Talk:David Meerman Scott/Archives/2012

February 2008

I tried to work on this article after it came up in a some what related AfD discussion but I'm not finding a lot of sources that are reputable or independent. I've removed the promotional stuff, but I'm not sure he's notable. Travellingcari (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some references, and he maintains a more extensive list is this the right direction to go to get this entry in shape? Also his book has been on the Amazon bestseller list for 6 months or so, can that be cited? themshow (themshow) 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that cleanup, themshow. I knew there had to be more mentions of him somewhere. It seems that most of those articles he lists will pass Wikipedia:RS, which is good. I'd be wary of the blogs because most of them would not pass. Is there an article that cites its been on the best seller list? At any rate, it can be listed if it's verifiable that it exists. I usually use Amazon or Google Books to track down those. Travellingcari (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Meerman Scott/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 14:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Please expand the lede to conform with WP:LEAD.  Done Please use only one space in between sections for the page to have a neat profile.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Add more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.  Done As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.  Done Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.  Done I have spotted the following contractions: isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.  Done	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The first paragraph of 'Early life' contains one reference.  Done Please change the format of the references from this: <ref>{{cite book | isbn = 9781118252307 | year = 2011 | author = David Meerman Scott | publisher = John Wiley & Sons Inc | location = Hoboken, N.J. | title = Newsjacking: How to inject your ideas into a breaking news story and generate tons of media coverage | url = http://www.webinknow.com/2011/11/newsjacking.html | edition = [[Mobipocket]] }}</ref> To this: <ref>{{cite book| isbn = 9781118252307| year = 2011| author = David Meerman Scott| publisher = John Wiley & Sons Inc| location = Hoboken, N.J.| title = Newsjacking: How to inject your ideas into a breaking news story and generate tons of media coverage| url = http://www.webinknow.com/2011/11/newsjacking.html| edition = [[Mobipocket]]}}</ref> Look at it in edit mode to see the difference.  Done	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Please create a section called 'Private life' to deal with his private life and 'Hobbies'.  Done	Pass
(b) (focused)	Remove the section 'Twitter town hall at the White House'. It does not belong here.  Done If you want to keep it, then give only one line about it and end of story. "Scott is very active on selected social media sites: Facebook,[48] Twitter,[49] and Google Plus.[50] For example, on July 6th, 2011 Twitter hosted an online town hall at the White House[51] where President Obama answered selected questions from members of Twitter. Scott's question[52] was the second one of only twenty selected from over 119,000 tweets.[53][54][55] Given the large number of social media sites and the investment of time to update each, he follows his own recommendation to focus on a few relevant sites, foregoing LinkedIn in his case for example.[56]" All that does not belong in 'Publications'. It is not about his publications.  Done	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The caption on the picture in the infobox needs to have the year in it. For example: 'David Meerman Scott in YYYY'. Done	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	On hold for 7 days, or lots of work put into it. Otherwise, I will have to fail this article. Good luck!

Discussion

Will continue reviewing later. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Added year to photo caption, created Personal life section, merged Whitehouse Town hall into Publications (print and online) section Woz2 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your request for removing the link breaks between cite attributes: I find the line breaks help readability so I'd like to leave them per MOS:STABILITY "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason." Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kk, just that I find it less easy to navigate in that, but ok, its grand... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Add more links" - not sure what the issue is here... seems to me there a lot of links inbound and outbound already... Can you clarify? Woz2 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "isn't" The only "isn't" is a direct quote of the title of one of the cites. I don't think it should be expanded. Woz2 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: reorder/rename last few sections. I read WP:ORDER and it seems to me the article follows the guidance. What am I missing? Can you clarify Woz2 (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Halfway there, but need a seven-day extension to complete it. Woz2 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PASS — Pass–Well done on yet another article to the GA Standards! Hope you'll be available for the December 2011 Good Article Nominations Backlog Elimination Drive! Well done! – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 21:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Hope to join the drive over the holidays.Woz2 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

File:David-meerman-scott-headshot.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:David-meerman-scott-headshot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)