User talk:WWB Too/Eric C. Anderson

Draft concerns

I've only just glanced at the article so far. I noted some language that seems a but puffery, but it may be justified if reflected in the sources. More importantly, though, I'm concerned about at least one of the sources. The reference in the Bellevue Business Journal appears to be a press release to me. While it isn't explicitly listed as such, the tone of the lead combined with the fact that there's a paragraph at the end with contact information makes me fairly certain that its PR written by or on behalf of Intentional Software, which means that it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. You've referenced it quite a number of times in the article, and I think it needs to come out entirely. However, I am willing to take the matter to [{WP:RSN]], as it's not unambiguously PR. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, I agree with your points about the Bellevue Business Journal—it's a press release, all right. Fortunately, its prominence owes a bit to my habit of doubling up on sources, and I've managed to remove it without affecting verifications, save two: his undergrad magna, which is found in a number of other sources so I've updated that one, and the SmartCEO award, which I've just removed. (All changes in this diff.) I also understand your point about potential puffery; his career is an unusual one, with no shortage of superlatives to be found in profiles about him. I've tried to keep that measured, but I'm definitely open to suggestions. Please let me know what else you see. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more concerns:

I think the career section, overall, has too much information about Space Adventures. That information either is or should be in the company's article, with information here strictly limited to roles he played, major things he was personally responsible for. I understand that, in some senses, this business is Anderson...but I still think we should try to draw some sort of a line closer to a bio and less of a corporate description. As an example, I think the second paragraph of "Development of the business" strays too much into corporate history. In fact, that's the main concern on this point; there are other parts with similar problems, but they're more just phrases than major chunks.
I personally don't like listing the backers, as in the end of "Other roles"--it seems like an indirect way to praise him in a way that's unwarranted. In Wikipedia terms, what I'd say is that listing the other people who invested in the same company is WP:UNDUE.
Speaking gigs: I'm not sure we need to list all of these, particularly the TE11 and Global Tourism ones, since they're sourced to those corporations; while those are reliable sources for this info, if it wasn't noteworthy enough for independent sources to mention, I don't think it's noteworthy enough for us. WEF and TED have enough independent fame that they're worth noting.
Reference problems: Ref 17 (Tech the future) appears to be a blog, and not one meeting either the expert exemption or the newspaper-blog exemption, so it's probably not RS. Ref 21 (the CSF page) is a deadlink; but it's a primary source anyway, and you already have another source (ref 20) for the same info. I don't like using press releases, but it's okay for this type of information.

Your thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Qwyrxian, and thanks very much. Your comments are well taken, and speak to a challenge that I faced during the development process: as you point out, Eric Anderson is the driving force behind Space Adventures, so it can be difficult to disentangle him from the firm. I had initially aimed to focus on his specific involvement, but on re-read, I think you've identified points where I did not. I've trimmed a number of sentences through the career section, including those investors and another whole paragraph, to focus better on Mr. Anderson. See this diff for details, and let me know what you think.

About sources, no problem removing the Tech the Future site; perhaps I assumed too much of its claim that it "reports on technology that shapes the future", also it's an example of my including one too many references. I hadn't noticed the CSF link was dead, but you're right, it's already covered and I pulled it.

Let me know if you see anything else worth changing, and I really appreciate the thoughtful response. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]