Talk:A. Gary Klesch: Difference between revisions
Added connected contributor paid template for @Rosalyn15 |
No edit summary |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==Suggested changes== |
==Suggested changes== |
||
{{edit COI}} |
{{edit COI|ans=y}} |
||
Hi all – following feedback from the kind editors at the Teahouse ([[User:ColinFine |ColinFine]]) I have made an effort to break the updates suggested above into two sections. Hopefully this will make reviewing simpler. |
Hi all – following feedback from the kind editors at the Teahouse ([[User:ColinFine |ColinFine]]) I have made an effort to break the updates suggested above into two sections. Hopefully this will make reviewing simpler. |
||
Revision as of 11:05, 25 October 2024
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 Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Suggested changes
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi all – following feedback from the kind editors at the Teahouse (ColinFine) I have made an effort to break the updates suggested above into two sections. Hopefully this will make reviewing simpler.
The proposed changes are still the same to address issues with unreferenced material, tone of voice and out of date information regarding Klesch Group.
Thanks again – excited to be working on this! Rosalyn15 (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Rosalyn - could you please make it clear which parts are changing and which are staying the same? Talk:Bastion_(agency)#requestedit has an example of a possible way to format this, with old text on the left and new text on the right. Alternatively you can explain verbally, but the diff view is easier if you are making a large number of changes at once as you are here. Rusalkii (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi User:Rusalkii – thank you so much for your advice. I have followed this below, replacing the two boxes I had created before with the below side-by-side comparisons. I have broken up my suggested changes into three sections. Hopefully this makes it easier to review. Above each box I’ve left a short explanation of the major changes, but throughout I have looked to balance the tone and remove information I cannot find a source for. Thank you so much for your help. Rosalyn15 (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Below are my suggested changes to the opening sections of the article. Here I have focused on re-balancing the tone so that it is less promotional. I’ve also removed any information I could not find references for.
Side-by-side up to Quadrex
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
References
|
- In the Quadrex section there is a lot of information that cannot be referenced and as such I have trimmed this material. Where I was able to find sources I’ve added them.
Quadrex
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
References
|
- In the below I have updated the Klesch section with the latest information and also looked to balance the criticism section, the opening line of which I believe to be very different in tone to an encyclopaedia.
Klesch onwards
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
References
|
- Thank you! Some thoughts:
- Why did you choose to change the specific industries called out in the lead to the ones you did? The source gives "chemicals, metals and oil".
- I recognize this was not your addition, but "full potential" is not supported by the source. What I'm getting there is that it specalized in bancupt/otherwise financially struggling companies, which is importantly different.
- Overall thoughts on the first section, up to Quadrex: this looks like a clear improvment over the previous content-wise, but I can't verify many of your sources. Some have no links, and others are paywalled. If they've been digitized, can you link them? Otherwise, I recommend adding a brief quote from the source that supports the statment you're sourcing, using the quote= paramenter.
- Will return later for the next two sections. Thank you for your patience! Rusalkii (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi User:Rusalkii – thank you so much for your time.
- In response to your questions I updated the specific industries called out to be in line with the current focus of the business and noted on the point regarding the use of “full potential”.
- I have found a more recent source which reflects the focus industries and included this. I’ve also found a BBC article which describes the specialism and adopted this language. This is all now reflected in the box.
- On the sources, yes, many of those already in the article are quite old and so digital versions are hard to obtain. I have been through the article again and where I can, have replaced these sources with digitalised articles that speak to the same points. There are now just a small number of these older sources from the current article. I hope this will help improve the overall quality. – All of these updates are reflected in the three boxes above.
- Thank you again for all of your time and really looking forward to seeing the article improved!
- Rosalyn15 (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)