Talk:Frank Lovece

message: Lovece contributed a story to an anthology (Holiday Gay: Tales of Love, Lust, Romance and Other Seasonal Gifts) edited by his wife, Maitland McDonagh. I've added it to the bibliography, but I'm not sure how to include the name of the story (The Pope of West 44th Street). Would someone more experienced in those kinds of citations mind fixing it? Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book citation 

message: It's shoddy that such a significant claim in the lede is unsourced. Frankly there has been quite a few uncited claims in the article. There's also the claim that he made the , which is backed to a 1991 source, it's been ~20 years since then and perhaps that is no longer true. starship.paint (exalt) 05:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "one of the first professional Web journalists" 

message: This article cites the Grand Comics Database as a source in several places. To me, this raises at least two issues. Firstly, whether in general it should be cited by Wikipedia as a source for articles (possibly a question for WP:RSN, given that the Database is an "Internet-based project to build a database of comic book information through user contributions"), and secondly, whether it should be cited in this particular article, given the questions regarding the possibility of CoI editing - Tenebrae has previously stated that he contributed to the Database, during a previous inconclusive discussion on it at WP:RSN.  
To be clear, I am not suggesting that Lovece wasn't responsible for the comic-book material our biography uses the Database as a source for - I just think that it might be better cited to a better source - one that doesn't raise questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UGC should be purged in the general. Izno (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed per WP:UGC.  Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I've removed more WP:UGC stuff.    starship.paint (exalt) 07:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Database shouldn't be cited at all here, which seems to be the consensus, it presumably shouldn't be cited elsewhere either. I see it is also being used to include Lovece in our Stan Lee's God Woke article. Said article being written by you-know-who... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

text: For comic books of the with-credits era of comics (going back more than half a century), the credits can generally be attributed to the comic book itself. That's not to say there's never been an error or omission in the credits, but for the general case, you can cite that Janey McJane wrote Publisher War Journal #137 to that issue of PWJ itself. (but also, because of credits, GCDB is generally good on modern works; it's the guessing that takes place on non-credited work that's the problem.) Transparency note: I've contributed data to GCDB on a handful of occasions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Comics Database as a source. 

message: I've removed the COI tag, as I think that's not an issue at the moment, given recent events, but have tagged for excessive use of selfpublished sources and sources connected to the subject. Far too much comes out of the personal website. It makes me wonder if this article meets notability standards. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It isn't just an issue with unreliable sources though. I've just removed puffery relating to the 'Bowling Green State University exhibition' including one of Lovece's products. A moments perusal of the source cited  will show that the comic (or rather one edition of it) did indeed feature in the exhibition - as one of well over a hundred exhibits. The source cited is the University's own blog, which even if RS (I'd say it probably is) does nothing to establish the significance of the exhibition, never mind the comic-book series. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do feel that when an article is a time suck like this it should be deleted. The McDonagh article is worse. I just read a book about an important figure in the history of New York City who has no article. We all have better things to do than to fix the resumes that people put in Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that the case for McDonagh meeting Wikipedia notability standards was better than that for Lovece. Honestly though, I think the biggest issue, as far as Wikipedia content is concerned, is the way Lovece reviews have been shoehorned into a lot of high-visibility articles on Hollywood movies etc. Lovece seems to be a competent enough reviewer, but he and his employers have been given disproportionate prominence. What really needs doing is a systematic search for these, followed by replacement of the majority of them by material citing other sources. Unfortunately, it is likely to involve a lot of work, and needs to be done by people who know the topic area well. Just removing the lot would 'fix' the CoI problem, but leave Wikipedia with a lot of messy-looking articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise some good points. What a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: I've been trying to update this page. I am not Frank Lovece, and have never met him. I have asked him about some facts with an attempt to improve this biography, and enhance its accuracy.
Might be time for the warning tag to come down. cscrandall 16:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autobiography, edited by/someone connected to the subject.