User talk:Mattierg

Welcome!
Hello, Mattierg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Adrian Parr
Thanks for your note. It was tagged for improvement for a number of reasons that are outlined in the tag itself. Each issue includes a link that might make for a good starting-point for resolving those issues. One of the biggest problems, initially, was that the article was created by someone with an obvious conflict of interest. Obviously, this is something subsequent editors should be careful of.

Having a look, the sourcing is still horrible, with some sections sourced to single words without any explanation of what that means or whether the source would be considered reliable or not. The article itself reads a bit like a resume or a LinkedIn profile which isn't really what Wikipedia is about. I think what the article needs is some attention from truly independent editors who don't know the subject personally or in real life. If that's something you can provide then that would be very worthwhile. Cheers, Stalwart 111  06:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I do know her, but believe that I could potentially provide a [more] impartial edit, as I do not know her well. Ultimately I am interested in cleaning up the page because it is being referred to as a source of educational information to others- by others- (colleagues, etc) in the academic world. I am new to wiki edits- so I am trying to learn the ropes about appropriate content as well as technical/formatting issues.


 * The problem is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on what can be verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't exist as some form of academic LinkedIn. If the claims/content/activities have received coverage in reliable sources then they can be included. At the moment, the article includes a bunch of content for which there are no sources at all. A good start would be to remove much of what is there, rather than to add more unsourced content. Stalwart 111  04:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)