Talk:John Dale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
John Dale is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. | |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page. | |
For the sake of NPOV I recommend that the controversial material in the second paragraph of the introductory material on this figure be transferred to a section designated “criticisms” or “controversies” as deemed relevant.
It is of the utmost importance that the introductory paragraph maintain a NPOV and that it contain only empirical biographical material. See other notable religous figures for examples of this. His birth year, should he approve of its publication, would also be more relevant than the date.
Although further additions may be desired, it is my opinion that this article no longer requires the stub designation.
--Victoria h 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm the article's primary contributor so far, and have implemented the suggestions you made...thanks. Please tell us here if you have further thoughts on how the article can be improved. Your contribution is appreciated. Alan Canon 18:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Diploma mill"
I removed this POV characterization from the sentence describing Louisiana Baptist University as a diploma mill:
- (the latter considered by some a diploma mill.)
I'm no fan of the school, but the linked article describing the school goes to great and effective length to describe the denying of accreditation as well as the above characterization. It seemed like weasel words to me in the context of the current article: anyone who really wanted to get to know the article's subject can easily go and look at the relevant school article and find out all about the diploma mill business. The coupling of the weasely nature of it compounded with the fact that it's off topic that's led me to delete it. But, I don't take censorship of others' words lightly, so I'm placing this comment here to draw attention to what I did, and would encourage others with good reasons to feel free to revert my edit (and to perhaps comment as to why.) Alan Canon 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that is a bit smarmy. NPOV and fully accurate would be to simply call it "an unaccredited institution". I think that it is necessary to mention, as it suibstantially affects the characterisization of the institution's scholarship and, by implication, that of its students. -Will Beback 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
