Talk:Jacques-Louis Monod

message: User:Kleinzach has removed the  tag I placed.  I stand by my contention that the things that are listed in External links/References likely do not adequately source the text of this article.  Of the items listed, all but two are little more than concert or publication reviews, and do not speak to Monod's life in any significant detail.  Of the other two, one is Grove, to which I do not have access.  The other is the NYT piece by Allan Kazinn, which contains a short biography, lacking in much of the detail present in this article.  Are you claiming that the bulk of this article is actually sourceable to Grove? Magic♪piano 02:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Magic. There may perhaps be a conflict here between use of the "refimprove" tag and the "morefootnotes" one, which produces a message calling for more inline references. It appears that Kleinzach is interpreting the former to mean simply that more references need adding to the reflist. As a matter of fact, I find only three inline citations in this entire, very long article, and one of these I cannot verify directly. This is the one pointing to "Michael Steinberg in the New Grove". The reference list includes a link, but it will only work if you have a personal account with Oxford Music Online. Since I have access to this site only through my university library, the linking URL cannot be used there—I need to know the subject of the article including the "citation by Michael Steinberg" (a "contributor" search for Steinberg produces a list of 59 articles). There is a (very short) article on Monod in New Grove, and it is by Steinberg. Further, it does seem to contain the claimed information about poets whose works Monod has set, but the reference could equally well have been to remark quoted from Steinberg in an entirely different article not by him—there is no way to tell. So, I would say that the way the list of references is formatted is itself very doubtful. The point you raise—that there are nowhere near enough inline citations—is far more serious. Steinberg's New Grove article on Monod is only two short paragraphs, and practically nothing in this Wikipedia article is verified by it, except for that list of poets.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentlemen, I take the points you've made. I certainly agree that the references should be copy-edited. I removed the tags in the context of the BLP content deletion problem (I assume you know what has been happening), as part of a sweep that I have been doing today (see here). If you are involved in detailed work on this article, then please restore the tags as you see fit. If the article is on your watchlists then it will be in good hands and we won't have content being removed. --Kleinzach 09:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been on my watchlist ever since I reviewed it -- I tend to keep track of articles like this that appear to be the product of editors with potential POV issues, especially if they engage in discussion (as the anon editor responded above).  I think it has been long enough that some of the more problematic material in this article ought to be removed.  Formatting of the references aside, there is no real reliable source here to back up most of the content. BLP watchdogs do not appear to have hit this article, but in its present state, it presents a clear target, and there is no obvious reason to support the retention of much of the material here.  Magic♪piano 13:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: Substituted at 19:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment