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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article does not seem neutral, in fact it reads like a campaign page. For example, "McGuiness is known as a political outsider who fights for those who do not have a voice" and "Since January 2019, the State Auditor's Office has accomplished much and made huge strides in spite of having fewer resources than it had in Fiscal Year 2008." Most of the article needs to be either rephrased or deleted. DifferenceTone ( talk) 05:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)DifferenceTone
X4n6, you are adding content to the lead that is not mentioned in the main article body, as well as adding a redundant citation to a source that is already in the article (
diff). The lead is supposed to be "a summary of the article's most important contents" and should "summarize any prominent controversies". Importantly, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article
" (see
MOS:LEAD). Redundant citations are also not needed (see
MOS:LEADCITE), and the citation format you keep adding to the lead is also inconsistent with the formatting of the rest of the citations in the article (see
WP:CITEVAR). If you think additional information should be in the article, then you should add that into the main body first. Then we could try to figure out how to summarize that, but all the details of the indictment (such as the specific number of charges and what they were for) are not needed in the lead. I am not sure why you are removing her not guilty plea. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk)
00:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."It also says:
"The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows."Both of which argue for an enlarged lead section, not a shrunken one. I also pointed you to MOS:NOTLEDE, which is pretty self-explanatory for why we provide more information, not less. As well as MOS:DONTTEASE, which says:
"Tabloid, magazine, and broadcast news leads may have "teasers" that intentionally omit some crucial details to entice readers to read or watch the full story. They may even 'bury the lead' by hiding the most important facts. This style should never be used on Wikipedia."You pointed me to MOS:LEADCITE. But it is unclear if you thoroughly reviewed it yourself, because it clearly says:
"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
Would be best, if you both reached a compromise. GoodDay ( talk) 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The page has been protected for 2-weeks. Best ya'll iron things out, during that time period. GoodDay ( talk) 22:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."It also says:
"The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows."Both of which argue for an enlarged lead section, not a shrunken one. I also pointed you to MOS:NOTLEDE, which is pretty self-explanatory for why we provide more information, not less. As well as MOS:DONTTEASE, which says:
"Tabloid, magazine, and broadcast news leads may have "teasers" that intentionally omit some crucial details to entice readers to read or watch the full story. They may even 'bury the lead' by hiding the most important facts. This style should never be used on Wikipedia."You pointed me to MOS:LEADCITE. But it is unclear if you thoroughly reviewed it yourself, because it clearly says:
"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article does not seem neutral, in fact it reads like a campaign page. For example, "McGuiness is known as a political outsider who fights for those who do not have a voice" and "Since January 2019, the State Auditor's Office has accomplished much and made huge strides in spite of having fewer resources than it had in Fiscal Year 2008." Most of the article needs to be either rephrased or deleted. DifferenceTone ( talk) 05:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)DifferenceTone
X4n6, you are adding content to the lead that is not mentioned in the main article body, as well as adding a redundant citation to a source that is already in the article (
diff). The lead is supposed to be "a summary of the article's most important contents" and should "summarize any prominent controversies". Importantly, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article
" (see
MOS:LEAD). Redundant citations are also not needed (see
MOS:LEADCITE), and the citation format you keep adding to the lead is also inconsistent with the formatting of the rest of the citations in the article (see
WP:CITEVAR). If you think additional information should be in the article, then you should add that into the main body first. Then we could try to figure out how to summarize that, but all the details of the indictment (such as the specific number of charges and what they were for) are not needed in the lead. I am not sure why you are removing her not guilty plea. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk)
00:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."It also says:
"The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows."Both of which argue for an enlarged lead section, not a shrunken one. I also pointed you to MOS:NOTLEDE, which is pretty self-explanatory for why we provide more information, not less. As well as MOS:DONTTEASE, which says:
"Tabloid, magazine, and broadcast news leads may have "teasers" that intentionally omit some crucial details to entice readers to read or watch the full story. They may even 'bury the lead' by hiding the most important facts. This style should never be used on Wikipedia."You pointed me to MOS:LEADCITE. But it is unclear if you thoroughly reviewed it yourself, because it clearly says:
"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
Would be best, if you both reached a compromise. GoodDay ( talk) 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The page has been protected for 2-weeks. Best ya'll iron things out, during that time period. GoodDay ( talk) 22:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."It also says:
"The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows."Both of which argue for an enlarged lead section, not a shrunken one. I also pointed you to MOS:NOTLEDE, which is pretty self-explanatory for why we provide more information, not less. As well as MOS:DONTTEASE, which says:
"Tabloid, magazine, and broadcast news leads may have "teasers" that intentionally omit some crucial details to entice readers to read or watch the full story. They may even 'bury the lead' by hiding the most important facts. This style should never be used on Wikipedia."You pointed me to MOS:LEADCITE. But it is unclear if you thoroughly reviewed it yourself, because it clearly says:
"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."