Talk:Bruno Maddox/Archive 1

message: Some thoughts on reading through:
* Is there any way to avoid using both "graduating" and "graduated" in the same sentence in the second paragraph of "Early Years"?
*:Okay, separated them and elaborated.-BillDeanCarter 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed mention keeping it simple.-BillDeanCarter 06:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, likewise done with references.-BillDeanCarter 06:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some review thoughts 

message: Outriggr brought up in a review: is there a particular reason for capitalizing SPY and GEAR magazines? Their own articles don't do so! –Outriggr ♠ 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good question. After reading enough articles about SPY and GEAR I've come to the conclusion that they are to be capitalized. Maddox's biography at Penguin, probably vetted by the former editor-in-chief of SPY capitalizes SPY and Discover magazine, whose owner also previously owned GEAR, capitalizes GEAR. I've seen it done here and there, different ways, but by those publications who are more concerned with being accurate about the spelling of SPY and GEAR seem to capitalize. News wires are just going to write it however they want unless they know better. So I believe atm the best thing to do is to capitalize SPY and GEAR.-BillDeanCarter 12:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally the Voice: AIGA Journal of Design capitalizes SPY.-BillDeanCarter 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To capitalize or not to capitalize: ''SPY'' and ''GEAR''

message: Is it even that simple? If I paraphrase a phrase that doesn't have a period at the end of it, would using ". ? be the right thing to do or should I still do ."?
Sample phrase taken off the front page of The New York Times: The plan comes at a time of growing attacks from Democrats who say the president has remained on the sidelines amid anxiety over the mortgage crisis.
1st set
*Sample paraphrase: The New York Times reports the "president has remained on the sidelines." 
*Sample paraphrase: The New York Times reports the "president has remained on the sidelines".
2nd set
*Sample paraphrase: The New York Times reports there is "anxiety over the mortgage crisis."
*Sample paraphrase: The New York Times reports there is "anxiety over the mortgage crisis".
In the first set there is no period at the end of the phrase. In the second set there is a period at the end of the phrase. Which of these styles in the two sets are correct?-BillDeanCarter 11:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks. This matches my preference, which is why I am suggesting you view it. :) Are the two quotes above sentence fragments? The first, no, the second, yes, so I'd pick 1a and 2b. –Outriggr ₪ 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll follow those guidelines.-BillDeanCarter 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it ." or ". ? 

message: I have attempted to undertake a significant edit of this article, which was automatically reverted by Cluebot as suspected vandalism. I would like to persevere and edit this article and it's my intention here to explain my reasons and methodology. 
I do understand that this is a 'featured' article and that a lot of people have put a significant amount of effort into polishing it with excellent footnoting and cross-referencing etc, and I, in no way, wish to denigrate their superb work. However, I believe that it is significantly flawed and requires a proper investigation, debate and, I believe, revision.
Self-authoring
The article was began and the highest proportion of its amendments have been made by BillDeanCarter. I have absolutely no idea who BillDeanCarter is. However, his major, almost sole interests are: Bruno Maddox and William Monahan. According to the most recent edit of Bruno Maddox's Wikipedia entry, William Maddox and William Monahan are good friends. I think, at the very least, BillDeanCarter cannot be regarded as a strictly neutral disinterested party and that therefore the greater proportion of this article has to be considered as self-authoring unless it can be proven otherwise. 
Notability
Bruno Maddox is, without doubt, a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. He is a published novelist and a freelance journalist with a publication history. I have to say, however, that I consider this article unbalanced. There is a discrepancy between his notability and the length and detail of this article. At the end of the day, he is a freelance journalist who has published a novel. His stint at Spy is certainly notable but the rest appears to be self-promoting froth. 
Specific criticisms
While it may very well be possible to supply hyperlinks that prove a journalist published articles, as a student, in student journals, this is not to say that it is desirable. Furthermore, while quotes from the writer may be found on the internet on his experience of selling his first novel, again this does not make them necessarily relevant.
I would also contend that it is unnecesary and indeed misleading to link to every article the writer has written as a freelance journalist and to confuse complaints about them from predictable sources (see the comments about Maddox's columns in Discover) with genuine controversy that was reported elsewhere. 
It is surely also undesirable to include only favourable quotes from reviews of Maddox's first novel and to disregard negative comments.
This is simply a few details of what I consider to be unbalanced about this article. There are others too numerous to cite at this time but that all seem to suggest suspected self-boosting.
Possible remedies
For all the reasons cited above, I believe that this article should be properly edited and cut. It would be far more succinct and relevant if its length gave an indication of Maddox's importance in US publishing - and was therefore much shorter. But above and beyond that, it needs to be cleansed of what appears to be self-promoting material. I attempted a full but sensitive edit, keeping the existing categories (although I personally believe that at least half of them are largely irrelevant) but simply trimming the most obviously unnecessary material.
Conclusion
As I said in the introduction to this, I have no desire to criticise other Wikipedian editors who have worked so hard to bring this article up to scratch. However, I think that it's still necessary to consider the broader issues here and I welcome your comments. FYI: I am a relatively experienced Wikipedian editor who has chosen to enter this debate under a new log-in name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokrovka (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just try making smaller edits, by section first and remember that you need to source any additional information.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental Revision of Wikipedia: Bruno Maddox article 

message: Thanks for contributing to the debate but I'd still like to re-iterate my larger point and in particular my question about your relationship with the subject of the article? Are you Bruno Maddox? Or William Monaghan?
Pokrovka (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-authoring 

message: Another problem I've just realised is that much of the extensive footnoting in this article refers to LexisNexis. This search engine is subscription-only so there's no way of verifying if these notes are accurate. And, moreover, they're pointless as you can't cross-reference to them. I suggest that all claims that only have a LexisNexis source should be deleted.
Pokrovka (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can probably find a research library nearby where you can get a hold of LexisNexis. Alot of newspaper articles are relegated to their archives after a year or so, and LexisNexis conveniently stores them all in one place. It's a very useful resource for that kind of thing, archived newspapers. Not everything is available for free on the Internet.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's knowledge base does not revolve around whether or not you have access to certain books or certain newspaper archives.-BillDeanCarter 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnoting 

message: I have tried to open up the debate about this entry and in particular I have asked direct questions of the person who has been instrumental in writing most of it - BillDeanCarter - and the only response he has given so far is to revert my edits and to refuse to enter into this discussion. What's more he removed the mark I put at the top of the page that suggests that this entry may be self-authored. I don't want to get into an editing war so I'd appreciate it if a) BillDeanCarter could come back to me with answers to my previous questions and b) others could have a look at what I'm saying and join the debate.
Pokrovka (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-authoring alert 

message: I see that in May a lot of other people thought the way that I did and voted for this article's deletion, complained that it was far too lengthy and detailed for somebody of such un-notability and I'm not sure why it was never deleted other than the intervention of BillDeanCarter (see below where I've pasted the debate). 
Revision as of 04:41, 2 May 2007
List of the writings of Bruno Maddox
    List of the writings of Bruno Maddox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of every single byline of a magazine writer ever. Otto4711 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-ha! 

message: Sorry, that's not the easiest to read above but the article is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_writings_of_Bruno_Maddox  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokrovka (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Deletion discussion