Talk:Geoffrey Bolton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Geoffrey Bolton is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
|
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
[edit] earlier comments
Two of the editors of this page (User:WA Bolton and User:Melancholia) have now been determined to be sockpuppets of a third (User:Velela), and accordingly blocked. These sockpuppets were used to give the impression that there was consensus for Bolton's academic career to be presented in bullet point form rather than prose, contrary to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
With the puppets and their puppeteer out of the way, I hereby propose to reinstate the prose paragraph version of Bolton's academic career. All other recent contributions will of course be retained. Comments please. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 12:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would not recommend that course of action; I truly believe that the bullet-point format is better for the academic career section. Geoffrey Bolton may well be notable, but if so, then it's not for his list of job titles, the like of which almost any academic could produce. His importance lies in his published work, which is currently discussed in the first paragraph (where it belongs), and with a bibliography (which I suspect is still incomplete, by the way) later on. That he brought greater exposure to the history of Western Australia is good work, and worth mentioning. That he was Visiting Commonwealth Fellow at St John's College, Cambridge 1978 and 1979 seems of less general interest. I don't say that that information should be deleted, just that it should not be given undue prominence by being incorporated into the main text. I suspect, actually, that as the article grows, this debate will become more or less meaningless, so a concerted effort to expand it may be the best way forward. I just wish I knew more about the topic... --Stemonitis 12:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
