Talk:Reub Long
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
|
| PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week. | ||
| Start | This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Tone issue
Regarding the concerns about tone on this article, I will note tht this is the primary factor with this article only being a Start class instead of B class. It starts at the beginning: "one of Eastern Oregon’s most colorful characters. During his lifetime, he did nothing more than be himself. However, that was enough to become known throughout Oregon as a witty and wise cowboy philosopher. Even today, long after his death, Rueb Long remains the guardian spirit of Oregon's desert country" This style is fine for a news piece in the Sunday lifestyles section, but is not the encyclopedic tone expected in Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. The rest of the article continues with this style, though here is a good example of what is expected: "In 1938, a team of archeologists from the University of Oregon led by Luther Cressman excavated the Fort Rock Cave located on his ranch. The team found sandals made of bark and sagebrush that carbon dating proved were 9,300 to 10,500 years old. At the time, these were the oldest human artifacts ever found in North America.[3][4] The success of the Cressman dig was widely publicized, and as the team’s local host, Reub and his stories shared the spotlight." Except the struck out part, which needs some re-wording. To quote an old TV show, just the facts ma'am. That's what Wikipedia is about, no commentary, and no points of view. Just the dry, somewhat boring facts. We let the facts speak for themselves and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions (such as Reub being a colorful character). Now, some opinions can be inserted as quotes, but otherwise let the reader decide about the subject. Also be weary of Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, such as guardian spirit. See FA class articles such as Elizabeth Needham, Pierre Rossier, and Charles Darwin for examples of what Wikipedia holds up as good works. I hope that helps, leave any questions here so we can keep them in one place. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
