Talk:Mary Roach

message: Hey, this time Mary Roach is about an encyclopedic-worthy writer, not an American Idol waif, so let's keep this one, eh? ~ Reaverdrop 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be renamed Mary Roach (author) then, with this as a disambiguation? CrazyC83 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the Mary Roach of American Idol fame(?) isn't noteworthy enough to warrant an article.  Let's keep this the way it is. -Vontafeijos 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ----
The author blurb for "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife" lists Mary Roach as living in Oakland, not San Francisco. Is there any documentation of her living in San Francisco? ~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.112.87 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Roach|Previous AfD]] was for a different person

message: Hello anyone looking at this,
Just wanted to give anyone a heads up, that I'll be working on the edit of this page. This will be my first wiki project. After seeing her give a lecture in my area recently, I decided to try to freshen up her space here. Also, please note that I will be having an experienced editor advising me all throughout the process. 
Thanks,
Misschrisparker (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edits 

message: I don't want to start messing this article around when it's just been DYK'd (and I don't know the subject so don't want to start editing this myself) but I think some attention needs to be paid to the tone, particularly in the section on Style. To me it reads in places like a publisher's blurb; things like "takes the reader with her every step of the way," shouldn't really be in an encyclopaedia article unless they are a quotation. We might think she's great, but it shouldn't be said in what is apparently our voice. It reads more like a personal essay or commentary if we do that, if not actually promotional. Similarly, the bit starting "While some people might not see any connection between the topics" seems to provide a great deal of speculation about what these "some people" might think or see, but who are they? I don't mean to denigrate the editors who've obviously put hard work into this, but I do feel it needs toning down a bit so that it reads more neutrally. Keep the positive nice stuff in the quotes and let them speak for themselves. I hope this helps. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So I get what your saying, just after it went live I made edits to the style section to fix the tone a little. The choice of words comes straight from the sources that are cited in that paragraph. I chose the words as carefully as I could, but they are just slightly paraphrased version of what was said in the interviews that are cited. I'll try to make some adjustments as soon as I can go back and re-watch/listen to the articles. Mary Roach herself, thought it sounded neutral! But I can see how she might not catch the tone since it is about herself. Thanks for the note and polite tone! This is my first wiki page. :) Misschrisparker (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the nice response. I do understand your point - it's just that I think it's important we remember that we don't say "X is great" as if that is in Wikipedia's voice. That was my worry about a couple of those phrases.  It's fine if we say "X is perceived as great" and give refs and quotes to support it - that's fine if we are reporting what a WP:RS said. It only becomes a problem when we appear to adopt their language and say it in our own voice. And no, MR herself is probably not, with all due respect to her, a sound reference for the neutrality of this article! But don't get downhearted, this is a very good effort at the start of an editing career, so well done, and don't let the comments get you down - they are all meant to help. :) best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: That all makes sense. I'll take another stab at it. I think I'm starting to understand that WP has many distinct rules that make editing so much different from general essay/paper writing. :) The cliched phrase about learning to walk before you can run keeps popping into my head when responding to these comments. I'm going to go back and read ALL of pages on the finer points of editing, tone, and whatnot. Thanks again! Misschrisparker (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why DGG removed the [Style section]. This section had been worked on, and I think adds interesting, colorful information to the article. I propose that the section is restored. Dustinlull (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dustinlull I think that nothing has been removed, but just rearranged a bit?  I might be wrong.Sgerbic (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone in "Style" section 

message: I'm wondering why there is so much copy editing being done on this page?  I think that changes as major as these need to be discussed on the Talk page by other editors.  I understand Assume Good Faith and Be Bold, but everytime I look there are more deletions.  Enough Already.  Removing pictures, sections and so on is really more of a matter of opinion than policy.  Personally I liked the astronaut picture of Mary Roach floating around. I'm wondering if other editors share my opinion of this matter?Sgerbic (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There have been some major changes to this page with entire sections disappearing that I think should have been preceded with Talk page discussion. I also liked the pic of Mary Roach floating around. I don't believe the pic served merely as "PR."Dustinlull (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How did I overlook this discussion? I agree that the "copyediting" has been too heavy-handed. In fact one editor seems to have added mistakes in the name of copy editing - even misspelling the subject's last name! I don't mind tightening up a few sentences here and there but it looks like it would be best to revert to a time before this flurry of changes and proceed more cautiously. 23:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article appears to have lost some biographical value in the name of cleaning up perceived PR information. I certainly appreciate remaining vigilant against commercial (or noncommercial) astroturfing, but in this case I think most pieces that were removed ought to be evaluated for their informative value, or potential for improvement to the article's encyclopedic tone. When one spends enough time acting as a hammer, a lot of things begin to look like nails. Nmillerche (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2012 
Think it is obvious, I'm going to revert this page to the time before someone started ripping it apart.  I apologize to anyone who made an edit since then that was well meaning.  Please fix whatever you changed. I might point out that this article was good enough to be featured as a Did You Know? on the front page of Wikipedia when it was re-written.  I don't think copy-editing into oblivion is a good idea.  If major changes need to be made, can you please discuss here on talk page, so the other editors that are concerned with the quality of Wikipedia can weigh in? Thank you Sgerbic (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  in the process of an expansion or major restructuring 

message: Is the horse picture relevant?  --91.10.58.209 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose not. I used it because at the time, there weren't many options. I kept it because I thought it was a good example of her personality, but if it seems random, it can come down. Misschrisparker (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of keeping the pic. It adds some of her personality to the page. Dustinlull (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, too,  per priors --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, this photo, the current info-box one, and others were contributed by her husband. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horse Picture 

message: Given the amount of copy editing that has been performed to improve this page in the past week, I see several instances where potential tone issues have been addressed. Therefore I am removing the tag, but if any specific issues remain which need to be addressed, please leave a note here so that other editors can improve on the article more effectively on specific concerns. Thanks to all who've helped thus far. Nmillerche (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting April 2013

message: This article had too many images, many of which were promotional in nature, or did not provide pertinent information to the reader.  I have removed these images, and would warn future editors not to add any images of a similar type.  Remember, "Wikipedia is not a photo gallery".  The link to Commons provides a place to go for people who want to see more pictures of Roach. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, since some of the images seem to have been added by the subject's husband, I would point him to our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional images