This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The lead of an article normally doesn't make assertions that aren't also made below the lead; and if it doesn't, then the lead needs no referencing. Let's look at the first pair of references that follow the lead. We're told:
(Incidentally, ASIN is a proprietary system. Please use ISBNs for books that have them, and for other books please use OCLC numbers.)
This of course includes what at first appear to be two references. The first is the top page of a website. My browser couldn't find a single use of the string "Green" anywhere in the page. The second is a book by Alan S. Green. I cannot believe that the book is reliable evidence for a claim that it, and its author's other books, popularized anything.
Simply, these are not references. They're instead parenthetical/explanatory footnotes that point the interested reader towards further reading. And the section effectively remains unreferenced. It needs genuine references. (If the existing footnotes merit retention, I think they'd better be in a separate group, though plenty of experienced editors would disagree.)
The next section has two references. One is surprisingly long. It starts:
In the "source" (and only there), at this point there's a paragraph break. I infer that what follows is intended as a block quotation. Without looking in the source, readers will just be confused. Here's how I'd present this:
-- Hoary ( talk) 08:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The lead of an article normally doesn't make assertions that aren't also made below the lead; and if it doesn't, then the lead needs no referencing. Let's look at the first pair of references that follow the lead. We're told:
(Incidentally, ASIN is a proprietary system. Please use ISBNs for books that have them, and for other books please use OCLC numbers.)
This of course includes what at first appear to be two references. The first is the top page of a website. My browser couldn't find a single use of the string "Green" anywhere in the page. The second is a book by Alan S. Green. I cannot believe that the book is reliable evidence for a claim that it, and its author's other books, popularized anything.
Simply, these are not references. They're instead parenthetical/explanatory footnotes that point the interested reader towards further reading. And the section effectively remains unreferenced. It needs genuine references. (If the existing footnotes merit retention, I think they'd better be in a separate group, though plenty of experienced editors would disagree.)
The next section has two references. One is surprisingly long. It starts:
In the "source" (and only there), at this point there's a paragraph break. I infer that what follows is intended as a block quotation. Without looking in the source, readers will just be confused. Here's how I'd present this:
-- Hoary ( talk) 08:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)