Talk:Louis Upton

Louis Upton was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 29, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Louis Upton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm biased because I wrote it, but this was a solid 40 hour research project reviewing 20,000 newspaper mentions. Would love it to be considered. Reviewer: EricAhlqvistScott (talk · contribs) 03:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This review is going to be declined because the nominator has selected themselves as the reviewer, which cannot be done. I urge the nominator to re-nominate the article, taking care not to select themselves next time as the reviewer. Regards, Spintendo 07:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues 29-JAN-2020[edit]

Much of the added information contains company-related minutiae which was published at a time when journalistic safeguards against conflicts of interest were not in place. Thus, the information gleaned from these primary source documents must be viewed with caution, while the article uses too many of them, and not enough WP:SECONDARY sources. I've placed the {{POV}} maintenance template to advise editors of the need for possible copyediting to further improve the article. Regards, Spintendo 08:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify what part of the article is in question, there are over 20,000 archived article mentions so I'm sure we can find some WP:SECONDARY sources to suit the standards. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]