and negative in tone" nature of the current page, after all.  Thanks for your help, Maggie3027 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a bad thought, but unfortunately I don't think any administrator would do it even if we did ask. The reason being the necessity to preserve the history of the article, which ties into Wiki's desire to keep everything as transparent as possible. However, we certainly can delete all of the text and replace it with our own text from this sandbox, that will keep the history of the article, while changing it to what we have.


 * The only reason I suggest it is this graph in the bio of living person guidelines you suggested I read: "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." I'm all about transparency, though, and keeping the article history makes sense to me too. Maggie3027 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As for suggested articles, if you go to WP:BIO you should be able to find a list of biographical articles that have achieved featured article status. Ultimately, the goal of every wikipedian is to get their article to FA status. That's hard to do quickly, we'll have to get it to good article status first, and that is why I am suggesting a peer review once we put our changes into the article itself. These reviews tend to concentrate more on formatting and style than actual content, since few wikipedians happen to also be experts on the subject we have chosen. (Morethan3words (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks, I'll check those out. I've made the major changes you mentioned, putting the entry in chronological order and taking out a number of the quotes I suspect you had in mind.  Let me know what you think! Maggie3027 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, one other minor thought, at some point we are going to need more pictures. Not something we need to really worry about right now, but something to keep in mind. I don't know a lot about this, but I know that Wiki has some pretty stringent rules about using pictures that will not infringe anyone's copyright. So, as we write/edit, we should keep in mind what kinds of pictures might be helpful or applicable to the section we are reviewing. (Morethan3words (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Sounds good. I'm not familiar with that side of adding/using content, so I may leave that largely up to you and others, but I'm happy to learn and help.  Maggie3027 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Introducing an administrator
I thought I would drop a note here to let you know that I am observing the rewrite, and to clarify a number of points. The first is that the old version cannot be deleted: it seems that you have copied the initial version of the page from the existing article, and the content license that Wikipedia uses requires us to maintain a paper trail for attribution.

For this exact reason, using this page may require a history merge, for which you require an administrator (me) - don't worry about the technical aspects of it (unless you're interested), but it does mean that you need to ask me or another admin before moving this copy into the article space so that we can "dump" it on top of the existing edition. Finally, a point that may not need reiterating: Evelyn, you need to be aware of WP:COI, and it does seem you are working within its boundaries - I would prefer, however, if more eyes were on this rewrite for the sake of appearance if nothing else? Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks so much for clearing that up! Thanks also for the link to the COI guidelines. I hope have lived up to them, and I will certainly continue to. That said, now that a fuller, better sourced version of the article is here in the sandbox, I'd really rather take a back seat while more experienced Wikipedians help make it the best it can be. I'm dedicated to working with editors to make this a neutral and accurate piece, so I've been somewhat distressed by the lack of other eyes as well. Please let me know what I can do to help without overstepping my bounds in this area. Maggie3027 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to check in and see if anyone has had more of a chance to look over this draft of the entry. If no one has any more changes, Fritzpoll, I'd like to move forward by asking for the history merge, etc. that you mention above. My impression was that both you and Morethan3words felt it needed more work, though, so please advise me on what should be done next. Maggie3027 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Evelyn, yes, I'm sorry this one seems to have slipped through the cracks. I will take another look at this, I do recall having some more thoughts. Unfortunately, I'm a little busy this week but I will do my best to get to it over the weekend. I apologize again for not getting on this sooner. (Morethan3words (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

COI and moving forward
Hi Evelyn. I have now gone through and read this article in some detail and I must be frank that I have some serious concerns with regard to conflict of interest issues and keeping this article within a neutral point of view. At first glance your rewrite here is much better organized than the current article, but it has also severely marginalized the criticisms of Woodward's work. For example, I note that your re-write of the section on Ed Gray's criticisms of Woodward near totally mischaracterizes Mr. Gray's intended criticism. As you have it written, it seems as though Gray were simply criticizing Woodward for some sort of filing error, and of course if one read's Mr. Gray's work this is certainly not the intent of his criticism. If Mr. Woodward believes this was a simple filing error, then we will need to see some sort of varifiable public statement in which Mr. Woodward indicates as much.

In addition, and perhaps more troublingly, it seems there is now no mention of any criticisms by John Dean, Martin Dardis, J. Bradford DeLong or David Frum, and the account of criticism by Anthony Lewis seems to have also been rather substantially altered.

Also with regard to Watergate, I have noticed that your re-write consistently implies that the reporting of Woodward and Bernstein was a proximate cause of Nixon's resignation, or at least that the government investigations were initiated in part because of the reporting done by Woodward and Bernstein. While this may be consistent with Mr. Redford's theatrical account of Mr. Woodward's book, it simply does not hold up to the facts. The mere fact the one of Mr. Woodward's primary sources, Mark Felt, was the very man in charge of the FBI's investigation shows that there is nothing that Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bernstein knew about the Watergate burglaries or subsequent coverup that was not already known by federal investigators. To be sure, the Post's reporting did very much to put the scandal in the public's eye, but it did not substantially contribute to the chain of events that lead to Nixon's resignation.

I admit that I am partial to the facts surrounding Watergate, and thus am not as well versed on say, the Plame affair or other aspects of this article. However, if your treatment of Woodward's involvement in Watergate is at all indicative of how you have treated these other key areas of his career, then I fear there is no defibrilator that can revive this re-write from a COI and POV denunciation.

However, I think there could, and should, be another way to approach this. I agree that the current article on Mr. Woodward needs substantial work, and that is a project I am not willing or able to take on myself. Therefore, I am willing to try and attract other editors to this article in an effort to improve it, and during such time I am certain people would welcome your comments. I think I can advertise this article in a few places and in a manner that will attract other editors, and in that way we can improve it to a place that you and I both find acceptable.

I do hope you are okay with my proposal Evelyn, please do not take any of the above personally, I know you have put a lot of work into this and I appreciate that, I am just trying to find the best way to approach this that will produce as good an article as we can get under the circumstances. Best, Morethan3words (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little busy today and tomorrow, but I will get around to looking at this again shortly Fritzpoll (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)