User talk:NoahX76

Sources for Daniel Sheehan article
Hello. The sources you added to Daniel Sheehan (attorney) didn't support the attached sentences. Sheehan's bio page did not mention anything about an upcoming book, only that he had previously taught a course on Kennedy, while the Coast to Coast link did not mention anything relevant that I could see. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, meaning that claims must be directly supported in most cases.

I have also restored the advertising and sources tags. The article uses too many peacock words, and sourcing is present, but not optimal. The "Cases" section, for example, has a "[1]" at the end, but that's not a proper citation, and it's unclear what the intended source is. I invite you to look over the above info on Wikipedia (especially WP:BLP), and then raise any concerns on the article's talk page: Talk:Daniel Sheehan (attorney). Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, I am looking in the current form of the page and I am unable to identify any "peacock" words at this time, I am not sure if someone removed them or what. Daniel is referred to as a Constitutional attorney for Public interest cases, is that what the problem is? I do not know how to say these things differently. Would you please advise me on how I could improve the language on this page and be able to remove the "reads like an ad" designation?

Also, I ahve found an online archive of old "Christic Institute" material including articles in well circulated, prominent newspapers and court documents about Daniel Sheehan's career, if I input links to these sourced articles, will that work as citations or do I have to somehow source them on Weikipedia? Thank you for considring my questions. NoahX76 (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The article does have some promotional problems, but I don't remember exactly why I said "peacock words", as I'm not seeing them now. If you have sources for the Christic Institute, you should first consider if they belong at Christic Institute. First I would fix the source problems and then the advertising problems will be much easier. All content on the Romero Institute, such as The Lakota People's Law Project, is unsourced. Without a source it's impossible to know how significant something is, so including it at all can appear to be advertising. It may be factual, but that's not the only criteria for inclusion, does that make sense? I've responded to your comments on the article's talk page, also. Grayfell (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)