Talk:Solomon P. Sharp

message: Apparently this article has been POV-tagged before, but someone saw fit to remove it because there was "no discussion on the talk page." However an article as blatantly biased and unencyclopedic as this one scarcely needs furtehr justification for the POV tag. It's full of peacock terms and utterly one-sided, lavishing praise on its subject in almost every sentence. This sentence early in the article is representative of the whole: "No more instructive or interesting life, no nobler or more elevating character, no brighter intellect and no more unselfish devotion to duty to family and to friends, can be found in the history of Kentucky's Lawyers and Lawmakers than is exemplified in the rehearsal of the life of Solomon P. Sharp." For goodness' sake! This article requires a complete rewrite. Richard75 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what are you waiting for then? A formal invitation? Dwain 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Dwain 22:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Was he born in 1787 or 1780? This website has it as 1780. I have left it at 1787 for now as some sites give that date, but if anyone knows of a positively reliable source then please check. Richard75 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The website above is the only one I have seen that gives a birth year of 1780. If I find any more sources with that date, I'll add a footnote. Acdixon (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Thanks for helping to make this article better. Dwain (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
Comments
* The Anne Lee source is lacking a publisher. I'm not sure that this is the best source for the information, it might be better as an external link, given that the one thing it is sourcing is also backed up by another source.
**I've added a publisher. It's not that the other source backs up the claim; it's that it backs up one part of the claim while the Lee source backs up the other. Namely, the Lee source mentions the $1000 reward offered by the Frankfort trustees; the Cooke source mentions the $2000 in private funds. I'm not sure the publisher helps make the argument that this is necessarily a reliable source, but one might argue that this is not information that is likely to be challenged. I've never liked that vague criterion anyway. If I need to do more work to address this issue, let me know. Acdixon (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 22:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: took out the links in the convert template (It's the lk=on variable that links the units) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: A very nice article. As I mentioned above, some more context on the background would be good, but isn't necessary for GA status. If you're going to take the article on to FAC, it will be needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Making progress. When the sources don't allow you to go into detail, it won't hold back an article from GA. THe idea of the comprehensive requirement is that it be comprehensive in terms of the sources available, not that we write about things that just don't exist in the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How are things coming? I know you're busy with RMJ, but just wanted to check in here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adopted your suggestion regarding the mysterious military rank of SPS. I think that's the last unresolved issue above. If there are more things, let me know. Hoped to get this done this morning before work, but in addition to SPS and RMJ, I was trying to finish my expansion of Thomas Metcalfe in time to qualify it for DYK. I should know better than to put that many balls in the air at once. Thanks for your patience. If this wraps up SPS, I'm going to try and focus on polishing up RMJ with the Meyer source and make another FA run with that. Acdixon (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Passing it now, looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: This article is under discussion at the On Wikipedia blog, where they have pointed out a substantial number of errors and omissions in the article if anyone is interested. HH Nobody (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the author of the blog post were as diligent about seeing why these facts might be in error as he is trying to show that they are in error, he or she might notice that the source that many of his contentions are sourced to (Schoenbachler's Murder & madness: the myth of the Kentucky tragedy) was published nearly a year after this article became FA. Not to mention, if he or she were so concerned about the correctness of the article, he or she could have been bold and corrected it, with sources cited, probably in less time than it took to write the blog post itself. Since I'm assuming that's not going to happen, I'll add the Schoenbachler book as "Further Reading" and try to get around to getting it on interlibrary loan and updating the article when I have time. (No promises, though; that source is almost 400 pages!) It's obvious to me that the blog post author has a problem with Wikipedia, not so much the accuracy of the Sharp article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • iki=wikipedia&lang=en  count) 14:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Dixon, I hope you will be happy to find out that there is (probably) not a need for interlibrary loan.  An extensive preview of the Schoebachler book is available at Google books link, which seems to cover most of the pages the blog author discusses. Personally, though, I think it's a little wrong of you to speculate about the blog author's intentions it obvioulsy took him/her quite a bit of time to dig through the article and sources to do that work.  Regardless of his/her motivation, Wikipedia benefits. 92.4.26.10 (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Discussion at On Wikipedia