Talk:David A. Romero

	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
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 26 August 2014 by reviewer NickGibson3900 (talk · contribs).

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Davidaromero (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Autobiography declared at The Teahouse)

References cleanup

A {{cleanup-bare URLs}} template has been added to this article. This means that the sources cited in the article only consist of bare urls. This is problematic because it makes the article susceptible to something called "link rot". Wikipedia does not have a particular citation style that each article must follow; Wikipedia does say, however, that the citation style chosen by the first significant contributor should be deferred to by other subsequent editors, unless there is a consensus to change styles. Since davidaromero appears to be the first significant contributor, we would normally just defer to the style they have chosen. In this case, however, that style is not very good for the reasons stated above. More information needs about these citations needs to be added per WP:CITEHOW. This can be done in two ways: simply inputting the information necessary information between the reference tags or by using citation templates. Some examples of how this is done can be seen at both "Information to include" and "Citation quick reference". Personally, I find citation templates to be the easier of the two methods to use because all you have to do is complete the template and let the system do the rest. Regardless, the bare urls need to be fixed, so it's best to establish a citation style now before more sources get added. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I was typing the above, Timtrent cleaned up the references so the bare links are no longer a problem. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded citations

There are quite a few embedded citations used in the sections "Public works" and "Performance credits". This is something that runs the risk of link rot, so it might be better to drop the embedded citations and just cite like any other source instead. However, if an embedded citation is preferred, it should added as shown here. Embedded citations should never be "named", i.e., used to place external links within the body of the article, per "Avoid embedded links" and information regarding the link should be added to the "References" section. The names for the embedded citations used for the schools in the "Performance credits" are misleading to the reader and should not be used. These embedded citations are mixed together with wikilinks which is confusing since the wikilinks go to the school's Wikipedia articles (internal links), but the embedded citations go to external links. As mentioned above, if using embedded citations is the preferred method here, then "WP:ECITE" needs to be followed. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, while I was typing the above, Timtrent added a {{cleanup}} template notifying others of this problem. Thanks Timtrent. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

I fear many of these are not really references. A notable failure is http://www.topix.com/forum/city/san-gabriel-ca/THNMDDKRUT09E6AA2 where Romero seems to be making comments on some form of blog. Other failures are the interview with him. Interviews are primary sources, albeit published by another's hand. As I go down the references I am not seeing WP:42 in any yet. They need serious attention. Many will need to be replaced, otherwise the article is vulnerable to deletion. Fiddle Faddle 08:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the Topix link. It was referencing an article that was in print in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune (but did not show the full text of the article). The original link on the article on the SGV Tribune site suffered from link rot. I deleted the link and the claim. I replaced the interview by Cifarelli with an article that was published online and in print on (2014-6-30). Thank you for your help. Please let me know if there are further changes I can make to improve the quality of the article. --Davidaromero (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox, photo or both

I'm not sure if this article really needs an infobox, at least not at this stage. WP:INFOBOXUSE says an infobox "is neither required nor prohibited for any article." Some FAs have infoboxes and some don't. So, the value of having or not having an should be evaluated on a per article basis and not what is or is not in other articles. In my opinion, this particular infobox just summarizes information presented in the first sentence of the lead: information that would be easily understood by anyone who reads that sentence. So, in that sense this infobox actually seems like more of a "disinfobox" to me. Personally, I think it would be better to have a photo of Romero in place of the infobox. Since Romero himself created this article and is contributing to it, maybe he can upload such a photo to Wikipedia Commons. As long as Romero is the copyright holder and the photo is properly licensed, there should be no problem using it on Wikipedia and it should not end up being deleted from Commons. Adding a photo will not make Romero any more or less notable in Wikipedia eyes, but stylistically I think it would be an improvement over the infobox currently being used. I guess you could have both an infobox and a photo, but that still would not fix the problems with this infobox. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan status

This article is currently listed as an orphan: In other words, It has plenty of wikilinks going out to other Wikipedia articles, but there is not a single wikilink from another Wikipedia article coming in. The article says that Romero graduated from USC, so perhaps one way of fixing this orphan status would be to add a mention for Romero to List of University of Southern California people, maybe under List of University of Southern California people#Performing Arts, and wikilinking it to this article. If that is not an acceptable option, then perhaps listing Romero at Diamond Bar, California#Notable people, Diamond Bar High School#Notable alumni, or Fontana, California#Notable people would work instead. Only one incoming wikilink is needed, but it would be best to chose the one that can be best supported by a reliable third-party source in order to avoid any problems. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor added a wikilink for this page to List of University of Southern California people#Performing Arts with this edit . Therefore, I have removed the {{orphan}} template. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]