Talk:Mike McGrady

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mike McGrady article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography

	Biography portal 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
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bias and Unencyclopedic Tone?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure how to do this, so I'm sorry if I'm missing anything I'm supposed to do. However, when I saw this article and took a quick glance, I noticed that a lot of the article's content isn't in an encyclopedic tone and seems to be biased in some aspects (for example, "was the mastermind behind Naked Came the Stranger," could be rewritten as "was responsible for Naked Came the Stranger")

I'm also not sure how to edit the page myself to fix the tone issues, thank you if you do read this and choose to respond.

SarasvatiMeltout (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw this article yesterday and also was very unsatisfied with it—in addition to the unencyclopedic tone, the article also seemed to lack any real structure at all. I felt the only thing I could do was restart it from scratch, so with the exception of the unsourced bibliography (which I'll try to go through at a later time), that is what I did, though I used most of the same sources that the old version of the article did.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic