Jump to content

Talk:Doug Pitt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup attempt

[edit]

Apologies for my edit summary.

The article needs a complete rewrite from whatever sources we can find that are clearly independent and more than just pr pieces. Are there any? - Hipal (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I can't add here all of them. From what I've found,
There are several more reputable media sources available (beyond those already cited in the article). We can include these to further strengthen the GNG case. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] etc. 현서 김 (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Those are all currently in the article, or are some potential sources? --Hipal (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Magazine and Hola are poor, highly promotional sources. Treat as a self-published about self. Biz417 and Biz417 Magazine too.
People can be used, though entertainment. The two Vanity Fair pieces are the same article, but can be used, though puff-pieces. The STLMag piece seems ok.
I'm not sure what to make of the Barron's piece. It appears that the author is a contributor of some sort rather than an employee. It's a human interest story. --Hipal (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hipal, so sorry again for the super late reply!
Thanks for your review. Do you believe those sources aren't enough? Seems like we need around three for the GNG, right? I've found a few more that might help:[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. But from what I can see, most of the key info seems to be coming from local papers like the Springfield Business Journal, Springfield Daily Citizen, and Springfield News-Leader. They seem pretty solid and more on-topic, content-wise, but yeah, hard to say if there's any bias. Might be worth leaning on WP:PARTISAN in this case.
like in this article, for example The Hollywood Reporter cites Springfield News-Leader: [19]