Draft talk:Jim Robison (producer)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope you are doing well. I have recently drafted an article on Jim Robison (film producer) and would sincerely appreciate any suggestions to improve its chances of approval.

I want to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, verifiability, and notability. If you could kindly review the following aspects, it would be a great help:

✔ Reference citations – Are the sources reliable and sufficient?

✔ Objectivity – Are there any parts that sound too subjective or promotional?

✔ General improvements – Any structural, formatting, or content suggestions that could improve clarity and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines?

Here is the link to the draft: Draft:Jim Robison (producer)

I would be truly grateful for any feedback or guidance on how to refine the article before submission. Thank you in advance for your time and expertise!

Best regards,

Filmgeek2025 Filmgeek2025 (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{Reply to|Filmgeek2025}} I have a couple of points:
• The second on him casting actors who went on to have big careers probably needs to go unless the actors or media outlets specifically bring attention to it being Robison they have to thank for their big role(s), right now the section comes off as promotional.
• All the mentions and links to notable actors other works need to be removed as well, they don't seem to have anything to do with Robison.
• The article also needs sources that are specifically about Robison, which are lacking right now.
• As of the moment the draft is incredibly unlikely to be accepted into an article.★Trekker (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi ★Trekker, thanks so much for your feedback. I am just learning this. I have made all the adjustments you suggested and deleted mentions that sounded promotional and mentions to other actors works that Robison was not involved in. Please let me know if this suffices. Filmgeek2025 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Filmgeek2025}} While the edits are an improvement I sadly don't think there are enough quality sources here to pass WP:GNG. Most of the sources right now that are specifically about Robison are not in-depth coverage.★Trekker (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks ★Trekker. What types of quality sources would you advise on? Can you elaborate to help me try to find sources? Filmgeek2025 (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::What about articles 2, 3, 4 & 5? Filmgeek2025 (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Robison is mentioned in a very small section in 2.

::::3 is an interview, hence not independent coverage.

::::4 has nothing of value. Should probably be removed. It's just a database entry.

::::5 is (no offense) even worse than 4.

::::{{Reply to|Filmgeek2025}} It would probably be good if you read the pages Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:GNG very closely.★Trekker (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::IS (4) - which is a government website in Australia not reliable? Filmgeek2025 (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{Reply to|Filmgeek2025}} It's not unreliable per se, but databases don't contribute to notability and really belong more on Wikidata than on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)