A fact from Mary Roach appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 August 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey, this time Mary Roach is about an encyclopedic-worthy writer, not an American Idol waif, so let's keep this one, eh? ~ Reaverdrop 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Why does Roach's first book (Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers) redirect here? I propose excising the information about that book from this article and putting it on its own page. Does anyone else agree? JianLi 23:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The author blurb for "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife" lists Mary Roach as living in Oakland, not San Francisco. Is there any documentation of her living in San Francisco? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.112.87 ( talk) 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello anyone looking at this,
Just wanted to give anyone a heads up, that I'll be working on the edit of this page. This will be my first wiki project. After seeing her give a lecture in my area recently, I decided to try to freshen up her space here. Also, please note that I will be having an experienced editor advising me all throughout the process.
Thanks,
Misschrisparker ( talk) 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a heads up again, I just uploaded this new and improved page. Misschrisparker ( talk) 05:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to start messing this article around when it's just been DYK'd (and I don't know the subject so don't want to start editing this myself) but I think some attention needs to be paid to the tone, particularly in the section on Style. To me it reads in places like a publisher's blurb; things like "takes the reader with her every step of the way," shouldn't really be in an encyclopaedia article unless they are a quotation. We might think she's great, but it shouldn't be said in what is apparently our voice. It reads more like a personal essay or commentary if we do that, if not actually promotional. Similarly, the bit starting "While some people might not see any connection between the topics" seems to provide a great deal of speculation about what these "some people" might think or see, but who are they? I don't mean to denigrate the editors who've obviously put hard work into this, but I do feel it needs toning down a bit so that it reads more neutrally. Keep the positive nice stuff in the quotes and let them speak for themselves. I hope this helps. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 ( talk) 17:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This is in today's DYK: Roach is told, by microbiologist Chuck Gerba of the University of Arizona, that, "Upon flushing, as many as 28,000 virus particles and 660,000 bacteria [are] jettisoned from the bowl."
Why? It does not belong in the article at all. She was (reportedly) told this "fact" by someone else: that tells us nothing about her. Also, the "fact" is implausible. Viruses are much smaller, and commoner, that bacteria, so I doubt that more bacteria would be jettisoned. Maproom ( talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Since it is relevant, Maproom, what is it that you do? Are you a microbiologist or a pathologist, or anything like that? The microbiologist that was interviewed for the article has his own research to support his conclusions. If you have some kind of concrete proof that this is implausible, then that's what you should share, instead of just saying it's doubtful.
The hook for the DYK speaks to the subject material that Roach writes about. This might be my first wiki page but if it was reviewed and accepted for the DYK, I'd trust their judgement. I'm putting the sentence back in. Misschrisparker ( talk) 05:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the truth of the statement is irrelevant as to whether it should be in the article, since the article is not about viruses or bacteria, but about the author Mary Roach and her works. Since Roach is a science writer who approaches her subject matter with her unique style (one that includes wit and humor), it seems reasonable to include examples of what interests her for that subject matter, what she has written about, and what her style is. It might be reasonable to reword the statement to that end, but I think the content itself is acceptable. Rjmail ( talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering why there is so much copy editing being done on this page? I think that changes as major as these need to be discussed on the Talk page by other editors. I understand Assume Good Faith and Be Bold, but everytime I look there are more deletions. Enough Already. Removing pictures, sections and so on is really more of a matter of opinion than policy. Personally I liked the astronaut picture of Mary Roach floating around. I'm wondering if other editors share my opinion of this matter? Sgerbic ( talk) 02:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Think it is obvious, I'm going to revert this page to the time before someone started ripping it apart. I apologize to anyone who made an edit since then that was well meaning. Please fix whatever you changed. I might point out that this article was good enough to be featured as a Did You Know? on the front page of Wikipedia when it was re-written. I don't think copy-editing into oblivion is a good idea. If major changes need to be made, can you please discuss here on talk page, so the other editors that are concerned with the quality of Wikipedia can weigh in? Thank you Sgerbic ( talk) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the horse picture relevant? -- 91.10.58.209 ( talk) 21:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Given the amount of copy editing that has been performed to improve this page in the past week, I see several instances where potential tone issues have been addressed. Therefore I am removing the tag, but if any specific issues remain which need to be addressed, please leave a note here so that other editors can improve on the article more effectively on specific concerns. Thanks to all who've helped thus far. Nmillerche ( talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
This article had too many images, many of which were promotional in nature, or did not provide pertinent information to the reader. I have removed these images, and would warn future editors not to add any images of a similar type. Remember, "Wikipedia is not a photo gallery". The link to Commons provides a place to go for people who want to see more pictures of Roach. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
A fact from Mary Roach appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 August 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey, this time Mary Roach is about an encyclopedic-worthy writer, not an American Idol waif, so let's keep this one, eh? ~ Reaverdrop 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Why does Roach's first book (Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers) redirect here? I propose excising the information about that book from this article and putting it on its own page. Does anyone else agree? JianLi 23:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The author blurb for "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife" lists Mary Roach as living in Oakland, not San Francisco. Is there any documentation of her living in San Francisco? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.112.87 ( talk) 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello anyone looking at this,
Just wanted to give anyone a heads up, that I'll be working on the edit of this page. This will be my first wiki project. After seeing her give a lecture in my area recently, I decided to try to freshen up her space here. Also, please note that I will be having an experienced editor advising me all throughout the process.
Thanks,
Misschrisparker ( talk) 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a heads up again, I just uploaded this new and improved page. Misschrisparker ( talk) 05:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to start messing this article around when it's just been DYK'd (and I don't know the subject so don't want to start editing this myself) but I think some attention needs to be paid to the tone, particularly in the section on Style. To me it reads in places like a publisher's blurb; things like "takes the reader with her every step of the way," shouldn't really be in an encyclopaedia article unless they are a quotation. We might think she's great, but it shouldn't be said in what is apparently our voice. It reads more like a personal essay or commentary if we do that, if not actually promotional. Similarly, the bit starting "While some people might not see any connection between the topics" seems to provide a great deal of speculation about what these "some people" might think or see, but who are they? I don't mean to denigrate the editors who've obviously put hard work into this, but I do feel it needs toning down a bit so that it reads more neutrally. Keep the positive nice stuff in the quotes and let them speak for themselves. I hope this helps. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 ( talk) 17:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This is in today's DYK: Roach is told, by microbiologist Chuck Gerba of the University of Arizona, that, "Upon flushing, as many as 28,000 virus particles and 660,000 bacteria [are] jettisoned from the bowl."
Why? It does not belong in the article at all. She was (reportedly) told this "fact" by someone else: that tells us nothing about her. Also, the "fact" is implausible. Viruses are much smaller, and commoner, that bacteria, so I doubt that more bacteria would be jettisoned. Maproom ( talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Since it is relevant, Maproom, what is it that you do? Are you a microbiologist or a pathologist, or anything like that? The microbiologist that was interviewed for the article has his own research to support his conclusions. If you have some kind of concrete proof that this is implausible, then that's what you should share, instead of just saying it's doubtful.
The hook for the DYK speaks to the subject material that Roach writes about. This might be my first wiki page but if it was reviewed and accepted for the DYK, I'd trust their judgement. I'm putting the sentence back in. Misschrisparker ( talk) 05:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the truth of the statement is irrelevant as to whether it should be in the article, since the article is not about viruses or bacteria, but about the author Mary Roach and her works. Since Roach is a science writer who approaches her subject matter with her unique style (one that includes wit and humor), it seems reasonable to include examples of what interests her for that subject matter, what she has written about, and what her style is. It might be reasonable to reword the statement to that end, but I think the content itself is acceptable. Rjmail ( talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering why there is so much copy editing being done on this page? I think that changes as major as these need to be discussed on the Talk page by other editors. I understand Assume Good Faith and Be Bold, but everytime I look there are more deletions. Enough Already. Removing pictures, sections and so on is really more of a matter of opinion than policy. Personally I liked the astronaut picture of Mary Roach floating around. I'm wondering if other editors share my opinion of this matter? Sgerbic ( talk) 02:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Think it is obvious, I'm going to revert this page to the time before someone started ripping it apart. I apologize to anyone who made an edit since then that was well meaning. Please fix whatever you changed. I might point out that this article was good enough to be featured as a Did You Know? on the front page of Wikipedia when it was re-written. I don't think copy-editing into oblivion is a good idea. If major changes need to be made, can you please discuss here on talk page, so the other editors that are concerned with the quality of Wikipedia can weigh in? Thank you Sgerbic ( talk) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the horse picture relevant? -- 91.10.58.209 ( talk) 21:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Given the amount of copy editing that has been performed to improve this page in the past week, I see several instances where potential tone issues have been addressed. Therefore I am removing the tag, but if any specific issues remain which need to be addressed, please leave a note here so that other editors can improve on the article more effectively on specific concerns. Thanks to all who've helped thus far. Nmillerche ( talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
This article had too many images, many of which were promotional in nature, or did not provide pertinent information to the reader. I have removed these images, and would warn future editors not to add any images of a similar type. Remember, "Wikipedia is not a photo gallery". The link to Commons provides a place to go for people who want to see more pictures of Roach. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)