Talk:Craig S. Morford
| 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
biography
[edit]I removed what looked like a lot of detail, way too much about other people in regards to cases Morford was involved in, a lot of the detail was supported from poor locations, primary reports and blogspots. Please discuss Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
see report at bio noticeboard
[edit]https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Craig_S._Morford - Mosfetfaser (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
edits to page
[edit]I'm a longtime USA Today reporter who was hired by Mr. Morford's employer (Cardinal Health) to address some disputed claims and factual errors in the entry. To me, the larger problem was the entry was bloated at 2,500 words, not proportionate to the importance of a former federal prosecutor and acting Deputy Attorney General. I posted these concerns on the Noticeboard for Biographies of Living Persons and the wiki community acted swiftly and amazingly to improve the entry, tightening it and removing tendentious and poorly sourced material about minor figures unhappy with prosecutions. I sought guidance via wiki e-mail to an editor who had made the changes about whether I could make further improvements. I waited a day, then made the changes. Mosfetfaser kindly e-mailed me and said the Discussion Page is the proper place for a paid editor to propose content before posting. I appreciate the guidance and will follow this procedure in the future.
For the current entry, please take a look at the posted changes. I think I did a good job of following the wiki standards of neutral POV, verifiability and no original research. I also tried to improve it editorially -- cutting it by two-thirds, focusing on the cases of broadest public import, making the entry simpler and chronological, adding sources, correcting minor mistakes, etc. -- in ways consistent with the changes made earlier by experienced wiki editors. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcauchon (talk • contribs) 16:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)