Talk:Preston Cook

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Of the 14 sources, only two work correctly. For an article amended in the last few weeks this seems odd. ChrysGalley (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I am leaning ONEEVENT but did not decline as others may have a different opinion. I am not comfortable approving the draft as I do not believe it would pass AfD. Another reviewer may disagree and move it but I am on the fence and leaning more that it would be deleted. For inclusion on the Bald eagle page, I would suggest adding a sentence to that section which would rewrite the third sentence and be something similar to ......."It has long been considered the national bird of the United States. In 2024, it was adopted by Congress as the national bird after legislation spearheaded by Peter Cook of the national Bird Initiative." Or, something similar. Please don't just copy/paste. This reference would support. CNMall41 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Adding comment from Tmcfarlandpr from this version of my talk page - "First, thank you for the encouragement! It's been a journey for me as a first time contributor. My question: Are you saying that I should move content from the Preston Cook article to the Bald Eagle page, or keep it there, but add Cook's National Bird Initiative info to the Bald Eagle page as well? You said the subject is good as "one event", but I feel the two parts to his bio are linked - that is, his intense interest in eagles led to his push to create the National Bird Initiative - a separate entry which I've also submitted. Please clarify. Thank you. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)" CNMall41 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I would agree that he is notable for WP:ONEEVENT. Likely best to merge some of the content to Bald eagle#National symbol of the United States where his work have it distinguished as the official bird could be mentioned. CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: GPTZero says 75% AI generated Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: His own books and press releases are not independent sources and please read WP:ONEVENT. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: You are NOT removing the external links from the body of the article! Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: PLEASE take note as previously advised we don't use external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: You asked me for assistance on my user talk page. I will repeat it here, with a little extra:
  I think there are some things seriously awry. I am sure @RangersRus will agree that all inline links should be removed, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links. There should be no links pointing to external sources until those in the 'References' section (with the exception of one optional link in any infobox).
  Also " international news coverage.[11][12][13][14][15][16]" is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.
  There is a paucity of references for the facts you assert. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
  I think you misunderstand referencing. With "International Federation of Fly Fishers,[18]" the references does not mention Cook, thus it is not a reference for Cook. Also references announcing things are PR churnalism ad are not usable. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)