Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meher Baba[edit]

The article is useful to most readers and covers the subject sufficiently to become class GA. One problem is that there are very few secondary sources available. Biographies exist by people who have lived for long close to Meher Baba and references are given. I am asking for a peer review to help locate the elements of the article that can be refined, rephrased, or changed for the upgrading. It is hard for me to locate POV or original research due to lack of experience. Also please note that there have been almost no conflicts. One somewhat disputed section about Peter Townsend can become better integrated, to please both "insiders" and readers in general (and Wikipedia standards). Hoverfish 12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article cannot be a good article, because all the mentioned references strike me as not peer reviewed. Many of the references may even be partisan. Andries 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content problems Townsend[edit]

Lets get the Townsend section to reflect actuality. Brutally edit it. That is, as a percentage of Baba's life and as a percentage of Baba followers he should have, no mention at all, and one line at best, respectively. Its just too stupid for words to have all this Townsend and Who material. Im a long term Baba lover and I find it pathetic to see this sort of quasi famous stuff here, as if it needs to be there to validate Baba. The inclusion of Townsend relects a lack of depth, breadth and academic rigour. When material is sourced and dislayed that does not match what occured in the persons life superficiality results. This is not a GA article. This article needs upgrading. Pete who? --Liam7 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait to hear what the peer reviewer has to say before we 'brutally edit' any part of the article. It is very possible he or she will agree. But let's all calm down until we hear from someone impartial. Such views about Townshend are well expressed and I'm sure the reviewer will take them under consideration and give some feedback. If necessary we can take this issue up with arbitration, but in the meantime let's remain civil and consider consensus. Chris 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • The lead could be a bit more expanded per WP:LEAD.
  • "The events of Meher Baba's life are well documented". Such a declaration is redundant. Inline citations are needed. Bibliography or references are not enough.
  • What exactly is a "Perfect Master"? The link takes me to an article with a variety of explanations.
  • Avoid short one-sentence paragraphs.
  • "Manzil-e-Meem and Meherabad" and "Prem ashram" are stubby. I would suggest merger or expansion.
  • "I am never silent. I speak eternally. The voice that is heard deep within the soul is My voice...the voice of inspiration, of intuition, of guidance. To those who are receptive to this voice, I speak. [1]" Not the best way to link external links. After all quotes need inline citations (where you can cite an external link).
  • For quotes, in general, check WP:MoS. Quotations (where you have "someone said:" and then the quote) should use <blockquote>s.
  • You must think if the long quotes like the one in "The New Life" are absolutely necessary.
  • I think the 5-6 last sub-sections of his biography should be rewritten. They are stubby and listy. Again think about what needs expansion, merger etc.
  • I think you could create a sub-article about Baba's csmology and make a summary of it in this article. The cosmology section is quite long and could stand as an article itself.
  • "For more information on Meher Baba's concept of the planes of consciousness, one may refer to his book God Speaks." You have already linke the book; this is unnecessary. You could also do somethin like that at the top of a section or sub-section.
Further information: God Speaks

.

  • I read something about expanding "Influence on Pete Townshend". Is there more material? Could possibly a sub-article be created?
  • "See also" looks long to me. If there are links made in the prose there is no reason to re-link them here. If you can incorporate some of these links in the main article, do it.
  • Too many external links. Are they all necessary? In any case they should be better organized and categorized.--Yannismarou 10:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the peer review, Yannismarou, most appreciated by all concerned. Hoverfish 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd M. Riddick[edit]

I am trying to get this article upto GA status for now. Can you please provide me suggestions on improving it? --Ineffable3000 08:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

It is not there yet. It needs some work:

  • Stylistically, I would like to underscore that we do not link single years, only full dates (November 24, 2006). I don't know why, but that is what WP:MoS demands.
  • Bibliography is not enough (and you donot provide ISBNs). We need inline citations, which must be verifiable. And your references are not real references, before they are not cited in the text! As they are now, they look like additional, further external links.
  • The article needs expansion. If "he was famous for discusses (you mean discussing?) the censures of Joseph McCarthy and Thomas Dodd, the contested election between John Durkin and Louis Wyman, and the preparations for a planned impeachment trial of Richard Nixon, and for advocating the change in the rules of cloture", you should elaborate on all these things and analyse. These could be seperate sections, analysing his activities and the importance of his role.
  • Don't have stubby sections, like your last one which is one line. Expand or merge.

I'll be happy to review an improved version of the current article.--Yannismarou 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare[edit]

Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! Vanished user talk 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman[edit]

It would be hycritical of me to ask for help, but not offer any in return so here are some thoughts on this article...

  • I don't like the opening sentence. It turns me off "greatest writer... greatest in Western Literature ... preeminent dramatist." Those may be true statements, but it reads like propaganda.
  • "about 37 plays" immediates makes me wonder why "about." I suspect that you go into more detail later on, but without an explaination, it raises questions that you don't want to have raised. I'd leave the numbers out and go into more details later on.
    • I've tried leaving them in, but giving a link to an article about the doubtful attributions. If this is too awkward, I'll cut 'em. Vanished user talk 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tried "wrote [[Shakespeare Apocrypha|about]] 38 plays" as a way of keeping the sentence uncluttered but also providing a reader who cares with detailed info on why we say have to say "about". Does that work? Broken edit by AndyJones, fixed by Vanished user. Watch the closing of nowiki tags.
  • I'm not a fan of long sentences. While it may be gramatically correct, I'd break break the sent about his fame starting during his lifetime into two.
  • Wordy, for example: He is counted among the very few playwrights who have excelled in both tragedy and comedy can be shortened to He is considered one of the few playwrights who excelled at both tragedy and comedy. "Counted among", "very few" and "have" don't add much to the article. "Very few?" How many is that? Who else is considered among the "very few?" Who makes this determination? "living language" another case of wordiness, people will assume living languages, youd don't need the word "living"
  • The translation in to every language also needs to be cited.
  • put the details about the number of articles after the last sentence in the intro or move that sentence up. It explains why the exact number of plays can't be known.
  • The first 3 sentences in the Early life start off with probably... probably... and presumably, without any sources/citations this looks like OR.
  • I've tweaked this, and asked for an attribution on the talk page. Vanished user talk 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shakespeare's last two plays, play1 and play2, were written in 1613."
    • Is this sentence still there? It refers the two collaborations with John Fletcher, namely The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. Actually, trying to source this it's difficult to say with any certainty that they were written in 1613. The Arden Henry VIII points out that the first recorded performance was at the Globe in 1613 (when it was described as a new play) but also speculates that it may have been performed at Blackfriars earlier. The matter is contentious, as you can see from the wikipedia page where an Oxfordian user is edit warring to suggest a far earlier date (Oxford died 1604). Sorry to clutter Balloonman's contributions with this guff, by the way: if I knew how best to fix this I'd do it myself rather than blathering here! AndyJones 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV.Balloonman 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat91[edit]

I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source. In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference. I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." Nat91 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows when he was born.24.77.19.233 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language,[2] and the world's preeminent dramatist." The world's preeminent dramatist? Are we sure about that? Better than Aeschylus and Sophocles? And if yes why? I may be wrong but I don't feel comfortable with the superlative.
  • "(see Shakespeare Apocrypha for plays uncertainly attributed to Shakespeare)". My opinion is that this link should be somewhere in "Plays" and not in the lead.
  • By the way, do you have in mind the issue of Time devoted to the "bard" ("Will power")? There were 2-3 excellent articles there? And one comparing him with ... I don't remember ... Wait ... I'll find him ... Yes ... With Middleton! A very interesting assessment about the Bard's talent.
  • "Early life" is undercited. In the next section I see a [citation needed].
  • "He appears to have moved across the Thames River to Southwark sometime around 1599. " ource here?
  • "Later years". No citations here. I see the article is overall undercited, so from now own I'll name seperate sections.
  • In "Other poems" both paragraphs start with "In addition". Repetion of the smae forms of prose.
  • For a playwright like Shakespeare "Style" is under-analyzed. I expect here some modern assessments, further analysis, and comparaisons with other important playwrights (contemporaries of him or of the near centuries). Another suggestion is to keep the section concise and, instead, to create a sub-article.
  • Reading "Reputation" I thought again about this issue of TIME and an aricle named "Shakespeare Inc." I think. What I mean is that the modern aspects of the bard's reputations and the commercial success and effect of his name should be treated in this or in a subarticle.
  • "Identity" needs better referencing and some modern assessments by modern scholars.
  • Wow! "See also" is huge. And most of the links there are already linked above!
  • In "Further Reading" we should have the ISBNs.
  • Are all "External links" links necessary? Could they be better organized?
  • You know my obsession with inboxes! I think you could think about adding some here from the Bard's work, if you can relate them to specific sections and analyses.--Yannismarou 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Vanished user talk[edit]

Sathya Sai Baba[edit]

Has has an old peer review to which nobody ever responded. Neverending disputes between editors for which multiple RFCs, one mediation, and multiple request for arbcom verdicts, but with only one arbcom verdict helped only to some extent. Nevertheless, I think that peer review may help to improve at least some of the few uncontroversial aspects of this article. I will announce the peer review clearly on the talk page and will request warring contributors not to attack the reviewers. May be the very closely related article Prema Sai Baba can be included in the peer review too. See also the failed FA nomination in April 2004. Andries 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

1. You could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
2. Something is wrong with note 63.
3. "Sathya Sai Baba in popular culture" is too stubby. Expand it or just get rid of it.
4. Get rid of the "See also" section. Incorporate the only link there somewhere in the main article.
5. Is all this long further reading necessary?
6. Categories at the end of the article are not correctly alphabetized.
7. "Sathya Sai Baba (born Sathya Narayana Raju on November 23, 1926 — or later than 1927[1] — with the family name of "Ratnakaram" [2]) is a controversial[3] South Indian guru often described as a Godman[4][5] and a miracle worker.[6]" Many inline citations in the middle of the sentence. Try to cite at the end of the sentence. Cite in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary.
8. The number of Sathya Sai Baba adherents is estimated between 6 million to 100 million.[8][9][10] Stylistically, it is not nice to have more than 2 citations in a row. There are ways to combine them. Check, for instance, the Tourette syndrome for ideas.
9. "It was said that instruments played on their own accord in his household when he was born [11]." Said by whom? Be more specific with such disputed assessments. And everybody believes that?! Aren't there any critics of this assertion.
10. Inline citation go straight after the punctuation markk, not before. Check WP:MoS.
11. "Since he was born after the Sri Sathyanarayana puja, he was named after the deity." I don't think this is a nice sentence. Think about an overall copy-editing.
12. Is "History and origins" the whole biography section? If yes, it is short, undercited (there are [citation needed] and a whole paragraph is uncited) and POV. We learn only what Baba and his biographer say. What about others? We need a more comprehensive presentation of his life and a more comprehensive analysis of the disputed elements of his life.
13. "Though the exact year on which he started his mission full-time is uncertain, it is a fact that in the 1940s he took the fakir's name." If it is a "fact" provide citation.
14. "The last paragraphs of the above section are a bit trivia and mixed. Personal information, something about an accident without coherence with the previous information.
15. What are ashrams and mandirs. Provide some information. The links are not enough.
16. Three paragraphs in "Ashrams and mandirs" are uncited.
17. "Daily, he is observed to allegedly manifest vibuthi (holy ash), food and small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches." Citation needed.
18. Are Baranowski's claims undisputed?
19. In general, since there is a main article for "Beliefs and practices", this section could be a bit more concise. Too many details, especially in "Miracles"!
20. The presentation with bullets of the primary teachings is a bit listy for me. Personally, I'd prefer prose.
21. "Organizations" is undercited and with some red links. Why don't you create stubs for these links, if they are important?
22. "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" is tagged for POV. I don't want to express an opinion for the disputed issues, but before an article goes for GAC or FAC such issues should br resolved.
23. "The Indian President Abdul Kalam and the former Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, as well as other Indian dignitaries, visit the ashram and pay their respects to Sathya Sai Baba." This paragraph is uncited and not well-incorporated in the prose of its section.
24. In general, the article has to be moe coherent; possibly the creation of sub-articles would help you to construct a better structure.--Yannismarou 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 1. I agree. The lead used to be longer but was truncated only a few weeks ago. Andries 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ad 2. Corrected. Andries 11:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ad 6. corrected. Andries 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ad 7. I will change this, but I am not fully convinced that you are right in this case. It has been my experience in editing controversial articles that citation are requested for almost every word. In this sentence the birth date in particular is controversial. I expect that if I place all the references at the end then citations will be requested again for words within the sentence. Of course then this can all be explained in the talk page but this is all quite tedious. On second thoughts I think that using references at the end of the sentences decreases WP:Verifiability because it deprives the reader of information what sourced is used for each word in the sentence.Andries 09:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) amended. 09:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ad 12. There are no independent reputable sources for a detailed biography. The hagiography by Kasturi is al there is. Almost all other sources are based on the hagiography. Andries 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ad 13. Done. Andries 09:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ad 17. Will provide citations for these uncontroversial assertions, but the priority for providing citations has been on controversial assertions. Andries 12:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ad 18. I am not aware of any reputable source that disputes Baranowski's claims. I do not believe that it Baranowski's claim belongs in the article, because it is somewhat obscure. Andries 08:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ad 24. I think more coherence could be given by stating what the relationship is between SSB and the organizations that use his name. Is he a figurehead, spiritual leader, founder, de facto leader, de jure leader? In many cases I do not know and I doubt if reputable sources for this are available. What could be done is renaming the article Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement into Sathya Sai Baba movement and move some of the organizational stuff from the article Sathya Sai Baba to the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries 13:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou, Andries is the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website attacking Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. He is wholly inflexible with other editors and thinks the article should read and look as he sees it. Kasturi was the official biographer for Sathya Sai Baba and Kasturi is often cited in reliable and reputable books that discuss SSB and his life. Although Andries is willing to selectively cite Kasturi, he refuses to allow other information from Kasturi in relation to Baba's biography. There are no non-devotee biographies on Sathya Sai Baba. So where are we supposed to get the information from? SSS108 talk-email 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can a poorly researched hagiography serve as the basis for a serious biography? It cannot. The hagiography is fine to describe the beliefs and practices of the SSB movement because stories about his life form a significant part about the beliefs and practices. Andries 11:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SSS108, Again, I am not the webmaster. Your own defamatory website identifies the real webmaster. Andries 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly researched" is your POV. The fact remains that Kasturi has been cited by numerous reliable and reputable sources. I don't know how many times I am going to have to repeat myself to your redundant comments that is it okay to cite Kasturi in the Beliefs and Practices section when Kasturi's hagiography is not about beliefs and practices in the Sai Baba Movement. I have told you this numerous times before. Furthermore, on the main page, you selectively cite Kasturi's "poorly researched" hagiography when it suits your Anti-Sai agenda. You selectively choose what you want from Kasturi's books and then go around objecting and throwing your weight around saying Kasturi can't be cited on the main page because he has written a "poorly researched" hagiography, etc.

Regarding my webmaster comments, it is an indisputed fact that you were listed for years as the webmaster for the exbaba site. You changed your title only when it became an issue on Wikipedia. I even provided an evidence page regarding this issue for ArbCom. If you are saying the webmaster information is wrong, then one is left to wonder why you would put such blatant disinformation on your website to begin with? SSS108 talk-email 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The webmaster wrote it there, not me. It was left there mainly due to neglect. Andries
Andries, you never complained or disputed your webmaster status. You never refuted your webmaster status when Kazlev pointed it out. Only when your webmaster status became an issue on Wikipedia did you change your webmaster status to being a "contact". Then you changed your position again to being the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact". You admitted your site was threatened with legal action (which proves whose site is truly "defamatory"). You can attempt to refute this all you like. It won't change the fact that you allowed your name to be broadcast on the main index page as the "webmaster" for 3 years. SSS108 talk-email 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, I only started complaining about it when it was used in the article which was in perfect correspondence with the guidelines for talk pages i.e. that the discussion on the article talk page should be confined to improving the article. Andries 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the reason to omit material from a published biography, even if some editors consider it to be a hagiography. That is what attribution is for. There is no harm is saying "according to a biography written by XYZ, this and that happened". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossie, that is exactly what Andries does with Kasturi when it suits whatever POV he is trying to include in the article. However, when it comes to other information, he says it cannot be included on the main page but is okay on the Beliefs and Practices page. This is wholly contradictory and one is left to wonder why Andries behaves like this. SSS108 talk-email 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, it is not just my opinion that Kasturi's biography is a hagiography. This opinion was also voiced by the journalist Mick Brown in the Telegraph. And if you read Kasturi's books then you will see yourself that it fits the literal definition of a hagiograpy. I do not understand why Kasturi's hagiography meets the very high standards for BLPs. Andries 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, for the very same reason you cite Kasturi to push whatever agenda you are trying to push. When it argues in your favor, you selectively cite Kasturi as a reliable source. When it does not suit your favor, Kasturi's "hagiography" is poorly researched and does not meet high standards, etc. SSS108 talk-email 17:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we then move all information sourced to Kasturi that is uncorroborated by independent sources? Andries 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making the argument against Kasturi and then cite him according to your whims. The fact of the matter is that Kasturi is a reliable source and has been cited by numerous references in relation to Sathya Sai Baba. Therefore, citing him in relation to Sathya Sai Baba's early life would be entirely justified. SSS108 talk-email

John McCain[edit]

I think this is a good article that needs a little work. I hope that this will eventually be FA caliber. I think the article is well written but maybe could be organized better, a longer lead and some sections expanded. What do others think? Jasper23 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Hmmmm! One of the most intriguing political personalities around the globe! Definitely, an article about McCain in a challenge, especially for its editors but also for a reviewer (especially if the last one has watched carefully the political career of the senator as I have been doing during the last years!). These are my remarks:

  • The prospect of FA status may be difficult for this article, because of a major inherent difficulty: McCain is in the centre of the ongoing poilitical events in USA; his expected participation in the Republican primaries and his (probable) ensuing candidacy for the US presidency. What I mean is that there may be a problem with criterion 1e: "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day. I'm afraid that during the next months we are going to have here "day to day significan changes". It seems inevitable.
  • I think the lead could be a bit longer per WP:LEAD.
  • I see many [citation needed]. They need fixing.
  • "Both his father and grandfather were famous U.S. Navy admirals." How do you define "famous". Who assesses that and why?
  • In "Personal Life" I would like to have some more information about his first marriage.
  • The same section ("Personal life") needs rewriting. The prose in incoherent and the paragraphs are stubby.
  • Second paragraph in "Vietnam" is uncited.
  • "He was then tortured by Vietnamese soldiers, who bayonetted him in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton." Prose repetitions! What about an overall copy-editing?
  • I don't like the two last stubby paragrpahs in "Prisoner of war". They are stubby and they are mal-connected with the rest of the paragraph.
  • You give almost no information for his political career from 1982 to 1997. This is a huge deficiency! 3 lines for such an important career, and then straight to the 2000 primaries! What he did as a senator? How did he win? A comprehensive article must answer such questions.
  • Because of this deficiencies the introduction to "2000 Presidential Primary" is seamless and steep.
  • "He made over 200 stops, talking in every town in New Hampshire in an example of "retail politics" that overcame Bush's famous name. He won by a 60-40 landslide, and suddenly was the celebrity of the hour. Analysts predicted that a McCain victory in the South Carolina primary would give him unstoppable momentum. However, McCain lost the crucial state of South Carolina. Bush now regained the momentum." Choose a tense, stick on it and further improve the prose!
  • "However, McCain made serious mistakes that negated any momentum he may have regained with the Michigan victory." Hmmmm! Tricky assertion. Possibly POV. It would be better if you provided sources and rephrased like that: "According to X, McCain made serious ... "
  • "In mid-November 2006 early polls showed him leading Hillary Clinton." I think current polls show the opposite, but I'm not absolutely sure.
  • Can you explain to the ignorants what a "maverick" is? I had also read it in the Economist for McCain, but I'm still not sure about its meaning (and I think I'm not the only one).
  • In "Political views" you have some stubby sub-sections. Merge or expand. Or create a sub-article and summarize it here. This could be even better. Whatever you decide you certainly have to say more (in the main article or the sub-article you'll create) about his environmenal views, which are contradictory to the Bush adm and the neocon indifference towards these issues. I think McCain and Schwarzenenger are the most environmentally friendly conservative politicians, and this deserves some analysis.
  • Before going into details about his various POVs (environment, immigration etc.), I'd like to have some general assessments about his political presence. The fact that he is regarded as a "moderate conservative" should be stressed and analysed. And is he mainly a "realist" or an "idealist". After Rumsfeld's deposition, this division is again discussed. I was reading an article in TIME discussing whethere McCain will now prefer the support of the realists (such as the associates of the elder Bush) of his party or of the idealists (the neocons, and some close associated of Bush junior).
  • "McCain has consistently shown himself to be a prominent "hawk" on foreign policy." Again possibly POV. I recommend rephrasing like above and citing. Are there different opinions? Does he accept that he is a "hawk"?
  • In "Social issues" you go from gay marriages to abortions seamlessly. Again a problem of article flow!
  • What are McCain's views concerning natural selection and the opposite Evangelist theories?
  • I think that "Presidential Election 2004" should go to "Political career" and not "Political views". And the two last paragraphs there are stubby.
  • "Such restraint should come from Hezbollah and the nations sponsoring it, notably Iran, McCain said in remarks that became a freewheeling, far-reaching speech on foreign policy, including his views on matters involving North Korea, Iraq and the U.S. war on terrorism." I don't understand this phrase. Bad structure.
  • "McCain's brother, Joe McCain, has written a popular speech on Israel, Jews and anti-Semitism." Why is this important? And if it is important connect with the senator's views and provide more information. What does his brother say?
  • ""Gang of 14" and Senate filibuster" is uncited. I also suggest that you provide some further clarifications for those not familiar with the American constitution and the operation of the Congress.
  • "McCain argues that American military and intelligence personnel in future wars will suffer for abuses committed in 2006 by the US in the name of fighting terrorism. He fears the administration's policy will put American prisoners at risk of torture, summary executions and other atrocities by chipping away at Geneva Convention. He argues that his rival bill to Bush’s plan gives defendants access to classified evidence being used to convict them and will set tight limits on use of testimony obtained by coercion. Furthermore it offers CIA interrogators some legal protections from charges of abuse, but rejects the administration’s plan to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions’ standards for humane treatment of prisoners. McCain insists this issue overrides politics." This paragraph begs for citations!
  • "Keating Five controversy" is stubby.
  • Turn "Other Controversies" into prose.
  • "Appearances on radio, television and in movies" also needs rewriting. It is listy.
  • Get rid of "Trivia" and "See also".
  • I'd suggest that you keep only the external links you regard as absolutely necessary.--Yannismarou 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Quite an in depth review. I agree with all of your points and when I have time I will start checking off the list. Thanks again for all your work. And I agree that FA status will be unattainable until after the primary. Jasper23 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schi[edit]

A bit late, but if you're still interested, style concerns, mostly:

  • Non-initial, non-proper words in headings should be lowercase. So, "Other Controversies" should be "Other controversies", and "Presidential Election 2004" should be "Presidential election 2004", except that isn't very good English - how about "2004 presidential election"?
checkYDone. -- Satori Son 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excessive use of titles. You don't need to keep referring to McCain as "Senator McCain" - "McCain" is just fine.
checkYDone. -- Satori Son 16:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several citations with improper punctuation/extra spaces, for example "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [41]" - it should be "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[41]" Likewise, "American Conservative Union rating is 83 percent[34]." should be "American Conservative Union rating is 83 percent.[34]"
checkYDone. -- Satori Son 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's a pain, but wikilinking complete dates is a good thing to do for readers' date preferences.
  • The section "Middle-East" should be "Middle East".
checkYDone. -- Satori Son 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's at all possible, I think it's best to avoid "Controversies" sections. In this case, would it be possible to incorporate those items into the chronological, narrative accounts of his career/personal life?
  • The 13th cite needs to have its ref tag closed!
checkYDone. -- Satori Son 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Vietnam" section, this bit: The Saints squadron and its parent Air Wing 16 suffered the highest loss rate of any Navy flying unit during the entire Vietnam War. This was due to the perilous missions assigned to it and to the aggressiveness of its aviators. needs citations for the POV characterizations and should also be re-worded, it's rather clunky. schi talk 00:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Jameson[edit]

This may be controversial, but hopefully won't be boring!

A few months ago, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team came to WP:P* and asked what our key articles were. We listed a few, and this was one of the most important ones, being about probably the most famous currently active porn star in the world.

She is unique in that she has actually gotten a lot of coverage from impressive sources: New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Rolling Stone. Also she has written a best selling autobiography. So unlike the other, poorly sourced porn star articles that so many see as a blight on the Wikipedia, this article actually has a chance of getting somewhere. (I think I've cited it ... just a bit. :-) )

Eventually I'm aiming high, hopefully eventually Wikipedia:Featured articles - but not quite yet, especially as this would be my first WP:FAC. Can we start with a review? Even if it doesn't get to so such lofty heights, at least we can make it of a standard for other porn star articles to aim for, and maybe indirectly help clean up an area that needs a bit of that.

Thank you very much. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
    • There are many links, but I can't see any that are repeated within the same section, or don't add much to the article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
    • Done, I think. All are a short sentence fragment. Short enough? AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 48 foot, use 48 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 48&nbsp;foot.[1]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: color (A) (British: colour), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), aging (A) (British: ageing), kerb (B) (American: curb), program (A) (British: programme).
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific question: lead image?[edit]

Maybe I'll get more feedback if I ask specific questions? The lead image on the article is all right, but it was taken at the same time as the one of Jameson and Jay Grdina, lower. This is obvious from her costume and background. Due to the efforts of User:Tabercil and User:Kamui99, and the kind donations of semi-professional photographers, we have other high resolution completely free (Creative Commons 2.5) images of Jenna Jameson, on commons. Would one of them be better, to avoid the repetition? Specifically, I'm thinking of this headshot (left), which had appeared on the article earlier, or this rather more dramatic three-quarters figure (right). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the pictures, I'd probably use the headshot to avoid the repetition. Trebor 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the picture on the left is very representative, as she's usually blonde isn't she? --kingboyk 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh - leaving until there is more consensus one way or the other. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

(breakdown into points by AnonEMouse, also moved picture comment up to that section.)

The article starts well and is well-cited

  • (although I question whether any sentence really needs 5 cites, 2 or maybe 3 would suffice even if the issue is controversial),
    • Reduced to no more than 3 everywhere.
  • but there's too many 1-2 sentence paragraphs.
  • I personally dislike direct external links within the article itself, e.g. to ClubThrust, and they aren't used on featured articles.
    • Moved to External links section.
  • The Mainstream Appearances section I'm unsure about. It's just a list of things she has been in, and "mainstream" is a fairly debatable term. It definitely shouldn't be kept in its current form - either transformed into prose with decent sized paragraphs (if you are able to group the appearances into sensible sections) or made into a list. A lot of it is then listed again in Mainstream Work which makes it redundant.
    • It's a list of "appearances outside pornography", which is generally considered difficult to achieve: Ginger Lynn, Traci Lords, R. Bolla, etc., spend a lot of effort on it. Will work on expanding, and sorting.
    • There. I stuck some of the items together in paragraphs by decade, expanded a few, and added a bit of an overarching theme for the section, of her trying to break into mainstream fame from solely pornography. Better? I know it's still a bit choppy, but don't really know how to improve it further without just throwing interesting information away. It wasn't even all mine, so I'd feel especially guilty throwing away others' contributions. Any specific help will be welcome. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added an academic paper about her efforts to enter mainstream - it really is important. Also added even more, and a bit of contrast between "before the book" and "after the book", which made a bit of difference. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for the filmography, "important" is a bit POV - who says it's important and why? Trebor 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The porn films are the ones unusually important to her career - first film, and award winners. I can put a line by each film saying so, but would that then be redundant with the Awards section?
      • Yeah, it'll probably be fine as it is. There's a part of me that wants to say "no, every assertion of importance must be sourced", vying with the less policy-obsessed part that thinks "well, it's pretty obvious which are most important and justifying each one is a waste of time". In this case, the latter probably wins. Trebor 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article - it's looking much better. It should easily make Good Article and (I think) would have a shot at featured. Minor things that could be changed:

  • "Massoli was raped a second time" - is this just her alleging it and Preacher denying, or was there a conviction? If it's just two opposing views, then the current wording makes Massoli's seem correct.
  • "As of 13 April 2005, she and publisher ReganBooks were embroiled in a lawsuit" and then "As of this writing" - the information seems slightly sketchy and unclear. Do we know when the lawsuit was filed or just when it was first reported on? Are you sure no resolution has been reached, or has one just not been reported? Also, saying "as of 2005" makes the information seem very out-of-date; saying "as of this writing" would require the reader to search the history to see when it was written (give the date of writing if necessary at all). Trebor 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just not been reported, unfortunately. However, it's important enough that even a New York Times article about Regan's firing mentions it ... and again not how it ends. It's linked to. Fortunately Regan's firing puts a more definite date on the time as of which it hadn't been settled or at least reported. Mentioned that, also expanded on VH1 Confessions special. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the changes are fine and I can't see anything else to improve - it's a quality article. Trebor 19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nicely done! These are my remarks:

  • "She was born ... ". When you start a new section, I recommend not to start with "she". I think it would be better "Jameson was born ... ".
    • Jameson is her stage name, she was born Massoli. Wrote that.
  • "Biography" needs more coherent writing. For instance, these stubby paragraphs are not nice. Merge or expand them.
  • I think that you could also add more sub-sections in "Biography", such as "Early life and family", "Early career" etc. This might also help you better organizing your material.
    • Done.
  • Before "Autobiography" there is an uncited paragraph.
    • Cited, expanded, moved down to Business (as it is a Club Jenna thing).
  • There is a paradox with "Autobiography": The section of this article is bigger that the main article about the book! The opposite is more usual! I'd suggest that you expand the main article and then see what you want to include of the main article here. You could also link to the main article straight after the heading like that:
Further information: How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale
    • That's because I didn't write the other article. :-). No excuse, I know. Expanded the other one, more work left.
      • Expanded both this section and the other article in different ways. There's still overlap, but I do want to mention the facts that the book is a compilation of different styles, that's interesting, and the fact that it's really personal, that's important. I hope it's passable now? AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mainstream appearances" is poorly written. There are so many stubby paragraphs that it looks almost listy.
  • I read in the article about her awards, here achievements ("best renting pornographic title") etc. (there is also a long listy, which I am not sure if it is absolutely necessary, but let's see what other reviewers will say about that), but if she really is a controversial person, then there must be somewhere some controversy! Some critics, opponents etc. criticizing her style, her work etc. I think this should be further analysed.--Yannismarou 17:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant controversy in the sense of expecting clones of User:Brian G. Crawford showing up and demanding that all pornography articles be expunged from the Wikipedia, and their authors defenestrated. She's not particularly controversial among porn stars as such, she doesn't do anything particularly extreme, she's more revered or envied for her success. There's a bit where she criticised Suze Randall and Suze criticised back, I'll see if I can find that.

Thank you both! I did the quick things, others might take a bit longer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLilburne[edit]

So far I've only had a chance to look at the "Biography" section, but I've noticed a couple examples awkward writing that could stand to be edited.

In October 1990, while the family was living in a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was gang raped by four boys after a football game. Later she would be raped a second time, by her boyfriend's uncle. She would later provide graphic details in her autobiography. In the book she writes...

There's an awkward use of passive voice, "later she would." The reader also wonders how much later. Then it sounds a bit repetitive when you continue with "She would later". There is another repetition when you have "in her autobiography" immediately followed by "in the book...".
Rephrased. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after the second rape, at age 16, Jenna left her home and moved in with her boyfriend, Jack, a tattoo artist, her first serious relationship. He gave her what would become her trademark tattoo, double hearts on her right buttock, which her brother, who would become a tattoo artist himself, later enscribed "HEART BREAKER".

Way too many commas and clauses in a row. I don't have a specific suggestion, but you need to break up those sentences somehow, and vary their rhythm a little more.
Broke up. Better?

Later in 1991, she chose the name "Jenna Jameson" from scrolling through the phone book for a last name that matched her first name, and finally deciding on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks.

Also a bit of a run-on sentence.
Broke up.

While in high school, she began taking drugs, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines, again accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin.

Either you need to set the names of the drugs apart with something other than commas, or you need to start the list with "such as" or something similar.
Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 1992 Jack left her, and a friend put her in a wheelchair, and sent her to her father, then living in California, to detox.

Another one of these strings of commas and clauses.
Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She has also avoided interracial intercourse.

This is not a stylistic point, but rather one of curiosity. Do we know why? It would be interesting to mention the reason, if so.
That's tough. Here's the thing - she's actually been called racist for this on several talk boards, but there isn't that much discussion in reliable sources. There is plenty of reliable writing about the fact she doesn't do other activities, but less for this particular one. I'm personally somewhat amused by the fact that someone can be called racist for restricting whom she has sex with, but that's beside the point.

Best of luck with the article. Hope that my suggestions will be of some use, even though they are rather nit-picky ones. MLilburne 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank all three of you very much for your excellent comments. I will try to implement them, but it could take a number of days to respond to them all - I do intend to repond to them all, and actually implement the suggestions in almost all, since they are very good, justified comments. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

badlydrawnjeff[edit]

(copied here from User talk:AnonEMouse to keep in one place)

Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's basically what the other reviewers wrote. I'll add it to the review. However, I've noticed that it's a lot harder for me to actually put the reviewer comments into practice than it was for you - with Babb, I would write something, and you would do it, while with Jameson, it's taking many days for me to make better paragraphs out of the broken points. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream section redone a bit, see #Trebor's section, above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Business section down expanded, merged, reflowed. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job on this. I think it's certainly GA quality, and could be FA quality with some prose fixes and cleanup at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - WP:GA would be an excellent start. I'll see if someone agrees. :-).
Somebody agreed! :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan[edit]

  • Comment The "Awards" section could do with conversion from being a list into prose also, even though most articles fail to do so. If it did it'd make the article more fluent as a whole, as it could say "Jenna has won the blah blah award X times..." etc. I think it'd be more encyclopaedic that way. LuciferMorgan 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked as some Wikipedia:Featured articles for actors: Henry_Fonda#Awards has a very similar section for that. Angelina_Jolie#Filmography and Uma_Thurman#Filmography put awards in the lines of individual films, which I can't do, since many of JJs (best new starlet, hall of fame) are not film-specific. Of course they're tables, rather than lists - would that be better? All these articles also discuss many of the awards in the text, but then so does the Jenna Jameson article, if not quite to the same extent. I'll see if I can do that more, but, unfortunately, there is more critical commentary on a mainstream actors' performances of specific roles than in porn. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In some sections it reads "who would" etc. as though in future tense, which can become grating. It's up to you, but I'd personally suggest changing it to past tense consistently throughout. LuciferMorgan 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got rid of all but one which I can't figure out how to avoid without losing the meaning. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romaine Brooks[edit]

I've been working on this artist bio off and on for a few months and have undoubtedly lost all ability to tell whether I'm being clear. I haven't put it through the GA process yet, but I'm interested in finding out what it will take to bring it all the way to FA.

I'm working on a short article about Gluck (that dashing young artist who inexplicably chose a name that sounds like a chicken noise) so the one remaining redlink will be gone soon. —Celithemis 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Great! And what an interesting personality! And that is exactly the succcess of a good article: to reveal the intriguing aspects of a personality. This is one of the cases I believe a reviewer is mainly redundant. Some minor and possibly trivia things:

  • "When a fellow student left a book open on her stool with pornographic passages underlined, she picked it up and hit him in the face with it. She had no further difficulties." No difficulties with what? Further sexual harassments? I just don't like so much this little phrase.
  • "hated the constant socializing on which Barney thrived". I think "hated" is a very strong verb. But if you think it is definitely the right word and you can verify its accuracy ...
  • I'd like the photo captions a bit more informative (some comments, whereabouts of the painting etc.). But it seems we have a different philosophy in this issue. I usually transfer information in the captions and do not over-analyze a painting in the text. You, on the other hand, incorporate analyses of significant paintings within your prose and keep the captions laconic.
  • And do not forget to alphabetize the categories at the end of the article.

In general, I think the article has a good chance in FAC. About the prose I'm not the best to comment, but it looked to me fine. And the research is definitely more than fine (25+ references when more FACs have not more than 5-6).--Yannismarou 08:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Cromwell[edit]

Self-nomination - I have been doing a lot of work with this article and hopefully have improved, but am far too immersed in it now to be objective. My aim is to get it to GA status and then beyond. I would really value any comments. Greycap 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Cromwell is a historical figure who always intrigued me, especially for the way he imposed his will on the people and the way he treated the royal tradition of England. But, anyway, this is not our subject here. I don't think you'll have any problems with GA. My remarks have mostly to do with a future attempt for FA status. These are my remarks for this nice article:

  • I think you say twice in the lead that Cromwell was regarded by some scholars as a dictator. I think once is enough! For me this is a repetition. And be careful, because the lead is the mirror of your article.
  • "He was a regicide who debated whether to accept the crown himself and decided not – though ironically he had more power than Charles I. He was a parliamentarian who ordered his soldiers to dissolve parliaments. He was devoted to Christian values yet his conquests of Scotland and Ireland were brutal. He advocated religious liberty of conscience but allowed blasphemers to be tortured. He advocated equitable justice but imprisoned those who criticized his raising taxation outside the agreement of Parliament." I also don't like the prose here. Many "he". Two "advocated" in a row. You say "He was a regicide" and a few words after "He was a parliamentarian". A better variety of expression would be welcomed. What about "As a parliamentarian he ... " or something else. If you are a native English speaker, you can definitely have better ideas than me!
  • "Family" is stubby. Expand it or merge it with "Early Years" (I'd also suggest that for GAC).
  • "He then studied at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, which was then a recently founded college with a strong puritan ethos". Again the prose! You see the "thens"? I'd suggest a copy-edit (not absolutely necessary for GAC; definitely necessary for FAC!).
  • "At this stage, however, there is little evidence of Cromwell’s own religion. His letter in 1626 to Henry Downhall – an Arminian minister – suggests that before this point Cromwell had yet to be influenced by radical puritanism.[3] However, there is evidence ..." Again prose. I think these two "howevers" are too close one to the other. A better variety of expression is needed.
  • Try to avoid red links as much as possible. If necessary, create stub-articles. And check if your red links are really red! For instance, although there is Portrait miniature you had a wrong and useless red link miniature portrait (I fixed that).
  • "In May 1641, for example, it was Cromwell who put forward the second reading of the Annual Parliaments Bill, and who later took a role in drafting the Root and Branch Bill for the abolition of episcopacy". Citation needed.
  • It'd be nice if you could tell us with 3-4 words or a short sentence what is the Long Parliament and not just wikilink us.
  • Who is John Lilburne? Again the wikilink is not enough. Persons and institutions come and go, but you don't explain us what they are exactly.
  • "Irish Campaign: 1649-50" needs more citations.
  • Last paragraph in "Politics: 1647-1649" is uncited.
  • "One of his major victories in Ireland was diplomatic rather than military - persuading, with the help of Roger Boyle, 1st Earl of Orrery - the Protestant Royalist troops in Cork to change sides and fight with the Parliament." Is this phrase OK? Especially the use of dashes. I'm not sure if the syntax is Ok here and that is why I'm asking!
  • The first paragraph of "Debate over Cromwell's actions in Ireland" is full of assessments but has no citations. Don't have such assessments uncited! And, at least, try to have one citation for ech sentence (have in mind this rule for GAC).
  • "Scottish Campaign: 1650-1651" also needs more citations.
  • Don't wikilink more than once. For instance, Presbyterianism.
  • "Death and posthumous execution" is also uncited.
  • "Posthumous reputation" is excellent. Very nicely researched! Nevertheless, personally I'd create two seperate sections: one with the assessments and one with the films, songs etc. (last two paragraphs of the current section). But I suppose this is up to you!
  • Just a question: You have a "References" section. Is this really a "References" section? What do I mean? I see in Footnotes more ISBNS. So, I wonder have you used the books from "References" in "Footnotes" or the "References" section is really a "Further Reading" section? There are three ways to have references: 1) In just one section (Notes or Footnotes), 2) In two sections (Footnotes and References [citations in Notes are analysed in detail with ISBNs etc. in References]), 3) In three sections (Citations, Notes [here we have a division of the previous Footnotes or Notes section] and References). Pick the form you prefer, check the current References section and rename it or create a "Further Reading" section if you feel that you need it.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocrates[edit]

I've been away from this article for a few weeks and would like some feedback to help me further improve it. I hope to make it an FAC soon... -- Rmrfstar 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a few hours of deliberation, I have finally split the article into "Hippocrates" and "Hippocratic Corpus"... or I am about to: the articles-to-be are in my workspaces. If no one has any objections, I shall complete the procedure soon. -- Rmrfstar 02:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unmerge complete! How does it look? -- Rmrfstar 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the unmerge.--Yannismarou 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gzkn[edit]

Well researched and comprehensive with respect to the Hippocratic Corpus. However, I came away from this article knowing much more about the Hippocratic Corpus than Hippocrates. I would recommend separating them into two different articles. The prose needs some major polishing before it meets FA's 1a criteria. I would suggest trying to find someone more familiar with this topic than me to give it a run through and extensive copy edit. Specific comments:

  • Why not use "prominent" instead of "outstanding", as one of the other common definitions of the word would violate NPOV?
I like "outstanding" better, but if it's a big deal, I'd agree to change it to "prominent" or "eminent".
  • since it wasn't compiled until around A.D. 200 Avoid contractions in articles.
  • Wikilink "Askleipion" in the caption.
  • "however unreliable, on Hippocrates's person" Weird use of the possessive there. Why not just "on Hippocrates's life" or "on Hippocrates"?
Neither of those would have the intended meaning. I believe this is correct English: see definition 3 at http://www.answers.com/person&r=67.
  • "but Polybus was Hippocrates’ true successor according to Galen," Who's Galen? Give some context here instead of defining later.
  • "Soranus says Hippocrates was taught medicine..." Abruptly switches to present tense, when in the previous para, the equivalent was "Soranus stated that Hippocrates's father...".
  • "Herodicus of Selymbria: Plato" Is that supposed to be a semicolon instead?
No.
  • Avoid passive tense (which riddles this article).
    • There was the Knidian school of medicine which was focused towards diagnosis --> "The Knidian school of medicine focused on diagnosis" (note also that towards is not the right preposition there) Also, "dependent upon" is probably not the best phrase. Try "because of".
    • The focus of Hippocratic medicine was on --> "Hippocratic medicine focused on"
    • In the Hippocratic work On the physician, it is recommended that physicians --> "The Hippocratic work, On the physician, recommended that physicians "
  • The Hippocratic school, the Koan school, however, was more successful. Because of the commas, "however" would be better at the beginning of the sentence here, no matter what Strunk and White say.
  • It could effectively treat many diseases, yet it allowed for a great development in clinical practice... What's that "yet" doing there? The latter half of the sentence isn't contradicting the first...
  • ...he held many pseudo-scientific convictions based on bad anatomy and physiology such as Humorism. Ambiguous use of "such as" (do you see why?). The "such as Humorism" should be placed immediately after "convictions". --> "pseudo-scientific convictions, such as Humorism, which were based on bad anatomy and physiology." Also, there are more descriptive words than "bad" out there.
  • On a similar note: result of an imbalance of the four humours in the body, fluids which were naturally equal in proportion (pepsis) --> "result of an imbalance in the body of the four humours, fluids which were naturally equal in proportion (pepsis)"
  • Hippocratic medicine was, humbly, very kind to the patient, sterile and gentle whenever possible. Humbly? What's that doing there?
Better?
  • Despite all of its advancements in medical theory, it was truly in discipline, strict professionalism and rigorous practice that Hippocratic medicine excelled. Weasely: "it was truly". Also needs a cite.
I don't think this is weasly, though I did include a citation.
  • The second paragraph of Professionalism changes tenses three times.
  • "To him medicine owes the art of clinical inspection and observation"[4] For this reason, he may termed only the "Father of Clinical Medicine". What's going on here?
This passage looks fine to me.
  • textbooks, lectures, research, notes and even philosophical essays "even" is not necessary.
  • There are a number of case-histories in the Hippocratic Corpus, 42 to be exact. --> "There are 42 case-histories in the Hippocratic Corpus."
  • It must be taken into account that the Corpus is very large, and was written by many authors. It makes sense that not all of it is of this “laconic” style... but most of it is. Phrases such as "it must be taken into account" and "it makes sense that" should be avoided. Second sentence is not encyclopedic, especially with the ellipsis.
  • It is notable that <-- GAH! Not another!
  • This was in Latin... Ambiguous "this".
  • This was scholarly, yet sometimes inaccurate and awkward. More ambiguous "this". Also, without a cite, the sentence violates NPOV.
  • Hippocrates was the first great physician, and for a long time, the last While many people might agree, this statement violates NPOV.
  • And yet, Hippocratic medicine is far removed from modern medicine. "And yet" is not necessary.
  • Hippocrates and his followers identified many diseases and medical conditions for the first time. Such as?
Such as those listed below it.
  • Hippocrates is in his description of the symptomology, physical findings, surgical treatment... Huh?
  • Much of what he said is very useful to students of pulmonary medicine and surgery today. --> "His teachings remain relevant to contemporary students of pulmonary medicine and surgery."
  • old doctor is reinforced by our busts of him Avoid first person.
  • He, and the beliefs that he embodied, are considered medical ideals. "He is, above all, the exemplar of that flexible, critical, well-poised attitude of mind, ever on the lookout for sources of error, which is the very essence of the scientific spirit."[4] "His figure... stands for all time as that of the ideal physician”, inspiring the medical profession since his death. Don't list quotes without specifying who said them.
  • This account is very much in conflict with unfinished sentence.
  • With this legendary figure, comes a legendary genealogy... NPOV violation. Gzkn 09:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have dealt with all of these, except those that I have commented on. -- Rmrfstar 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I've already reviewed this article, which is obviously good. I may sound repetitive, but some of my current remarks are exactly the same with the previous ones I had made:

  • "is commonly regarded as one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine". I'm afraid this could be regarded as POV.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the first definition of outstanding is, "Standing out among others of its kind; prominent. See synonyms at noticeable."[1] Hippocrates is undeniably this.
If you say so! I just have noticed that Wikipedia is sometimes weird with POV. But your argument sounds convincing!--Yannismarou 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "biography" is short. It is also short in Britannica and I also know that most details about his life are unknown. But it would be nice if we had some more things about him (if there is anything more available!).
Wouldn't it be nice! I haven't been able to find any more information, though I have recognized this as an issue. A reader must take into account, however, the "Legends" section which details some highly unreliable stories of his life.
  • Again the red links! I know it is not a prerequisite for FA status, but they are not nice. And in FAC I read more and more critical comments about them.
Better?
  • In "Methods of Treatment" I see a [specify]. Why?
I shall fix this.
  • "The Oath" is stubby. And I think that some other sub-sections could also be expanded a bit.
I agree. "The Oath" itself is one of the most important topics of the article and should be expanded.
  • "Medical practitioners who followed him sometimes moved backwards. For instance, "after the Hippocratic period, the practice of taking clinical case-histories died out..."" I don't like the way the quote is inserted here. I'd prefer to know who says these things in the text, because it is an assessment of some importance.
Fixed?
  • I think these stubby paragraphs in "Legends" should be restructured (merged or expanded).
Have dealt with.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
Done!
  • For me, the "See also" section is long. The tendency is not to use so much now "see also" sections. And I also see there red links! Do you intend to create these articles? Otherwise, I think you should move them to external links.--Yannismarou 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the entire See also was a list of his namesakes (after I removed the redundant "ancient greek medicine"), I renamed the section to "Namesakes"... how does this work? Let me try to create these redlinks. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Abraham (town planner)[edit]

Hoping this article may qualify for GA or A status. It has already been nominated (very shortly after its creation) by an admin (User:GeeJo) for inclusion on the 4 November 2006 "Do You Know" section of the Main Page.. so maybe even FA status might be a possibility.. Bezapt 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice start. The article can be GA. These are my remarks:

  • The lead is too short. It could be expanded per WP:LEAD.
  • Further information could be added in some sections. For instance, I think "Early life" could be further expanded. We don't learn much about his early life.
  • Speaking of "Early life", I don't see the nameds of his parents mentioned.
  • More photos would also be welcomed.
  • "Other career highlights" is stubby. Try to expand it a bit.
  • I would also like to have a few more assessments of his work (analysis of innovations, artistic aspects etc.).--Yannismarou 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Cross[edit]

I would like to see what needs to be done to get at least a B on this article. Please keep in mind that there are no known photo's of this person. I know that it would be helpful to have a photo of her but I can not provide one. T. White 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLilburne[edit]

Firstly, you really, really need to clarify the copyright status of the text, because it looks like it was copied wholesale from that "Find a Grave" website. I have listed it on the page for possible copyright problems, and left a note on your talk page. When this has been cleared up, let me know, and I will be happy to come back with other suggestions. MLilburne 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been taken to the article's talk page, as the article is now on notice for copyright problems, and a draft replacement is being discussed. MLilburne 21:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Greco[edit]

First of all, I want to make clear that this is not yet the final form of the article. Regard it as an incomplete effort. But I request this peer-review, in order to receive feedback and proceed with the adequate improvements. My obvious goal is to submit this article in FAC. Please, any suggestion, contribution, idea is welcomed. I want to highlight my major concerns:

  • Possible prose defficiencies.
  • Factual accuracy.
  • Possible ommissions in the content.
  • Artistic assessments and comparaisons.

Thank you!--Yannismarou 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

I will definitely review this for you this weekend! --plange 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my thoughts:

  • "These works would come to impose themselves" impose on whom? the artworld, the king?
Rephrased.
  • the quote from Pachero leaves me hanging: "If I say that Domenico Greco sets his hand to his canvases many and many times over, that he worked upon them again and again, but to leave the colors crude and unblent in great blots as a boastful display of his dexterity?" Usually "if's" are followed by "then's"?
Rephrased.
  • This sentence is pretty convoluted: "The same scholar asserts that Platonism and Neo-Platonism (not that of the Renaissance but the ancient one), Plotinus and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (who was included in his library), texts of the Church fathers and liturgical texts offer the keys to the understanding of El Greco's style"
Tried to simplify it.
  • I see you're using {{cquote}} for your inline quotations, and while they look pretty, they're really not in keeping with WP:MOS. Inline quotations (where you have "someone said:" and then the quote) should just use <blockquote>s. cquote template is for "pull quotes" that are outside of the flow of the prose, like you do with your nice blue ones (which I use as an example, BTW, when I try to show people what a pull quote is)
I rearranged the quotes and inserted also the use of <blockquote>s. I hope it is now better.--Yannismarou 20:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!! --plange 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I will work on your proposals. I've already done some tweaks.--Yannismarou 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celithemis[edit]

I'm surprised you say this isn't in its final form -- it seems extremely thorough and well-organized. Mostly a matter of copyediting, I think.

Some miscellaneous notes:

  • "Fodele or Candia (or Chandax, the present day Herakleion)": this sounds as if it refers to three different places rather than only two.
  • "English teacher Janet Sethre": is she really a primary or secondary school teacher, rather than a professor? If so, it's not clear why she is a source worth quoting on a question of interpretation. Does she have another claim to authority that isn't mentioned?
  • Removed claims of Sethre, because I did not find any other source supporting them and just kept a reference to another art historian and El Greco's critic.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Harold E. Wethey, professor of the History of Art at the University of Michigan" -- I think the name would be enough here. In general, if someone quoted is some kind of art historian or professor, including their job title doesn't seem necessary.
  • I changed it to "According to professor Harold E. Wethey ... ".--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could all the discussion of exactly when El Greco went to Venice be summed up as "around 1567", and the full explanation moved to an explanatory footnote? The research and care are impressive, but there's a risk of losing the important points in all this detail. Also, it's unclear whether this paragraph means to say that his works were greatly esteemed in Venice or in Crete.
  • I totally agree! I overanalyzed the whole issue. More analysis shifted to note e.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the hostility of certain artistic cycles" -- this phrase doesn't make sense.
  • Rephrased. I hope it is clear now.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inventory of the household goods does not mention, however, a large house." What?
  • I know! I thought the same thing seeing it! It was copy-edited. The intial phrasing was: "The inventory of the household goods does not retain, however, the memory of a wealthy mansion" and I now made it "The inventory of the household goods does not retain, however, the memory of a large house". What do you think?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Re-evaluation of his art, there's a repetition: "Future generations found little appreciation..." and then "The master was disdained by the next generations after his death".
  • Re-organized the paragraph per your suggestion.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to El Greco as "the master", "the Cretan painter", "the Cretan master", etc. rather than by his sobriquet is an awkward way of avoiding repetition.
  • I'll have more of his sobriquet! I was also thinking about this matter.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grace is the supreme quest of the artistic form": "the supreme quest of art" would make more sense (unless "the artistic form" refers to painting?)
  • "turn this use of light into a detonating force": "detonating" doesn't seem like quite the right metaphor here.
  • Tried to rephrase. It is difficult however to exactly translate the Greek word as it is in my source and as I understand it.
  • "the interweaving between form and space": can you unpack this a bit more?
  • Well, I tried to. I added one more explanatory sentence.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heading "supposed Byzantinism" is POV (implying that the supposition is incorrect).
  • What about "Suggested Byzantine Affinities" I wrote?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, it looks really good. —Celithemis 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention I made a printout to read earlier today, so if you already changed some of the things I mention here, don't mind me. I'll try to do a bit of copyediting based on the notes I scribbled, as well. —Celithemis 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more I noticed while copyediting:

Acislo Antonio Palomino de Castro y Velasco, a Spanish painter and writer on art, described his mature work as "contemptible and ridiculous".[2] Some of these commentators, such as Céan Bermúdez, argued that El Greco made his works so eccentric that he became ridiculous and worthy of scorn.[3]

This seems repetitive: "contemptible and ridiculous" is virtually the same thing as "ridiculous and worthy of scorn." Maybe consolidate the two sentences? Or even just say "also argued". —Celithemis 06:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I should have copyedited BEFORE posting here. Just a few more things:

  • "the structural code in the morphology of the mature El Greco": this could use more explanation.
  • I tried to offer some further explanation.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he visited his friend Ignacio Zuloaga": it's not made clear why this is relevant to Picasso's interest in El Greco.
  • Because Zuloaga was the owner of the Fifth Seal. I'll clarify that.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he declared that color had primacy over drawing": does this mean primacy over *line*?
  • Well, by "drawing" I want to say design. Is "line" saying the same thing?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Further assessments, there's some repetitive phrasing: "typically Mannerist" and then "a typical representative of Mannerism."
  • The section on his Byzantinism is confusingly organized; it's hard to work out what the progression of views over time has been. —Celithemis 08:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to restructure the section and make this progression through time more obvious. But it is such the complexity of the various opinions that this is not an easy task!--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for all your comments. I tried to address your concerns and I'll keep working on your detailed remarks. If you wish to do any further copy-edit, please feel free to proceed.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The changes completely resolved nearly all my concerns, so rather than go point by point I'll just drop down here....
I'm actually still confused about the house. Is the sentence saying that he never had a large house? Or that he did have one, and the inventory of household goods doesn't reflect that because he got rid of the furnishings?
Re "color over drawing" -- in that case, maybe form is the right word? Or possibly composition. It's not usual to refer to drawing in a painting in English, and I think line is probably more specific than what you mean.
Your revisions to the Byzantinism section definitely make things clearer (despite the welter of critical opinions on the subject!) The first sentence winds up being a bit vague, though. Perhaps something like "Since the beginning of the twentieth century, scholars have debated whether El Greco's style had Byzantine origins."? —Celithemis 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I removed this confusing sentence about the inventory. After all it did not add everything important. I'll implement your proposal and replace the first sentence according to your proposal.--Yannismarou 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelian[edit]

I would like to know what are the weak points of this article, and how to improve it.--Panarjedde 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice start! Some remarks:

  • The article needs inline citations.
  • In the lead you have a whole seperate paragraph with its full name. I don't know if this is definitely necessary.
  • You don't have any information about his early years. Isn't there any available?
  • What was the "Palmyrene Empire", the "Gallic Empire" and the "Sassanid Empire". You should offer us some explanations I think.
  • After adding inline citations, you should reorganize "References and further reading". You put the sources you used in "References" and further material in "Further reading". "External links" is usually a seperate section.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
  • I think you could add a section with assessments about Aurelian or with an analysis of his legacy, if the sources offer such a possibility.--Yannismarou 09:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph W. Tkach[edit]

I am requesting another Biography project peer review of this article and an assessment on whether this is an A-class article. It currently has GA status and has gone through a general peer review. Many improvements have been made since it reached GA. I have placed the old Biography project peer review comments in the archive below. I am not sure if this is the best way to archive old peer reviews. RelHistBuff 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive1

Yannismarou[edit]

I think the article is A-Class and can go even higher. It was already a very nice article when I first reviewed it and it is even better now. I don't have much to propose here. Some minor, mainly technical, remarks:

  • You could wikilink some more technical terms, such as deacon.
  • One time you say Herbert W. Armstrong, then Armstrong, then again Herbert W. Armstrong! You say once Herbert W. Armstrong and then is always Armstrong.
  • Check double wikilinks. I think you wikilink tithing twice (minor issue of course, but I don't see any major issues in the article!).
  • "The impact of Tkach’s tenure as the head of the WCG was tremendous." Personally, I don't like this phrasing so much. I would prefer a more mild wording.--Yannismarou 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments. I implemented your suggestions. I agree that "tremendous" is a bit strong so I changed it to "notable". I intend to submit this for FA status so any other suggestions to help attain that goal are welcome. --RelHistBuff 11:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Gil de Taboada[edit]

This is an article on a Spanish viceroy of Peru and later a high official in the governing junta in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars. My sources are mostly Spainish. I don't believe there is much available in English. There are some parts of his career I could not find much information on. I would be interested in suggestions about how to find more information. Of course I would also be interested in additional information if someone can add it. And any other suggestions as well. Thanks. —Rbraunwa 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffpw[edit]

  • Hi Rbrauna. I sympathize with your problem about finding sources. Have you tried Nexis? Though it's a pay search engine, you can sign up for a free three day trial. That's what I did when I needed to research an article. Nexis can give you magazine and newspaper articles (among other sources) going back 50 years, all in English. Hope that helps, and here's a link: [2]. After you find articles, don't forget to use inline citations. People here find they help in quality assurance. Jeffpw 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jeffpw, thanks for the Nexis tip. I really don't know anything about that site, so I'll give it a try. I suspect there is more on this guy and I just haven't been able to find it. I need to try a big university library, too. --Rbraunwa 13:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

This article is in its begining; so, I don't have much to say, until I see a more expanded version. Some guidance and general remarks:

  • Have you searched Google Book for search? You could find something. If not then use your Spanish sources and see then what you can do with the prose.
  • You have no inline citations, where you could also include these external links you link within the text.
  • "As viceroy of New Granada" is too stubby. Needs expansion.
  • You might like to use the Biography infobox or the military person infobox.
  • By the way, you could also search in the Military Project in case there is any user there who can help you with the sources.
  • There are also many prose problems. Small unconnected with each other sentences, stubby paragraphs etc. The article will eventually need copy-editing.--Yannismarou 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney[edit]

Please note There is a disagreement over the need to have a peer review by the editors of this page. I suggest the editors come to a consensus about the peer review before wikipedians take the time to comment on this page. If suggestions are not wanted, we should turn to others pages where peer reviews have been requested.

Thanks to those that take the time to make meaningful contributions to wikipedia!--71.232.179.222 20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To more easily read the evaluator's original peer review, take a look at at this version of this Mitt Romney peer review page, before comments were interspersed within the original evaluation.



Mitt Romney is a biographical article about the current governor of Massachusetts, who is visible as a likely contender as a Republican candidate for President of the U.S. in 2008. The article has yet to be rated for quality. I speculate that more than a hundred editors have touched this page since it started as a three sentence stub on 10 January 2004. It has had about 1,500 edits. Apparently over the summer of 2006, the article was expanded significantly by several editors, and sources with links were attached to most of the statements and claims in the article. There are about 10 footnotes and 150 embedded links to sources.

Key points and desires, for a review by outsiders:

  1. General comments that assess its current level of quality and advice on how to improve the article
  2. It is understood that the article presently fails to follow policy by lacking a listing for citations in a References or Notes section at the foot of the article, and that that makes it hard to scan the quality of the sourcing for the article.
  3. Since admirers tend to expand on articles about leading living politicians, it is desirable to have specific comment on various aspects of the neutrality and balance of the article:
    • a. tone and style of the words used to describe activities, speeches, accomplishments and events, in relation to balance and neutrality
    • b. quality of the sourcing and citations (no small task), with attention to balance or neutrality of the sources
    • c. an assessment of what is selected topically to be in the article, and assessment as to what extent that topicality indicates a point of view
    • d. there is little mention or explanation in the article about the environment surrounding the efforts of Romney, and why and how his rhetoric or actions (whether in speech, or in bill-filing, or otherwise) have achieved modest results in comparison to his desires in the state of Massachusetts. Comment on this environmental aspect of a biography is desired, as several editors have said sections read like a press release from a candidate.

A scan of the talk page's table of contents may (or may not) be informative: Talk:Mitt_Romney.
Many thanks -- Yellowdesk 02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I gave a detailed review, because the request was also detailed. In general, it is a quite good an informative article. It needs formatting and content improvements; therefore I rated the article as B-class. As far as POV issues are concerned I give a more detailed analysis further down. In the intro I'll just say that I may not agree with the comment of another commentator that the article "was submitted by the Romney camp", but some slight POV issues exist. The article is not, as a whole, POV, but some phrasing (a phrase concerning the previous governer), the tone in some sections ("CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee" is a hymne for Romsey - in "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" we get the impression that some "vilains" tried to impede Romsey's plans), the over-analysis of Romsey's views and the underanalysis of the legislature's viewes (in "Health" and "Education"), and the lack of critical analysis (pro- and against-Romsey as well) throughout the article raise some partial POV issues.

You make some good suggestions, but others are off base. I think the article is informative and the tone is appropriate. Words like "villian" (which you suggest is in the drunk driving section) are wrong, however I cant find them in this article. Where is this reference? Does it exist? I cant find a place where somebody is called a "villian"? To suggested that this article stoops to name calling is really uncalled for.--Michael16G 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting remarks[edit]
  • First of all some "technical comments". The article definitely needs formatting. It is really peculiar the way some links are done. For nistance, the link to the List of Eagle Scouts was made like an external link, although it is a wikilink (I fixed that)!
  • Let's come to external links. First, it is not nice to link like that: "Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 [3]." Like that is better: "Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998." It is even better if the link is transferred along with the other notes. It is not nice to have 10 inline citations and about 150 external links spread within the prose. Check any recently confirmed FA to see who the system works.
  • Even the notes mentioning external links need formatting. Example: A note was like that: "Greenberger, Scott S. "Romney often casts himself as budget hero; But speeches omit some important detail," Boston Globe, October 24, 2005.[4]". Isn't it better like that? ""Romney often casts himself as budget hero; But speeches omit some important detail". Greenberger, Scott S. (Boston Globe). Retrieved October 28, 2006." I fixed this one, but obviously much formatting work is needing here.
  • The "External Links" at the end are too long. Try to keep only what is absolutely necessary.
Prose issues[edit]
  • "Among the first companies it invested in was Staples, an office-supply store. In 1986 Staples, Inc., had one store. Today it has nearly 1,700." Prose here obviously needs some polishing.
  • "One poll taken after the September 20,1994 primary, sponsored by the Boston Herald and WCVB-TV, showed Romney ahead 44 percent to 42 percent but within the poll's sampling margin of error.: I have a question: Since Kennedy finally swept Romney (17% ahead), why do we have to emphasize on some polls (obviously not to accurate as the elections proved) that had Romney ahead?

The polls that Romney was a serious contender in 1994. His serious candidacy to topple an iconic US Senator gave him name recognition. These polls were not inacurate, they represented the mood in September. Elections are held in November.--Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "His critics cited ... ruling in court." Another phrase needing copy-editing. In general, the whole prose needs copy-editing so that the article flow gets better.

Citing unamed critics are against wikpedia policy. Take the line out.--Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Governor Mitt Romney has been discussed as a potential 2008 presidential candidate as early as 2004. [2] Governor Romney is frequently mentioned as a potential contender in the 2008 presidential election." Aren't these two sentences telling the same thing? Copy-editing needed again.
  • "One Laptop Per Child Initiative: Duplicating a successful program" Rephrase in normal prose.
  • In "Abortion" there are many one-sentence pragraphs. Merge or expand in order to make the prose more solid.
  • "Other Issues" is listy. It should be turned into normal prose. If you can keep it as it is, incoroprate its content in other relevant sections. Like now it looks like a "trivia" section, which is not recommended.

I disagree. The section is for minor issues that dont warrent their own section. Minor rewording might be needed, but it should be left as it.--Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing issues[edit]
  • "According to figures in the 1996 Almanac of American Politics (which relies on official campaign finance reports), Romney spent over $7 million, with Kennedy spending over $10 million, mostly in the last weeks of the campaign." Here we need a citation.
  • "Romney announced in 2005 that he will not seek re-election for a second term as governor, fueling speculation about a run for the White House in 2008." Citation needed.

If something needs a citation, go find it. Stop making work for others. Take some intitiative.--Michael16G 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt the Almanac of Politics the sources in the first one? I will add a citation for the second one.--Waverider5 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content and POV issues[edit]

I can't say that the article is n general POV, but there are some possible POV issues that should be resolved. There also some topics needing further analysis:

  • In "2002 Campaign for Governor" I would like a further analysis about the issues raised during the campaign (not only the legal controversies mentioned) and in which areas Romney and O'Brien confronted each other. After all, it was a narrow defeat for Romney and it looks like an interesting campaign. GIve us some more details about it. Not just the final result!

Its a fine length. Keep in mind this is Mitt Romney's page, not "the 2002 Massachusets Governor's Race Page." Start a separate page if you want to add more details. This page is undoubtably going to expand when Romney runs for president. We cant clutter it with minor details.--Michael16G 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Swift was viewed as an inept and unpopular executive, and her administration was plagued by political missteps and personal scandals." "Viewed" by whom? "Inept" and "unpopular" according to whom and why? What "missteps" and what "scandals"? This phrase, at least under its present form, is definitely POV for Swift. This arguments need substantiation, analysis and rephrasing. And of course, the only citated source is not enough for me.

Somebody just added the "inept" phrase. I removed it. It is clearly POV. The sources do show that she was unpopular. Read the Associated Press article sourced. "her approval ratings had plummeted." Look at the poll. If you have questions about the scandal, read the article. It mentions ethics investigations.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "Health" and "Education" we have a comprehensive analysis of Romsey's policies. And after this full analysis, we learn about the legislature's vetoes. But we donot have an equal analysis of the legislature's point of you. We see the clash, we see Romsey's beliefs, but we do not learn why the legislature does not agree with Romsey. I think a more balanced analysis is needed here. Critical viewes of both Romsey's and the legislature's stance would be also welcomed.

Here is what you need to know. Romney is a Republican and the legislature is dominiated by Democrats. Democrats and Republicans disagree. The legislature has so many democrats that they can override his vetos as they choose. The sections are appropriate for Romey's page as is. If you want a page that deals with large scale philisophical discussion aboput policy, launch anopther page (as was done in the healthcare section). This page summarizes what Romney proposed, and what became of the proposal.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure that Romsey's plans to file a death penalty bill in early 2005 must have initiated an interesting debate and there must have been critical voices and supporters as well. But in "Death Penalty" we learn nothing about these issues! Only a dry narration of events. I want something more here, including a brief presentation of those opinions critical to Romsey's initiative.

Once again, lauch a new page. We are all aware that some people favor the death penalty and other dont due to philisopical differnces. We dont need to have that discussion in a short summary about Romney's legislation. This section defines his proposal and mentions that outcome. Lauch a "Death Penalty in Massachusetts page" that would talk about the history of capital punishment in the state and link it to the bottom (for more information) of Romney's death penalty section.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the tone in "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" is a bit pro Romsey. Again the point of view of the other side is not analysed and the narration leads to the conclusion that the governor tried to do the right thing and some "bad guys" tried to impede him. At least, this is the impression I get.

I dont think so. Read all of the sources. Romney proposed drunk driving legislation. The legislature weakened the law. There was a public outcry over the legislature's action, and the legislature eventually caved and restored most of the provision. It clearly looks like a victory for Romney and the view of the public. That dosent mean that it is POV.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "Abortion" we learned that Romsey changed his views concerning abortion. During the campaign he said one tthing and after the campaign he advocated another thing. Weren't there any criticisms for this shift, for this important change in his political beliefs? If yes, we don't see them in the article. Does this shift in his views has anything to do with his plans to run for President? Has any analyst raised this issue? I'm a European and maybe not so familiar with American politics, but, when I read about this change in his viewes, this thought crossed my mind. Am I the only one?

This section adequatly chronicles Romney's changing abortion stances. It even menions why it changed. It is sucessful in conveying his attitue towards the subject. Criticisms of his view when he runs for president will go in the Presidential campaign section.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cape Wind has received both bipartisan criticism and support." Such as? Analyse and citate accordingly?--Yannismarou 07:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for more details go to the cape wind page on wikipedia. The sources indicated bipartisan positions (Kenndy and Romney both oppose it for instance)--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: Its "ROMNEY" not "ROMSEY". Please read and article a identify the topic before suggesting any type of changes. Please know what you are talking about--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Michael16G: Some of your remarks were really uncalled-for. There's no need to attack the reviewer who took the time to give an excellent review because you disagree on certain points. A peer review consists of suggestions and ideas for further improvement, you should know it's not the reviewer's job to do the work for others. As I said before, these are just suggestions, take them or leave them. You may know more about the subject than the reviewer but that doesn't make the tips less valuable. The readers could go through similar problems. Nat91 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there are many changes to be made on the page based on the current suggestions. I think that Michael16G makes some valid points (although the editor's tone was a little harsh) about mantaining the current structure of the page. New pages should be created for in depth discussion on issues that go beyond the current page.--Waverider5 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Michael16G: I'm puzzled as to why a peer review was requested if the editors think the article is fine as is? We're impartial/outside editors (and most are non-American, so clearly have no stake in an election. In fact, your reviewer Yannismarou is not American) that volunteer our time to review any article posted to the WikiProject Biography Peer Review page. Attacking them and saying they need to do the work that's suggested is not in the spirit of peer review requests. You asked our opinion and so we gave it. You can take it or leave it, but don't be so harsh on the reviewer. Thanks! --plange 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to plange by the editor requesting the review. The history of the request is that another editor submitted a nomination that the article undergo a Featured Article Review, without understanding that FAR was for already featured articles, nor understanding how far the article is from being a Featured Article Candidate. I withdrew the {FAR}} template, and suggested a peer review instead, and since there were no objections, submitted the peer review. As you can see by the comments above, some editors participating in editing the article are hostile to adjusting the tone or balance and content of the article, nor do they understand how much effort will be required to achieve even an A-Class article. - Yellowdesk 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can tell you that based on the above reaction to Y's review, I won't be conducting a review. Hope you understand! :-) --plange 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that Michael16G does not understand how peer-reviews work and what is their purpose. So, I apologize for mispelling one letter of Romney's name and I express my confidence that there are definitely other users who are interested in improving the article. That is why I ask Plange and maybe Nat91 (if he intended to) or any other possible reviewer to launch their own independent reviews. It is unfair because of one extreme reaction editors who are interested in ameliorating the article not to get the right guidance. Thanks!--Yannismarou 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Yannismarou. She, and yes, I intended to; but after seeing the reaction above, I second what Plange said. You bring up a good point though - it is unfair for others interested in improving the article. To be honest, I took a look at the article and I thought your review was excellent. I don't think I have anything to add, but I'll give it a second thought. Nat91 07:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you to Nat91 for still considering to comment. I agree that Yannismarou's review was comprehensive and very responsive to the outline of concerns. We have a great deal to consider. I believe the review will have the attention of at least three quarters of the 20-odd people who regularly edit the article. I have started converting the embedded links into footnotes what will show up in the references (a previously known problem); this will cause me to examine all of the sources and compare the article statements to the sources. Some of the specific wording noticed in the review has been attended to. There's a negotiation yet to come, among the article editors about point of view, and analysis of the Romney administration, and this will take some time and effort; as you can see, some editors treat the article as an effort for promoting Mr. Romney, and others, including me, indicate the article fails explain important aspects of Romney's milieu. In any case, I wish to express appreciation and high regard for the fact that the reviewers are willing to spend effort, time and energy reviewing articles that you collectively have no stake in, and especially I appreciate it is a voluntary effort on your part. Thank you. Yellowdesk 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yellowdesk: The conversion of the links to footnotes is a wonderful project. It improves the quality of the page and ensures that the provided sources supply the information referenced. Thank you for the effort. The article looks to be comprehensive and well written, but should still be reviewed for any innacuracies. I do however share Yannismarou's disagreement over your opinion that the page "was submitted by the Romney camp." It does have some minor issues, but does not read like a campaign document as you suggest. I absolutely agree that the Romney page should not be used to promote his campaign, but it does not do this in its current conditon. Lets continue this review and focus on the things that need to be addressed. Thanks!--MN57798 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply toMN57798: Yannismarou was referring not to a statement made by me, (on the "Romney Camp" quote), but to an annonymous review located here: Talk:Mitt_Romney/Comments, where Yannismarou gave a one sentence summary during the peer review. I think that the article is on the whole comprehensive, but in sections merely descriptive of proposals by Romney without context. Yellowdesk 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Coggins[edit]

This article has been rated Start class. I have added a lot more to it and would appreciate comments and possible re-rating. Dave 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I upgraded to B. I'm reluctant to rate it GA without having successfully gone through GAC. In general, a nice article. These is my review:

  • The lead is short. Check WP:LEAD.
  • I didn't like some wording. For instance "While his father served with the Life Guards Regiment in France during World War I, Coggins and his mother lived with family in Folkestone, Kent and he attended the Imperial Service College, a public school preferred by army families." I lost the persons here! It may be because I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm almost convinced something is going wrong here! "He was pulled from basic training before he could complete it, however, to work as an illustrator for YANK magazine, which was a U.S. Army weekly magazine "by the men ... for the men, in the service". This sentence also does not flow so well. "As a result of his friendship with Fletcher Pratt, Coggins became closely associated with notable science fiction writers such as L. Sprague de Camp, L. Ron Hubbard and Isaac Asimov, through his membership of Pratt's Trap Door Spiders club, and he frequently joined Pratt in playing Fred T. Jane's "Navy Game". I also don't like this phrasing. I repeat I may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker, but I beleive that a slight copy-editing would help.
  • "translated into other languages.[1]" Don't citate external links like that; it is not nice. You have your citations you can use.
  • Photos are not an obstacle neither for GAC or for FAC, but an article with one photo is usually regarded as poorly illustrated.
  • You have 3 listy sections with books and magazines. First of all, when we citate a book, it is better to give all the information about it (ISBN, publisher, author, year) and keep the same format for all the books citated. Second, it is not nice to have 3 listy sections in a row. You can create a sister sub-article and make a selection for your main article (this is a suggestion - wait to see what other reviewers will say on the same matter).
  • I think it would be also nice to have some evaluations by critics and others of his art. I saw only his personal beliefs about his work and not what other people said about him.--Yannismarou 12:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat91[edit]

I'm another non-native English speaker, but I don't think Yannismarou is wrong. Those are odd sentences.

  • "While his father served with the Life Guards Regiment in France during World War I, Coggins and his mother lived with family in Folkestone, Kent and he attended the Imperial Service College, a public school preferred by army families." - You can make 3 sentences out of that. "Kent and he attended..." who's he in that sentence? I'm lost too.

Same with the others, you could make 2 or 3 sentences out of 1. It'd be more clear and less tiring for the reader. Nat91 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit[edit]

I accept the comments regarding the sentences mentioned above - they did sound a little confusing and I was formulating ways to improve them, but for me the latest edit done by Jreferee doesn't improve the article at all. My personal preference is to keep the tone of an article slightly formal and authoritative, but in my opinion it now has a bit of a "movie script" feel. Also, what is the point of linking to all those dead ends? All those red links look terrible. Sorry, that's just my opinion. Dave 21:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

I echo the above reviewers and would only have this to add, that you need to pick one spelling style. I saw a mixture of US and UK spelling and wasn't sure which to switch to, since he was born in the UK, but became a US citizen. You guys, as editors, can decide which makes most sense and correct the spelling to whicever you pick. As for the edits by jreferee, you do not have to keep them... --plange 22:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur puppy[edit]

It may be a conflict of interest if you are related to him (both of your last names are Coggins). But I didn't see any NPOV violations so it doesn't look bad right now. T REXspeak 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think as long as it remains neutral, there shouldn't be a problem. It is possible to write an article fairly about a relative. I've done so with Stephen Trigg and John W. Johnston. (If I haven't, let me know!) --plange 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave[edit]

OK - I have attempted to address as many of the above comments as possible. I have

  • extended the lead intro by two paragraphs.
  • added more images.
  • sorted out some of the more confusing sentences.
  • created a new page for the book lists and linked to it.
  • added publication data to the book lists.
  • moved all the external links out of the text to the footnote section.

I haven't been able to find any useful critiques of Coggins's work yet, still looking.

Re US/UK spelling - I am not quite sure what is referred to here. I am Australian, so I am always confused which way to go, but as a rule I tend to the UK spelling. However, I am open to any corrections if necessary to US spelling, as Jack Coggins was American, and that was the way he wrote.

This is still a work in progress (does it ever end?) and I would appreciate further suggestions for improvements, and perhaps consideration for upgrading to the next class.

Dave 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


David Koechner[edit]

I've taken the time to expand the requested research. My goal is get the page to at least a B rating or higher.

I'm looking for any suggestions on what else needs to be done. I've expanded the page considerably since it was rated a Start, but am looking for advice on what else needs to be done.See me let go 13:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit[edit]

I'm not as familiar with the living-person biography as I am with the dead-person biography, but I would start by saying that your sources seem a little sketchy. Are there not more reliable places to obtain this information from? Certainly USA Today would not be the best place to start. Also, the "Personal Life" section seems a little abbreviated; most historical biographies begin with where and when the person was born and then move into their career. Perhaps contemporary biographies are different? Finally, some of the language of the lead is repeated in the article; perhaps you could reword so that it is not identical? Awadewit 12:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice start, but it still needs some work. This is my review:

  • "Koechner befriend Dave 'Gruber' Allen, forming The Naked Trucker & T-Bones Show." You mean "befriended"?
  • "In January 2007, Koechner's Naked Trucker & T-Bones Show". Per MoS, it is recommended to link only full dates (e.g. January 1, 2007). Years in music or television etc. (e.g. [[2006 in mussic|2006]]) are, of course, fine.
  • IMO the chronological order is fine, and there is no problem with the "personal life" section being where it is. A "flaw" I can find is that there is very few information about his early life; his parents, details about schools, studying etc.
  • "improv guru". What is that? And I can find no article in wikipedia.
  • "improv act". Huh?! What are all these abbreviations?!
  • "a character he'd been playing on comedy stages for a few years." "He'd"? Maybe a bit uncyclopedic. Try to be formal.
  • "The stage act, a mix of stand-up comedy and off-color country songs, became a hit on the Hollywood improv circuit, ultimately landing television performances on Late Night with Conan O'Brien and Real Time with Bill Maher." Any source, verifying that it was indeed a hit?
  • "MTV's initial press release accidentally listed Fred Armisen instead of David Koechner[6], but eventually corrected the error on their website [7],..." Per MoS, inline citations go after the punctuation mark, and not before. ALso, try to have them at the end of the sentence. Cite in the middle, only if it absolutely necessary for emphasis reason.
  • "As of February 1, 2007, Koechner has guest-starred, both in person and by phone, on five episodes of the series. David Koechner's frequent work with actors Ferrell, Carell & Jack Black, have lead some critics and journalists to point out his association with the media-dubbed "Frat Pack".[10][11][12]" Not nice to have three citations in a row. Try to combine them: see Tourette syndrome or Battle of Edson's Ridge for ideas.
  • "David Koechner, who majored in Political Science at the University of Missouri ..." I think I read that earlier.
  • Your philmography is tagged.
  • "External links" go after references.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 21:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


David Koechner page rating?[edit]

Is it ok to have two citations in a row? That's what the tourette's page has. See me let go 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested changes have been made, and someone added extended information on Koechner's period at Saturday Night Live. What else needs to be done? It's not still a "Start" article, is it? See me let go 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are still not properly wikilinking some years-dates. I repeat: full dates are only wikilinkedl; not single years - check WP:MoS.
  • Some reviewers could regard the "Filmography" as long. You could create a seperate article per WP:SS, and in this article just keep a "Selected filmography", as it happens in other FAs.
  • IMO Personal life is written like trivia, although it is one compact paragraph. The sentences are seamlessly connected; only the first sentence is about personal life (is then the section's title accurate?), and the rest of it is artistic activities, political and personal preferences etc.--Yannismarou 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rogen[edit]

Project has been significantly updated from its original incarnation. See me let go 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat91[edit]

The article has been significantly improved indeed! But it's still a start article. It needs more information and improvements. Some suggestions:

  • Expand the lead. See WP:LEAD
  • The picture in the infobox is too big. Size it. 240/250px is a good size.
  • In my opinion, the article has too many pictures and very short content. Also, some of them do not have a fair use rationale.
  • After "Biography", you could put another section called "Early life" or "Personal life" and expand it.
  • "Early career" is also a stubby section. Work on that.

On a side note, there's a "Frat Pack"? There is no originality anymore! Nat91 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. I've removed some images, added a few sections, added many references and generally expanded what I submitted earlier. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. See me let go 12:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice, in general. This is my review:

  • "Universal Pictures gave the ok to cast". I think this expression is a bit uncyclopedic. I'd suggest rephrasing.
  • "Influences" can't be a sub-section of his personal life. Something is obviously wrong there. In any case I also believe that this article should be placed befor his "Career" sections along with early life information. Another strucuring you could do: Remove "Biography" heading - create a seperate section "(Early years and) Personal life (or any other title you choose)" before the "career" sections and then start a "Career" section with the relevant sub-sections ou already have.
  • I think you could further expand "Influences" by adding critics, evaluations etc.
  • I always speak about the importance of verifiable printed sources apart of magazines. I don't know if there is any available in this case.
  • "External link" go after "References".
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
  • All your photos are fair-used tagged. In FAC this could be a problem.--Yannismarou 12:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll get to fixing those areas within the weekend. Question though... It seems like every entertainment bio I see has some kind of Image use violation. I, and probably many other users, am not quite sure what kind of images are allowed. I've read the lengthy descriptions, and still have trouble understanding which are the appropriate ones. Any quick tips? See me let go 07:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. This is a general problem. That is also why in FAC there is no clear policy on this issue. I just have to point out that, when in FAC the reviewers see more than 2-3 fair-use-tagged photos, they tend to be critical. But I repeat that the whole problem is not yet clarified and that I'm not a specialist in photo copyrights. I just wanted to warn you for possible criticisms, when and if you decide to go for FAC.--Yannismarou 08:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I really appreciate the feedback, and the looking out for future problems. It's much better to be aware of potential problems before someone else immediately pulls the images. Hopefully, there will be some clear FAC guidelines so we can all start editing in the appropriate manner. Again, thanks! See me let go 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

First of all, great job in your expansion!! I think you are now ready to go for GA. I did some minor copyedits for you... --plange 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, one more thing-- I'm not up to snuff on Canadian English spelling, I only know that it is more like UK than American, but is a mixture. So you might need to go through and make sure Canadian spelling is used. I wasn't sure if they spell program in Canada like they do in the UK - programme, for instance --plange 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Yannismarou about influences being under Personal life, doesn't really make sense. And some things in personal life are repeats of info above... --plange 23:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Parâkramabâhu I Review 1

Prem Rawat[edit]

The first phase of the peer review was completed, see archive above.

Look forward to phase II and your comments about structure, reorganization, lead, prose, etc., as suggested during the first phase by Sandy and Yannis. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Than

From SG[edit]

Plange and Yannis will be more helpful at how to best organize a bio; I typically go to the bottoms and work my way up, looking at the referencing (I don't like to read an article until I'm certain the references are in order :-)

  • References section seems very long: are all of those used to source the article, or should some of them be listed as Further reading?
These are all references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do these have ISBNs? Aagaard, Johannes, Who Is Who In Guruism? (1980), in Update, Vol. 4.3, October 1980 and Cameron, Charles (Ed.), Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (1973), Bantam Books, Inc. On any other books that don't have ISBNs, can you doublecheck that enough info is given to allow anyone to find the publication?
Some of these do not have ISBN numbers as these are articles in journals (Aagaard), and others becase these are books pre-ISBN and were not reprinted (Bantam) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand all blue links in refs to full bibliographic entries (I would have done it for you, but I hate Citeweb :-) Example, Opposition to Maharaji and his message – Detractors and the negative message they convey, please give biblio info like name of website or author and last access date. This should be done on all weblinks.
I hate citeweb as well, but it needs to be done. Will find some time do do these. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some refs need page nos, example (there are more), LansVolgelingen van de goeroe, pp. and Levine, Life in the Cults.
Levine I can find, as I have the book. The other ones, I do not, but I know the editor that added that ref and will ask hiem to provide. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As examples (there are more), expand these refs, we need name of site or author or title of the page and date of press release and date of last access (having as much info as possible makes it easier to re-locate the info in case the link goes dead in the future):
    • Prem Rawat Honored by International University of Peace
    • Prem Rawat Interviewed on National TV in India Press release
    • US Patent Office
Sure. Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid ibid - I saw some in the references - the problem with ibid in Wiki is that another editor could insert another line of text sometime in the future, invalidating the ibid. Use named refs instead.
  • Not sure how to handle Criticism - Plange and Yannis may have ideas - but there's that whole business of Jimbo saying Criticism sections should be avoided, as they are POV magnets, and criticism should be woven into the text.
Not in this case. This is a summary of a spin-off article, as per Wikipedia:Content forking.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excerpts is a strange heading ?
Any suggestions? Maybe "Quotes" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look more closely at the prose next week - have pending travel. Sandy (Talk) 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Though not a FA criteria, usually lead should have as less citations as possible. Here we have 17 citations in the lead only. This should be curbed. Also the size of the lead is big.
  • techniques of Knowledge should be wikilinked on first appearence (in Childhood in India).
  • Rarely some copyedits needed. eg, "...mourned his father death..."; a space lacking after the citation superscripts following the sentence "Between January 2004 and June 2005 alone, he delivered 117 addresses in Asia, Europe, and North America"; etc
  • "In October 1969 he sent a mahatma..." - what is a mahatma?
  • "...India Gate in Delhi..." - wikilinks needed.
  • The section: "The 1970s" is choppy, with many short paragraphs. Please try to merge some.
  • All website references should have access dates.

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Doherty[edit]

What do you think about rating the article A-Level? What is left to be done? -- dreadlady 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

In general a nice article. It is in GA level. I'm not still sure about A-Class. This is my review:

  • Expand the lead. check WP:LEAD.
  • You have the infobox without any pivture. This is not nice. I suggest you use one of the two pictures you have in the article for the infobox. Even the group phot, explaining that the one in the middle is Doherty.
  • "However, while post-production ... involved in other projects (see Yeti and Dirty Pretty Things)". This paragraph is uncitated.
  • I recommend when you quote something no to use italics. If you want to emphasize on a specific quote, have in mind that there is a variety of quoteboxes.
  • I think the "Collaborations" section is short. For sure, it has three stubby paragraphs. Try to make the prose flow a bit better here. With the right expansions of the content and/on mergers of paragraphs you can do that.
  • "left the band on at least one occasion[19] before returning intermittently." I don't see a reason you have the citation in the middle of the sentence and not at the end. Citate in the middle of a sentence, only if it is absolutely necessary.
  • "On New Year's Eve 2005, Doherty held ... leaked onto the internet. 31 March and 1 April 2006 Doherty was performing ... after he failed to turn up in January. For this occasion he produced at the suggestion ... a film with the title "Spew it out your soul". Citations needed.
  • "Most of Doherty's journals are freely available on the internet[1]". Citate the external link properly. After all, you can simply add it in your references.
  • "Albion and Arcadia" is too stubby. I don't see why it should be a seperate sub-section.
  • In "Influences" we read what Doherty himself says about his influences. But what are others (critics, musicians etc.) think about his lyrics?
  • "Awards" is stubby. If you can't expand it transfer the information in another relevant section.
  • You can't have empty sections like "Controversies and Legal Troubles". It does not matter that there is another sister article. Make a concise summary of this article here.
  • "The tabloid press ... Kate Moss". Uncitated paragraph. Personally, I donot also like where this section is placed. I would prefer it somewhere before "Influences", so as to be interconnected with his biography, part of which is this section.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 11:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Buchanan[edit]

Just got assessed as A-class; would appreciate comments and criticisms. I think the article could use some pruning and editing, but would like to hear some feedback from other Wikipedians. Thanks! Schi 17:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat91[edit]

Very detailed article. In my opinion, the article is too long. 126 KB is too much. It has too many stubby sections that could be edited into one, for example, "Early life." I know we're talking about a politician, but the article seems to have too many quotes. You could keep the essential ones and the others could be turned into prose. Nat91 04:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • I agree that the article is too long. I think it should become a bit more tight in general. For instance there are many sections, sub-sections etc. some of which are stubby. I suggest you merge some of them, without deleting essential information. Sme problem with the too many quotes: They are far too many and long. As Nat91 said, keep only the important ones and try to incorporate some of the others within the main prose.
  • You have some listy sections. For FAC this is a problem. Turn them into prose.
  • You have about 80 inline citations and about 180 external links! Why aren't these extrernal links in your inline citations? The way you link to external links is not recommended. Transfer them in your notes and citate them properly (title, author [if there is one] or source, when they were retrieved). The same with some of the exisiting external links in "Notes", which are also not properly citated.
  • Some of your citations are empty. Something is wrong there.
  • Trivia sections are not recommended. Get rid of it and incoroporate the information in the main prose of your article.
  • Is this long "See also" section needed?
  • In general, I think the problem of the article is not the lack of information, but the proper organization of the existing information. The existence of too many sections is part of the problem.--Yannismarou 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Toulmin[edit]

This is my third biography and I think I included everything. I've taken the article as far as I can and need your guidance to improve the article and my writing. -- (Jreferee 23:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice start, but it needs more work. This is my review:

  • "Dr. Toulmin's sympathy to both the American (1775-1783) and French (1787–1799) revolutions lead this Englishman to be education by the United States and caused others to see this prolific historian as a religious radical." Something is wrong with this sentence. Bad prose!
  • Don't say all the time "Dr. Toulmin" or "R. Toulmin". "Toulmin" is Ok.
  • Your three first sections in "biography" are stubby. Merge or expand. I'd suggest merge. They are all about his early life and family. After you merge make also the prose a bit more coherent so that the passing from one section to the other is not seamless.
  • Try to have inline citations at the end of the sentence. Cite somewhere in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary.
  • Prose in "From Presbyterian to Baptist minister" not good. Many stubby paragraphs. Merge them or expand them.
  • I think the information about his main life (after early life and marriage) are inadequate. Can you get us a bit more about him.
  • "Caused others to see this prolific historian as a religious radical". I'd like to elaborate a bit on that in a seperate section. Some criticisms and assessments about his life, role and influence in both the American and the French Revolution would be nice.
  • In "Works" why do you citate 3 external lnks in the wazy you do? You already have a notes section. Don't you? Transfer this citations there and citate properly.
  • A very long list with his works. I'd suggest to create a seperate article and make a short selection with his most important works for this article.
  • All the printed sources you used in "Notes" should also be mentioned in "References". Are they? If you don't like this system, then delete the "References" section and have just the "Notes" one.
  • All the links in "See also" section are redundant. Get rid of it!
  • The "The Serial Dissenting Minister" section has no inline citation.--Yannismarou 08:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sullivan[edit]

Trying to move this article towards FA-class, so all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Adam Cuerden talk 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice material, but you have some work to do here! Some suggestions:

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD.
  • Citate the article. One of the basic FA criteria.
  • Add ISBNs in the books you mention in "References". And keep them there only if you citate them. Otherwise, move them to a new section (e.g. "Further Reading") or delete them.
  • In "Musical Quotations" I think you should make the prose a bit more coherent and solide. These In... In... In... and the short pars are not so nice.
  • In "Reputation and criticism" there are too many quotes. This is not good for the article flow. Try to keep only those absolutely necessary and the other quotes incorporate them in the prose. I also think that some material from this section would better fit in "Life and Career", but I don't want to spoil your structure. Get some more opinions about that and about the length of "Reputation and criticism".
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
  • I'd prefer this "Wikisource" thing somewhere at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaiyaraaja[edit]

Article deals with an important Indian musician/composer (see article lead). It is in fairly good order structure-wise and in terms of language. The referencing for this article is fairly rigorous (consisting of academic journal articles and book chapters). There is fairly substantial material here, and the narrative is tied together fairly well. Unsure about whether article needs to be longer if it is ever to aspire for FA status. Or if its layout is fine. Or if the lead section needs to be longer/shorter/contain more info that it currently does, etc. Please take a look and comment. Merci! AppleJuggler 06:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice article and well-citated. Some remarks:

  • You could add one more paragraph in the lead. Have you checked WP:LEAD?
  • The information about his family could go in "Early life and education", which could be mentioned "Early life and family". This last information in "Music and Career" look like trivia information which is not good. By the way, try to expand a bit "Early life and family"; it looks stubby to me.
  • "Career and music" is long. You could divide it in further sections, e.g. "Early career", "Mature career", "Traits of his art", where you could further expand and analyse.
  • The fact that you have just one photo is not the best thing for FAC. It is not necessary to have more of them, but it would be nice.
  • Sections "Awards and nominations","Partial discography" and "Literary works" are three sections in a row, which are long and listy. I think you should turn "Awards and nominations" into prose. Now, about "Partial Discography", I'm afraid that in FAC you'll be asked to make it even more partial! "Literary works" could also be turned into prose, but I'm not definite about the necessity of that.--Yannismarou 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faten Hamama[edit]

Before starting work on rewriting this article it was a stub. I would like this article to be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments, advice, or notes. I would also like to request an assessment of the article, I think no major necessary improvements are possible, because not much info is available. ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gzkn[edit]

Helping out in Yannismarou's "sole domain" :). You've done a great job researching everything! Congrats on fashioning this out of a stub! In general, the structure is good, and references are present. However, whole paragraphs and key sentences still need citations (see WP:CITE). In general, aim for at least one citation per paragraph. The prose needs some work too. Consider better, more descriptive words than "big", "huge", "very", etc. I would rate this B-Class for now. Specific comments: Lead

  • "her big contributions" <-- big is probably unnecessary there (or use a better word)
Done
  • "for her role to help emphasize the role" <-- repetition of "role"
Done
  • "Hamama was born in 1931 and..." <-- no need for that in the lead as you already have her birth year in parentheses.
Done: It wasn't me actually. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a very long time" --> "a long absence"
Done
  • In general, the lead is OK, but skips from 1940 to 1996! What about those other 56 years of her life? :) Also, it's a bit listy at the end of the first paragraph (she won this award, and then this award, and then this other award, etc.). Consider reading WP:LEAD. A lead should hit all the major points of an article and basically offer a summary to the reader.
Done: OK, I wrote about that period. I tried to make it less listy for the awards, I removed some (less notable) and rewrote the paragraph. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

  • wikilink Assia Dagher and get rid of "(1908–1968)"
Done
  • "movie and when the audience" --> "movie; when the audience"
Done
Done
  • wikilink Mohammad Kareem and get rid of the "(1896–1972, known as the pioneer of Egyptian cinema)"
Done
  • wikilink Mohammad Abdel Wahab...in general, wikilink famous names
Done
  • "translating "Happy Day", 1940"; also anywhere else a similar construct appears, you can safely delete "translating"
Done
  • "4 years later", "2 years later", etc. --> spell out numbers less than 10 ("Four years later", "two years later")
Done
  • "After her huge success" <-- previous sentences don't describe any such "huge" success. Consider adding some info on how successful those films were (box-office, critically). Then that transition will work.
Done: They are huge successes but I think you would understand that sources are extremely hard to find, it is definitely not as easy as finding reliable cites for an American actress for example. Anyways, I changed this line. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This movie attracted attention from media and Hamama became famous for her melodramatic role and was only 15 then." <-- This sentence gives us a good example of how to improve the prose. The "was only 15 then" is modifying Hamama, so we should put it closer to the subject instead of at the end of the sentence. I would suggest this: "The film attracted widespread media attention, and Hamama, who was only 15 at the time, became famous for her melodramatic role."
Done: Yeah, you're right, thanks! ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...were all huge successes in the Arabic box office." Needs source. (In fact, anytime there's a claim of a big success, you'll need a source).
Done
Done: Turned out to be The Prix International award. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Date with Life") which she starred" --> "in which she starred."
Done
  • "This particular movie earned her the title of the "lady of the Arabic screen" and to this day and after her latest work Wajh al-Qamar, she is the highest earning Arabic actress" Source?
Done
  • The first para of Controversy in the late 1960s is confusing. What was she harassed about? Political pressure to do what?
Done: She herself hasn't revealed details, I made it much clearer, hopefully. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is why most of her films have been the brightest offerings in the history of the Egyptian cinema and it was not a coincidence that the most prominent and brilliant Egyptian filmmakers produced their greatest films with Faten Hamama." Haha, while this may or may not be the case, unfortunately Wikipedia requires a NPOV. Also, without a cite, this qualifies as original research.
Done: Why is it unfortunate though? :D ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the Hamama and Omar Sharif section be better in the Personal Life section? Gzkn 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I took care of this. I made the Hamama and Omar Sharif more focused about details on her career, and removed the personal life details from there. I also expanded the Personal life section with some details and references. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review Gzkn! I appreciate your patience and time my friend. I fixed every thing and worked on every comment. The article is completely cited. Perhaps you should consider the "References" too, some are full biographies and are reliable. I improved the prose and added better descriptive words. I also improved the lead paragraph. Is it worthy of a better assessment now? Thanks again! :) ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

This is a nice effort, but it needs some more work. This is my review:

  • Inline citation go always straight after the punctuation mark and not before. Please check WP:MoS for such stylistic details.
Done
  • And try to have the citations at the end of your sentences; not in the middle. Place them in the middle, only if you think it is absolutely necessary.
Done: I'm afraid it is necessary in parts of the article. I took care of the others, though.
  • "considered by many a legend and a major icon in Arabic cinema for her contributions to the cinema industry in Egypt and for her role to help emphasize the importance of women in cinema and the Arabic society." Citing the lead is not necessary, if you cite the same things below, but I think that this "considered by" begs for a citation.
Done
  • More stylistic mistakes! We don't wikilink years (e.g. 1939), only full dates (e.g. May 28, 1939).
Done
  • "In the series, Hamama played the role of a prominent TV presenter and portrayed and criticized many problems in the Egyptian and Arabic society[3] and was awarded the Egyptian Best TV Actor of the year" I find many "ands" here.
Done
  • I find "Early life" a bit stubby. Can you add some more details?
Done
  • I have a problem with your sources. I checked all your footnotes and only two are in English. First of all, aren't there any printed sources about her? They are not a prerequisite for FAC, but they are highly esteemed. After all we don't speak about a person of 25-30 years, about whom printed sources are not usually available. She is over 70s and, obviously, a highly esteemed person in her country. Secondly, arab sources are Ok. But not 80% being arab! More English citations would be welcome. After all, they are easier verified by a FAC reviewer than the Arab ones.
Done: I replaced many Arabic (not "arab") sources with English sources, 60% of the sources are English now. I hope you understand it is difficult to find English sources for everything, there are barely Arabic ones. Besides, most of the Arabic cites are for awards and movies, which by the way are available in other sources I provided, in English. And you can always use online translators for confirmations. :) I have added printed sources with confirmed ISBNs. Any other comments on the references? What are your thoughts on the current style of the references section? :)
  • And something else: you make a distinction between "Footnotes" and "References". OK! But I don't understand your distinction! Usually, in references we put with full data the printed (and sometimes online) sources we used in footnotes. However, your references are not used in "footnotes"; if I'm wrong tell me. Is this "References" section really an "External links" section?
Done
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
Done
  • Have you thought using the Template:Cite web for your online sources and external links? I think it is nowadays recommended by FAC reviewers.
Done
  • You have only two red links. Again not a prerequisite for FAC, but I think it would be nice to make them blue! Just create two stubs.
Done:I added 5 stubs to remove those red links. All blue now. :)
  • The first paragraph in "Hamama and Yousef Wehbi" is uncited.
Done
  • I suggest that you also add at least one citation for each paragraph in "Hamama and Omar Sharif".
Done
  • "Hamama left Egypt from 1966 to 1971 because she claimed she had been continuously disturbed by the Egyptian intelligence. She refused to cooperate. The Egyptian authorities made her suffer, she wasn't allowed to travel or participate in festivals and was only able to leave Egypt after a huge controversial debate". I think this paragraph should be rewritten. What are the problems according to MPOV? i) After "suffer" I don't think comma is the right punctuation mark, ii) the second sentence is too short and for me breaks the flow of the prose. And there is also information missing: why did the Egyptian intelligence disturb her? When you say that she refused to cooperate what you mean? Previously, you tell us that she was disturbed, not that the British intelligence asked her to co-operate. And what did they ask from her?
Done
  • What problem did Nasser have with her? I'm afraid the whole "Controversy in the late 1960s" is obscure and needs more info, analysis and expansion.
Done
  • "In her following movie, Oreedo Hallan (أريد حلاً, "I Need a Solution"), she controversially criticized the rules of marriage and divorce in Egypt." Controversially? What does this mean? Again you don't cite and you don't explain what you mean. What was the controversy? Were there any enemies of her or supporters? Tell us some more things! It looks an interesting topic like her problems with the Egyptian intelligence and Nasser.
Done
  • Is Hamama pro democracy and critical towards the regime in Egypt? Her problems with Nasser and your edit that "she played critical roles with messages of democracy as in the 1972 movie Imbarotiriyat Meem" give us some hints, but again no further explanation is offered.
Done
  • "Nevertheless, her films were all successful box office blockbusters." According to whom? Referencing needed here.
Done
  • "In spite of that she was able to magnetize fellow actors as well as her audiences, which is why she was successful in a lot of her films." This is an uncited assessment. If you don't cite such assessments, you give the wrong impression of original research.
Done
  • "Most critics agree that Hamama became full-fledged after her movie Dua'e al-Karawan (دعاء الكروان) in 1959, which was chosen as one of the best Egyptian productions and was based on a novel written by the prominent Arabic writer Taha Hussein, Hamama played the role of a complicated, double charactered, psychotic woman" This sentence is not OK. Something is wrong with it.
Done
  • This list with "Honors and awards" is too long for me. I'm afraid you'll be criticized in FAC. According to me it is better to create a seperate article and in this article either to make a prose summary of it (I prefer this solution) either to include a shorter list with the most important awards.
Done: I started such an article to both the awards and filmography. I will also write a prose summary for the awards and a shorter list for the filmography.
  • All your photos are fair-used tagged. If you had 2-3 of them, it wouldn't be a problem. But you have 7 of them all tagged. I'm not a specialist in photo copyrights, but I've read some FAC reviewers criticizing such an extensive use of fair-use tagged photos. Maybe, you should take a second opinion for this specific matter.
I can't believe it but, done: I contacted the official site's administrator and asked for permission to use the images under the CC Attribution license and he accepted and even provided me with better images. Permission can be reviewed here
Thanks Yannismarou. I will work on everything and hopefully make the article a better one. I appreciate your help and am grateful for the review. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of everything! ← ANAS Talk 09:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Mézières[edit]

I confirm that I have completed the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. This article attained B-status in its quality assesment. I have expanded the lead section as per feedback received and am now submitting for peer review as suggested. Would like to attain GA status. Joe King 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat91[edit]

Nice article. Some comments:

  • The inline citations go after the full stop, comma or semicolon. Try to fix that.
  • As for the section named "America", personally, to me that word means the American continent (I'm from Argentina). Perhaps you should call it "Work in the United States" or something similar if he only worked there.
  • The picture in the infobox doesn't have a fair use rationale, add it. Also, it would be good if you could find another picture related to his work, since the article only has one picture.

You should nominate it for GA, I think you won't have many problems. Nat91 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. In response:
  • Inline citations fixed (thank God for "find and replace")
  • Very good point about America. Section renamed.
  • Added rational for the infobox picture. Regarding additional images, as I understand it fair use only allows the use of one image to illustrate an article. I'd love to add more but I'm not sure it's possible.
Joe King 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'll have problems for adding another picture. I've seen FAs with 2 or 3 fair use images. Nat91 06:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nicely done. Some remarks for further improvement:

  • You should turn "Awards" into prose. Like now it is a trivia section and trivia sections are no more recommended.
  • "Christin, Pierre, Mézières, Jean-Claude (2002). Les Correspondances de Pierre Christin : Adieu rêve américain (in French). Paris: Dargaud. ISBN 2-205-04904-6." You mention you source, but you don't citate the exact page. The same with "Lofficier, Jean-Marc and Randy (2004). Shadowmen 2. Heroes and Villains of French Comics. Encino, California: Black Coat Press. ISBN 0-9740711-8-8".
  • You have a variety of sources, but you overwhelmingly citate the first two ofyour sources. Try to have a better distribution of your citations.
  • I repeat what Nat91 mentioned: According to WP:MoS, citations go straight after punctuation marks.--Yannismarou 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for the kind comments and the useful feedback. In response:
  • The Awards section was originally prose but changed to a list by another editor. I did think about changing back but felt, in the end, that a list was a better way of conveying the information. I could go back to prose but I remain unconvinced about what value that would add to the article - as it stands I think as a list it's more useful and makes it easier for a reader to extract the information it seeks to impart (which, after all, is the ultimate purpose of an encylopedia). Your point about Trivia sections is well made but, I feel, does not apply here - each list item remains relevant to the section it is in whereas Trivia sections usually present endless lists of wildly disjointed and useless information - the trivia sections in The Fifth Element and Blake's 7 are a case in point.
  • Page numbers for the Lofficers book added. Page number not needed for Adieu rêve américain since the entire book is quoted.
  • Not being based in France makes accessing sources difficult. I accept your point but I don't think there's much that can be done about it.
  • As mentioned above, inline citations are now fixed.
Joe King 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

I don't have anything to add to the above; I did some copyedits... I also think it's ready for GA! --plange 00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's always useful to have someone with fresh eyes do this. Much appreciated. BTW, I've nominated the article for GA this morning. Joe King 13:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Nichols[edit]

Gunning for FA. Have also submitted to main peer review. Would appreciate some criticism. Dev920 (Please vote here) 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Hi from "the sole domain of yannismarou"! By the way, I agree that a broader participation of reviewers would be much more effective here. To the point now. The article is obviously very good, well-referenced and, although I'm not the best judge of this the prose seems good as well. Some remarks:

  • In general I think the article should be a bit bigger. Of course, size is not a obstacle for FA, but more infos would be nice. For instance, could you expand a bit "Early years", which is the smaller section?
Well, though I'm sure these "it's so short" comments, I really have to emphasise that I cannot find anything (and I really mean anything) meaningful that I can add to this article. Length is not a requisite for FA: Look at Green and Golden Bell Frog.
  • "He has one sister, Ashley Nichols, and one niece, Ellie." OK with the sister, but why do we have to know about the niece? We do want more info, but this particular one seems to be not absolutely necessary.
Ok, I've removed it.
  • "The science and script were panned by critics, but most hailed the solid performances by the cast." Well, is note 13 really verifiable? Is it really a summary review? Nobody signs there and there is no reference to specific names of critics. It may be verifiable and indeed constitute a summary of other reviews, but I'm not from US and I just don't know how this site works.
(after having written below comment) I found a negative review! I have added it. That ok?
  • I only read about positive reviews for Nichols. Any critical reviews for his acting? It is not bad to mention them as well, if they do exist. In general, reading "Box office and critical success" and all this stuff about his acting, his stamina etc., I get the impression that the article tends to be a bit pro-Nichols POV.
Yes it is. Mainly because if Austin appears in a film, it's either rubbish and garners no reviews at all, or it does well, but he isn't mentioned in reviews, or he gets positive reviews. I can't find any negative reviews - most films he has been in have been either obscure or quite good. Hmm, I'll try looking again.
  • I don't see in the "Filmography" section any awards mentioned. Aren't there any? And in the same section I don't know if it is worth having a list with his participations in TV series, since I see that he played in some of them (mostly as a guest-star of course). I don't say that you should or shouldn't have such a list, but that you could maybe think about it.--Yannismarou 09:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, Austin has never won an award. After some searching, I have found precedant for a teevision list in the form of Brandon Routh, so I'll get on with that.

Is there anything you dispute or would like to suggest, or shall I nominate for FA after I've done this list? Dev920 (Please vote here) 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glynn Lunney[edit]

I confirm that I have completed the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. This article was granted GA status over a month ago; I have expanded it significantly since then.

Since I have written this article pretty much on my own, I would appreciate any comments from outside observers. In addition, I would appreciate advice on whether it's worth nominating as a FAC. It is certainly on the short side for an FA, but I would like to improve it as much as possible. MLilburne 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally nominated this as a FAC. Thank you again for all the help. MLilburne 11:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Great article! I think it is worth nominating as a FAC! But wait a bit in case there is any reviewer with any other suggestions. As far as I am concerned I can't find anything important to suggest! Well-written (I'm not a native English speaker, but I think the prose is "compelling"), well-citated, everything is fine! So, some minor and possibly trivia things:

  • "Family" section is too stuby. It is not nice like that. You can merge it with "Early life" ("Early life and family") if you can't expand it. Or you can expand it (and maybe rename it "Personal Life" if you have such additional information) and maybe keep it where it is. In any case, as it is now, it is not nice.
  • When you mention terms like "Space Task Group", "Project Mercury", "Mission Control", "Project Gemini" etc., it would be nice to offer some further explanation of what we are talking about. For instance, I'm an ignorant of these things and many reviewers in FAC are the same. I may also be a lazy quy who does not like to link and I want some quick information right here right now! Check all these terms and see if you can add very few more words for each one.--Yannismarou 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind comments. I will try to make those recommended changes over the next couple of days. MLilburne 12:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could also add an infobox, but this is not a prerequisite for FAC.--Yannismarou 12:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm familiar with any infoboxes that would be suitable; could you make any suggestions? MLilburne 12:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat91[edit]

As for the infoboxes, I think Infobox Biography would be suitable.

I agree with Yannismarou. "Family" is too stubby. I'd merge it with "Early life." "Early life and family" or "Personal life" sound good. Nat91 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to make the changes tomorrow. (I'm going to rename "Family" as "Personal life" and see if I can expand it a little rather than merging with "Early life"... hope that's all right.) MLilburne 19:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the infobox and tried to improve the "Family"/"Personal Life" section. I intend to gloss some of the NASA terms within the next couple of days. MLilburne 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Robert Baker[edit]

I have spent several weeks working on this article, and I can't think of more ways to improve it. I would like it to receive GA status, but it probably needs help for that. One of the auto-generated suggestions was to expand it, as it wasn't long enough. The only way I can think of doing that is to discuss each book in depth. Could somebody read it and give me some helpful criticism? ThanksJeffpw 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLilburne[edit]

It looks to me like it's well on its way to GA status. One minor way to improve the article might be to give it subheadings (such as "early life," "screenplays," "novels," "posthumous reputation" or something along those lines), which would help to structure it and would help the reader find his/her way around a little better. The lead paragraph could also be expanded somewhat, although I don't think that the article as a whole really needs to be longer. MLilburne 14:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, MLilburne, for your suggestions. As you may have noticed, I implemented all of them, and they really improved the article! It's now a GA! The nomination was stopped until you made those thoughtful suggestions:) Jeffpw 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I saw you easily achieved GA status. Congratulations! I suppose your next goal is FAC (or not?). In any case, these are some suggestions for further improvements:

  • I saw you have his books both in italics and quotations. I checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) and I saw that for titles of books only italics are recommended. I think you should fix that.
  • "he became attracted to the fringe elements of society, including beatniks". What is a "beatnik"? Linking is never enough! For such terms five an immediate explanation in a few words. I went to the relevant article and I got more confused, because the term has many uses! Which one you use? In any case, there are many users who does not want to go to other articles for explanations. They want them right here right now!
  • "Baker also began experimenting with drugs, and became, in his own words, "an out of control, teenage speed freak".[2] He also began drinking heavily, attributing it to the fact that he was still a closeted homosexual." Prose issues. These two "also" in a raw are not nice. In general, a slight copy-editing of the article would help.
  • ""Mouse Klub Konfidential" and "Blonde Death". "Mouse Klub Konfidential"". For films too I think quotations not needed.
  • "It is also alleged to have caused Michael Medved to abandon his dream of becoming a film maker and become a film critic, instead." Rephrase. Bad sentence!
  • "Writer" needs better referencing. Some paragraphs having important assessments are not properly referenced or all not at all referenced.
  • First paragraph in "Death" is unreferenced.
  • "Legacy" is totally unreferenced. Try o have at least one reference for each paragraph and citate assessments such as "Since his death, Baker's reputation has steadily increased among the reading public, and his works now have cult status in the literary community."
  • In "Published works" you should properly reference the books. You do not mention the publishers.
  • "External links" go after "References".
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 09:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yannismarou, for your great comments! They are a big help, and I am making improvements. And yes, FAC is my next goal, so your help is greatly appreciated.

  • I have removed the quotation marks for the film title, but kept the italics. My rationale is the articles on Jane Fonda and Laurence Olivier; both of them are in that style, and they are both GAs.
  • "Beatnik". I tried to add an explanation for that term, but it severely disrupts the flow. The link *does* take you to the most appropriate definition. I realize wiki is not only for an American audience, but the term is generally used in the english language. Do you have any ideas that would not compromise the flow of the article?
  • If I was a native English speaker I'd have found a solution! If you definitely cannot summarize it with 4-5 words, a short interim phrase, then let it be as it is.--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double use of also has been removed--thanks for pointing that out! When you keep reading the same thing over and over, it becomes impossible to see even glaring mistakes, sometimes.
  • What do you find bad about the Michael Medved sentence? The use of alleged? According to Wiki,one may use alleged if it is supported by sources, and I used two. (three now, and also changed it to read: "credited with having" instead of "alleg to have").
  • I just did not like the structure of the phrase. I thought it has too many verbs and "to" gathered. Again this is my personal impression. Don't take it for granted!
  • I've added 2 additional citations to the writing subhead. I can add more, but am not sure if it's necessary--for instance, the section about cinematic imagery in his books can be referenced, but anyone who reads the books will see that for themselves. Should I cite a source for something so obvious?
  • Not necessarily. But it wouldn't be bad if you added one more citation in the last paragraph.--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Legacy" and "Death" now have 2 references.
  • External links is now shifted to the bottom.
  • Added publishers to the "Published works" section. Is that all I needed to do to properly reference that? I have no experience with this sort of thing.
  • Basically yes. In order to be sure about what to put in, you could use this cite book-thing, you can find it used in many FAs: Template:Cite book.--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories alphabetized, though who knows for how long? People keep adding categories willy nilly:-s
  • For how long? For ever! And when somebody adds a new category, check if your article really fits there.--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for all of the very constructive criticism. This is my first Wiki article, and I need all the help I can get! Jeffpw 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • added this to the word "beatnik": (anyone living as a bohemian or acting rebelliously or appearing to advocate a revolution in manners[2]), with a source. My personal feeling is that it interrupts the flow, but I grant that it does add clarity.Jeffpw 16:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I don't want to make you do something you regard as wrong for the article! After all, it is a major issue and I'm not by default right!--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh! And some external links I now saw added are not properly citate. There is another cite-template for this stuff you can use. Where is it? Ah! Here: Template:Cite web--Yannismarou 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again for your constructive criticism, Yannismarou! I have reformatted the references (Wow! That was a pain! I am not very computer literate when it comes to HTML code), and now they look properly Wikified.
  • I'm going to sleep on the Beatnik sentence. I have left the explanation in for now, and will look at it again tomorrow, when I am not as frazzled.
  • Citation added to last paragraph of writing section. I might be able to add one more there, as well. Just out of curiosity, can one overly cite in an article? I do have sources for everything, but was hesitant to put a citation in for every sentence. Jeffpw 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's not overdo it! The principle is at least one citation for each paragraph and referencing of every allegation, assessment, quote. Some users say that citation for each sentence goes to the extreme. I say "some users", because I'm a reference-freak! To summarize, citations are usually well-received, but again we should not overdo it. In any case, avoid to have more than one citation in a row (I mean [1][2][3] - one after the other).--Yannismarou 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eww! I have that 3 in a row thing in 3 different places. I felt it important, since each reference by itself was rather weak, so I wanted to show a consensus of viewpoints. I saw elsewhere that it is possible to turn the three into one, but I don't know how. I'll give it a look on other pages to see if I can figure it out. By the way, I have nominated it for FAC. So far one person gives it support, if the Fair Use of the images can be established. Jeffpw 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I were you, I would combine all three references into one citation (just put each reference on a new line). The FA people may disagree with me, however. MLilburne 19:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting gives me so much stress! What I ended up doing was combining 2 of the three, so now there are 2 citations next to each other, which is accepted (so I read somewhere). I wanted to combine them all into one, but I wasn't sure how to combine 2 internet citations, and was afraid I would mess the whole thing up if I tried. Jeffpw 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied up your combined footnotes a bit. If you don't like the result, please feel free to revert, but I think having the references on seperate lines makes it look a bit tidier. MLilburne 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, MLilburne. Writing an article is fun, but formatting it to Wiki standards is another matter entirely! I sincerely appreciate your help with it, and yes, it looks a lot neater the way you did it. I did add "See Also" to the second reference, simply because I saw that other pages with multiple references for a sentence included that.

Isamu Noguchi[edit]

Hi; I'm sorry that I am posting here while this article is so incomplete but I need some guidance. I wasn't sure exactly how to model this if I wanted GA/FA status. Henry Moore is a similar topic but I don't think I should base this article on that if only because it doesn't seem to have been updated to meet current FA standards. My idea is something like:

  • Intro
  • Bio
  • Personal Life (What to call this? Includes love life and social philosophies)
  • Works (Separated into sections on every medium he did significant work in)
  • Legacy

Unfortunately all I have gotten myself to do is about half of the bio, and it probably is cruddy. Based on what is already there, what should I:

  1. Rewrite to satisfy the brilliant prose criterion?
  2. Delete or move to other sections?
  3. Add citations to?

Thanks Rampart 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat91[edit]

I see Henry Moore is a FA. You should model your article according to the information you have, but it's still a very good referent. Some suggestions:

  • As for the "Personal life" section, perhaps it can have 2 subheadings, "Relationships" and "Social philosophies" (if you have a significant amount of info for both). As for the other sections, your idea seems to be just fine.
  • I see you're not starting from scratch. As for what's already there, I think you should rewrite, delete and move information according to your own sections. The lead needs some work, though. I'm not an English native speaker, but the prose could use some editing. There are some typos and odd sentences like this one: "Eventually, Noguchi broke away from his teacher; not only did he begin to reject Ruotolo's classical teachings by showing a liking to the modernist movements of the time, but an instance in which he, not wanting to stop his work, turned away several of Ruotolo's friends resulted in Noguchi being thrown out of the atelier." This sentence is too long, you lose track of the information, try to avoid them. Also, incoherent sentences, for example: "Later arriving in Kyoto, studied pottery with Uno Jinmatsu, and took particular note of local Zen gardens and haniwa, clay funerary figures of the Kofun era which inspired his terra cotta The Queen."
  • The more citations, the better. They make the article more verifiable.

Good luck with the article. Nat91 03:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Henry Moore is not a nice model. This article wouldn't pass today WP:FAC. Some advice:

  • Add inline citations.
  • Turn "Notable works by Noguchi" into prose.
  • Get rid of the photo gallery. You can incorporate some of the photos in the main prose.
  • You could distinguish between the personal life and the artistic work of Noguchi.

Obviously, the article in incomlete. I'll give a full review, when I see its final form.--Yannismarou 19:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek and the Dominos[edit]

Working on the page alone I am not able to fully see potential problems or minor criticisms that an outside point of view possesses and that a peer review can provide. The article has been extensively worked on and is aesthetic to the eyes and ears. There are many citations and there is only a small amount of POV in the article. Again though, I hope that this is the case for being deeply intertwined with the article provides me with an uneven point of view. Thank you and I will try my best to fix any problems that are brought to my attention. - Patman2648 08:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelas10[edit]

A couple of issues I found:
  • You should fix the album chronology so it would not only be Eric Clapton's album chronology.
  • The article sounds a lot like a newspaper article, please remove a lot of the quotations and merge them inside the text. Michaelas10 11:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An aftermath section will be created and quotes reduced. Also I'm not sure what you mean by fix album chronology because the Derek and the Dominos page only has four albums in the discography and all four are Derek and the Dominos albums alone, there are no Eric Clapton articles in that space designated. I think you're talking about the band's album's pages don't have a Derek and the Dominos chronology and that can be added then and I'll do that. Thanks and I appreciate the advice. - Patman2648 08:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know it doesn't relate much to the article itself, but you really should add Eric Clapton's chronology to each of the band's album articles. Michaelas10 20:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

In general, a nice and informative article. This is my review:

  • I think you could split the lead in two paragraphs. This would be a better layout.
  • Be more consistent with the inline citations. They always go just after the punctuation without a gap between the citation and the punctuation.
  • In "Duane Allman's inclusion" these two large quotes in a row are not nice for the prose.
  • Again in "Duane Allman's inclusion" citations 10 and 11 are obviously the same. So, why you have two inline citations in the place of one? Correct such technical problems.
  • I don't like "Sample" section. No prose and just one sample. Why don't you get rid of this section and transfer the sample on the top of "The Layla album" section?
  • I agree an "Aftermath" section is necessary. Something about their impact and their musical legacy.
  • I also believe that you should add a section about their musical influences. What where the traits of their music?--Yannismarou 13:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the expertise, I will definitely split the lead section and I plan to add more so it will look better split. All citations will be fixed and as said earlier overall reducing/eliminating several of the quotes. I had two of the identical sources because earlier someone had put [citation needed] at both locations but I will remove one because like you said its pointless. The Layla sample switch is a great idea and I'll try and add sections their sound and influence. Thanks so much and I will get to work on the fixes as soon as possible. - Patman2648 08:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When he said that there should be one reference instead of two, I believe he meant to a double reference, instead of removing an existing one. Michaelas10 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend a section on the traits of their music/influences section should be added, describing the musical and structural elements of the band's music. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali[edit]

This article has been a GA for some time now. I'd like to take this article to FAC in the near future, so some feedback on what shortcomings remain would be very helpful. jaco♫plane 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read the article in detail yet (again). But I noticed that many quotes were translated without the original Dutch text besides it. Garion96 (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah good point, I'll add the original Dutch quotes in the refs. jaco♫plane 05:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

A nice informative article. It is a GA (I agree with that), but I don't agree with the A-Class rating for the Biography Project. It has some serious layout, stylistic and content flaws. I have also some POV concerns, I'll make clear later. For FAC it need much more work. These are my suggestions:

  • I think in the lead you are getting into to many details. To be more exact: My personal opinion is that you should merge the last two pars of the lead and remove some details. We'll learn about these things later. In the beginning, just give us the framework. Not a day by day narration.
  • When you refer things for the first time, give us a brief explanation. For instance, "Muslim Brotherhood". What is that? The link is not enough. I'm a lazy guy! I don't want to link all the time! You get my point?
  • "Hirsi Ali maintains that in 1992 her father arranged for her to marry a distant cousin living in Canada." Inline citation here? Which is your source?
  • Sometimes you wikilink twice the same link. For instance, political asylum. Check that. Once is enough!
  • Section "Pre-political career" begs for citations. I also don't like some short paragraphs there. You could merge them or expand them.
  • In the first three paragraphs of "Political career" I also nee citations. And I also see some one-sentence paragraphs. Such paragraphs are not recommended. They are not nice for the article flow. Merge or expand. I think "Political career" needs a throughout polishing to make the prose more coherent.
  • "publicly stated her real name and date of birth in a September 2002 interview published in the political magazine HP/De Tijd.[14][15][16]" Three inline citations in a row are too many.
  • Try to have the inline citations at the end of the sentence and not in the middle, so that the article flow is not interrupted.
  • Section "The citizenship controversy" also needs some rewriting because of the stubby paragraphs.
  • "She claims to be a great admirer of one of the party's ideological leaders Frits Bolkestein (former Euro-commissioner). Ali received substantial criticism as a result of her defection from the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) to the VVD. By way of response she has asserted that she will show greater loyalty to the VVD. She claims that her personal views are for the most part inspired by her change from a Muslim to an atheist. Hirsi Ali is very critical of Islam, and especially of the prophet Muhammad and the position of women in Islam." She claims ... She claims ... She claims ... Ok! But where are your sources? Inline citations!
  • an atheist [5]. Not a nice way to link external links. This is better: an atheist.
  • "Circumcision" is stubby. Expand or merge.
  • "Freedom of speech": stubby.
  • "Freedom of education": stubby.
  • "Development aid": stubby.
  • "Terrorism": stubby.
  • I'm also concerned about the quote boxes (especially the long ones) throughout these sections. They are all gathered in this small part of the article and are not good for the article flow. You could incorporate some of them within the prose, expanding this way some of the stubby sections and trying also to offer some additional sources besides form Ali's own wording.
  • "Criticism of Hirsi Ali" is under-developped. This section is crucial for the article. It needs expansion; otherwise your article is POV. You over-present Ali's own opinions and, on the other side, you under-analyse the criticisms against her. Right now, you don't keep a nice balance.
  • Get rid of "Trivia section". Incorporate its content in the main article. Such sections are no more recommended.
  • Turn "Awards" into prose. As it is now, it is a listy section and you'll get criticized if you go for FA. You should also have got criticized in GAC. If I was the evaluator in GAC, believe me, you'd have a hard time!
  • Turn also "Bibliography" into prose. As it is now, it also listy and a bit stubby. Further analysis and inline citations would be welcomed.
  • The external links are for me toooooo many. I'd recommend you keep the most important ones. For instance, are all these interviews of her necessary? Keep what is really necessary for the readers.--Yannismarou 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, that should keep me busy for a while :) jaco♫plane 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Floyd (Virginia politician)[edit]

Old Peer Review

This passed GA and am hoping to get feedback to see what it needs to FA, thanks! --plange 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

A very nice article (as usual!). I think it can go through FA proceedure. Some minor remarks which are not definitely right:

  • "Though counseling prudence and moderation in his annual message of December, 1832, Floyd was then secretly counting the costs and horrors of war. To his mind that 'outrage upon our institutions,' that 'satire upon the revolution,' and that 'consummation of a long expected executive usurpation,' Jackson's Proclamation, in answer to the Nullification Ordinance of South Carolina, made war inevitable." I'm puzzled with all these quotation marks. Is this said by somebody? If yes by whom? And what is exactly the meaning?!
  • "As a result, he turned to Clay, and attempted to bring him and John C. Calhoun together in a new political party to support these views.[2][57][58]" Usually, I'm Ok with two inline citations in a row. But three ... I donot know.
  • I'm a bit worried with these loooong quotations within the prose. My opinion is that they interrupt a bit the flow. You might get criticized in FAC.
  • "Catholicism, death and legacy". This section does not say much about his legacy - just a small sentence. I know I proposed such a section, but if you can't find anything, it is Ok! But then I think a title like "Catholicism and death" is better.

In general, the article is informative and well-citated. 4 sources is not magnificent, but also not terrible. So I think it can be a FA.--Yannismarou 20:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks!
  • On first one: You're right, that wasn't done too well :-) The biographer was actually quoting Floyd, so I restructured it to make that clearer. Does it work now?
  • Fixed 3 quote pileup
  • Fixed section
  • Will work on long quotes

--plange 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Jan Smuts[edit]

This article, part of a series on the life of Jan Smuts, has recently been up for FA nomination. It failed (3 for - 2 against). The problem is that there were no clear reasons for failure - neither editor identified common features that they objected to (one thought that the prose wasn't up to scratch and there were too few references, the other had stylistic objections to the lead). The eventual intention is to raise Jan Smuts and its detailed sub-articles to FA status, but before I consider putting this up again, I'd appreciate any input that you could provide. Are there any real problems or is it just that the article didn't raise enough interest with reviewers?

Xdamrtalk 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celithemis[edit]

  • I agree with the FAC comment that the lead should not discuss Smuts's later life at such length. Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. seems to be the only Early Life FA, and I think it strikes about the right balance: a couple of sentences to establish who the subject is and why he's notable, but establishing right away that this article is about his early life and spending most of its time summarizing that.
  • I'd suggest a link to Jan Smuts up near the top, for people who might get to this article through a search engine -- or, ultimately, through the Featured Articles list.
  • I also agree with the FAC objection to the heading "Spreading his Wings."
  • There is quite a bit of unsourced interpretation, e.g.: "He was happy with having any female acquaintance, especially someone who gave him self-confidence" and "...an attitude which perhaps was the main barrier between him and the English undergraduates."
  • The term coloured definitely needs a Wikilink, and I think also a brief explanation, to avoid confusing non-South African readers.

—Celithemis 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, sorry for not responding sooner (Real-life pressures). The unsourced interpretations were taken from one of the main texts; as you point out though, there are no citations - something which I will sort out. Reccomendations per links accepted. 'Spreading his Wings' - I suppose here we are dealing with the fine line between a writer's self-expression and the requirement to write encyclopedically. I'll reflect on a few alternatives over the next couple of days.
As far as the lead goes, I find it difficult to understand the need for change. The objections seem to centre around the first paragraph, a paragraph which notes that he was a military leader, SA Prime Minister, and International statesman. My view is that this establishes exactly who he was and why his early life is notable. WP policy is that articles should be stand-alone, a proper understanding them should not be dependant on referring to other connected articles. By cutting down, a proper understanding of this article becomes dependant on referring up to Jan Smuts. I honestly don't think that cutting this down would be a change for the better - at most we could possibly remove the reference to the War Cabinet and the formation of the RAF, but everything else seems (to me at least) to be essential.
I'm not sure that Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. is a good guide. It was promoted to FA back in Dec 2005 and, as I'm sure we're all aware, standards for FA status are getting tighter all the time. Futhermore, the style of lead for Joseph Smith ("The early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. covers the period from his birth on December 23, 1805, to the end of 1827, when Latter Day Saints believe ..."), attracted severe criticism in the Early life of Jan Smuts FA nom. (an editor implemented that style in an attempted rewrite of the lead).
Xdamrtalk 14:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Pickler[edit]

Hi, I've kind of been working on this article a bit. Does this page have enough citations and references, as needed, or does it need more? I attempted to fix the image rationales and licensing, is it OK? Also how would you assess this article? Thank you. Pink moon 1287 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur puppy[edit]

  • Can some of the Post Idol sections be expanded on.
  • Does the discography section need to be fixed? I'm not sure if that picture is allowed to be on her page under fair use.
  • Are there any sources which are offline? Books, magazines or anything else that is a reliable source. T REXspeak 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Wow! Beautiful girl! She should have won only for this reason! Now, seriously. I assess this article as a start article. It needs more information and further improvements. These are some suggestions:

  • "Notes" go before "External links".
  • Some sub-sections, like "American Idol" are under-citated. The rule is at least one inline citation for each paragraph. More sources would be welcomed. Printed sources are highly esteemed. Can you include any?
  • By the way italics in the headings are not recommended I think.
  • I'm not sure the "List of Kellie Pickler's performances on American Idol" is absolutely necessary. The fact it is hidden is a positive, but again I'm not sure about its necessity. After all in GACs and FACs long lists are not esteemed. You can turn this list into prose under the title "Kellie Pickler's performances on American Idol" or even create a sub-article under the title "Kellie Pickler's on American Idol", making a summary of this sub-article in the main current article "Kellie Pickler". These are just some ideas.
  • The lead needs expansion to summarize the article. Check WP:LEAD.
  • Inine citations go always after the punctuation and not before. You have to fix some of them.
  • "National" needs a prose polishing. Listy section with one-sentence paragraphs. Make the prose more coherent. Merge paragraphs etc. I also agree that it would be nice to expand the "Post-Idol" section if necessary.
  • I think the picture of the album is Ok, since it illustrates only the album and it is used only for informative reasons.
  • "Small Town Girl" sub-section is stubby. You can either expand it including more information or incorporate it in another (sub-)section.--Yannismarou 11:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Platt[edit]

New article written by myself, could do with much expansion. Suggestions anyone? — Wackymacs 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Electrawn[edit]

Electrawn 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Well, the article obviously needs expansion, photos and more information. And sources. The last is the most important, but I donot think I can help. Check the internet, Google Book etc. I see you've already nominated FAs, so you obviously know what a good research demands! Good luck!--Yannismarou 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-os[edit]

Expanded significantly the article over the past week. I'm hoping to get this article to FA status, and just wanted to find out the project critique and suggestions. My only concern are the chart information for the singles, which I'm having a hard time finding. I guess thats it, thank you in advance. - Tutmosis 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Very nice indeed! Your osmosis with FAC reviews has obviously significantly helped you! The article is comprehensive and well-written. I also liked the prose. I'm not a native English speaker, but I think the article has a nice article flow. Some minor remarks, which may be subjective and, therefore, not correct by default:

  • How is "k-os" written when it is in the beginning of a sentence; the article is "K-os", but when you start a new sentence with his name, you write "k-os" and not "K-os". Which one is the correct form?
  • Your article is filled with criticisms and various assessments of his albums, but I'd like to have some more comprehensive assessements of his musical style and influences in general. What about creating a new section?
  • You have just one photo. Photos are not a prerequisite for FA status, but can you add at least one more?
  • You have a variety of source, but only web. Are there any printed sources available? I ask because they are higly esteemed in FAC.--Yannismarou 08:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I did not find any mention of this in my research, but the article before I edited it states his name is always lower case so I went with that. Regarding consistency with lower case, I believe I previous fixed it [6] and really can't find anymore.
  2. The problem with this artist is in inteviews his always throwing out names of artist so he himself is not really consistent with his influences but I can definetely try to get more information. Also I thought about making a section, but it would just repeat the Music Career which basically already says "his songs always change genres and he sings and raps". Also, because he always talks about change and positivity in regards to his music and so do his reviewers, I didn't want a section dedicated to what a positive guy he is which might come off as POV. I think the lead and Music Career mentions the previous, but I'll go back and make it clearer and try to dig up anything more.
  3. I know very little about photo research and since most images about musicians are fairuse, I didnt want to throw another one in. So I'm just waiting for an experienced user to suggest something.
  4. The article primary sources are newspaper articles which also happen to have mirrors on the web. Considering his a musician, been around for a short time, and not a legend I doubt I'll find solid sources like books.

Anyway Thank you very much for your nice comments and good pointers Yannismarou! - Tutmosis 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little update, I added images per your request and added some audio samples. I'm still working on more information regarding him, but in the meantime anyone else have any comments or critique? - Tutmosis 18:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Weird Al" Yankovic[edit]

I think it's a pretty good article, and want some tips before re-nomination for Good Article consideration. ~ Gromreaper 10:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

  • It needs more citations. Some paragraphs have no sources.
  • In some sections there are some stubby sentences. They need fixing so that the article flow gets better.
  • The "Trivia" section is short and listy. Get rid of it, incorporating the information there in the prose of the other sections.
  • I think the discography is long. For GA this may not be a problem, but in FAC you'll be asked to make a selection with his most important works and make a seperate article, if you want to have all his discography.
  • "Directing career" is stubby for me. I propose you merge it in some other section about his caree. I also think the the "Notable Television Appearances" should go before "discography". GIve us a full image of his whole career (songs, TV etc.) with the right structure of the relevant sections and then go to discography.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Clifford Barney[edit]

My first attempt at a full rewrite of a biography. Detailed and extensively sourced now, but since no one else has been doing significant edits recently, additional sets of eyeballs on this article would be very helpful and much appreciated. I'd like to get it to GA if possible. —Celithemis 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Very nice! I think it will pass GAC. "Literary portraits" seemed a bit listy too me-I think pure prose would be better-and "Novel" is a bit stubby-merge or expand. Some further remarks based on my personal taste-this means they are not necessarily correct:

  • After "Early Life", I thought I lost a bit the story of Barney's life. My belief is that "Writing" would be better after "World War II and after", when the biography is over and we have a complete picture of Barney's life.
  • In "Writing" I would like to see some modern assessments about her work.
  • "Literary portraits" does not cover another topic; the impact of her personality in the future generations, her legacy (if such a thing exists). Is Barney important for us now? Has she influenced the future generations? And if yes, why and how?

Good luck with GAC! I believe you'll be fine!--Yannismarou 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Electrawn[edit]

  • Use of expatriate in Summary. Since this wasn't wikified, I had to look it up. Its use seems associated with a specific group of writers of modernist literature termed the Lost Generation. To help explain the use of "expatriate", to non-literature persons...I think you need the "lost generation" term in there.

Electrawn 18:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoric Strabo[edit]

This is possibly a minor character, but none the less deserves a good article. I would appreciate any comment on it.--BlaiseMuhaddib 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrawn[edit]

Best I can do is to research sources for you to get you from start to B Class. This person is a hard find, but historians seem to always differentiate from Theodoric the Great by Thoedoric, Son of Triarus. Electrawn 09:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Well, this is a good article! As a matter of fact, a very good article! Comprehensive, well-citated, with well-captioned photos. Neat and nice! Why don't you nominate it for GA? I think it will pass. And then you'll see if there's any chance for FA. Minor remarks:

  • The only drawback, but important one, that I can find is the lack of sources. You have only two references. I donot think for GA this is a problem (again, nobody can be sure about that!), but it would be better if you could find some more sources. I understand, of course, it is difficult. So, if you don't find additional sources and you get criticized for that, just explain that additional sources are not available.
  • Prerequisite for this remark is the existence of additional sources and comments about him: It would be nice to have some assessments, criticisms, laudations of Theodoric Strabo's career. It's nice to enrich a biographical article with such things and not only events. But, again, are there any more sources?--Yannismarou 15:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Stephens[edit]

I think this is a well-sourced article that provides a NPOV about a colourful member of the Assembly who recently lost one of the most memorable local races in decades. MrPrada 00:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrawn[edit]

Overall: This is a start class article with a low priority. The inclusion of elected US state political figures does meet Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. Most people editors don't understand NPOV and how language implies POV.

  • Summary:
    • Titles are such as Honorable probably shouldn't be used. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes
    • Try and write from a worldview, American Politican? National headlines to US national headlines
    • Words/Phrases to Avoid: "Idiot" Potential defamation/false light and should be removed immediately. He is notable for a gaffe, not what he said during the gaffe. We don't want wikipedia implying Stephens thinks his constituents are idiots. The gaffe may or may not be relevant to a summary, just notable in the article.
    • "his constituents for past" Not needed.
    • Word to avoid: "crushed" Try defeated.
    • Remove "and lost republican nomination." Replace "September 2006 Primary" with "2006 New York Republican Primary election" Primary election may be redundant but may need to be included for worldview.
    • "newcomer" may be redundant and or unneeded.
    • Endorsement sentence should be moved out of summary and into article.
    • As of 2006, Stephens lives in ...
    • Remove Ginny and any other proper names from article in favor of privacy of the subject. He has a wife is notable, her name is not.
  • Missing Section: Early Life
    • Who, What, When where, WHy and How the man came to political power. Childhood, education, etc.
  • Political Career
    • Move Background information to sperate section, suggest "Early Life"
    • Move prose to past tense, such as represents to represented The X district between XXXX and YYYY.
    • Words to avoid: "Conservative" and "liberal". Overuse of these Cliched and misunderstood terms may imply POV. If there is a specific issue, such that has notable press commentary on an issue such as labor or gay rights, that may be notable. Conservative groups groups criticizing a liberal politician? Whoop de do...not notable.
    • Words to avoid: "watchdog". Overused and not worldview. Special interest groups may be better term.
    • Words to avoid: "heated" Overused, POV. Remove, let reader decide if the race was "heated".
    • Words to avoid: "mounted" Sexual innuendo, indirect POV. try "against" instead of "mounted by"
    • Use of "Challenger" redundant.
    • Words to avoid: "enourmous" POV. Let the figure speak for itself.
    • Words to avoid: "victim" POV.
    • citing -> saying
    • "highlighting close relationship" In current context, why a close relationship with XYZ is not adequeately explained. Entire statement is POV.
    • Words to avoid: "falsely" Unless it really is a FACT that is false, and backed up by a highly reliable source WP:RS, you should generally leave it out.
    • Words to avoid: "heavily" Criticised heavily? In what context? One citation = "heavily?" leave out.
    • Potential Libel "Trash Magnate" -> Try "successful in waste management industry" or something similar. Indicted by who?
    • Words to avoid: "vowed to" POV. "said he" will do.
    • lines -> run with XXX and YYY political parties.
    • Words to avoid: "Prominent" What context? Leave out.
    • Words to avoid: "gracefully" Usually not needed.
    • Words to avoid: "throw" "reliably" try... "for fear the XX district, held by Republicans for XX years, would leave Republican control.
    • Awkward: "Due to"
  • Missing Section: Marriage and Family
  • Mission Section or subsection: Legislation in New York Assembly
  • Controversy:
    • Most sections titled as such are irrelevant to a biography and frequently provide WP:NPOV#undue weight, and potentially defame the subject in a false light.
    • Pontificating Idiots Email: Holy POV title, Batman! Try Email Gaffe or Email Guff
    • Discussion group, or listserv -> "online discussion group"
    • focuses on...-> read by many of the website Brewster.
    • Explain Briefly what Brewster is and relevance.
  • Text of Email:
    • Delete Text of email. Potential False Light defamation. The fact he made a guff/gaffe is notable, what he actually said really isn't. Inclusion makes wikipedia look like a tabloid and sensationalist. Links offsite to the article text are fine, just the actual text not included in wikipedia. Protect in favor of the subject.
  • Putnam Victory Fund:
  • Word to Avoid: "Heavy" See heavily above
  • Phrase to avoid: "Trash Magnate" See above.
  • Phrase to avoid: "reputed mob boss" Not needed in this article unless Stephens is involved with the mob. Else, inclusion may imply that Stephens is involved with the mob, potential defamation, leave out unless highly reliable sourced connections to mob. "ties to organized crime" may be more neutral.
  • Other missing sections per {{{template:biography}}}
  • References/Notes/Citations/See Also/External Links
    • Use of newscopy.org, a blog, is likely unreliable and probably doesn't fit WP:RS.
    • Use of Infobox is great, name of wife may need to be removed for privacy.
    • Bottom three external links irrelevant.

Needs significant work. Hopefully this makes an eye opening and excellent study concerning language use as POV. :) Electrawn 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

First of all, I see this article is rates as A-Class. This is obviously wrong. These are my remarks:

  • Inline citations go straight after punctuation without a gap between the punctuation and the citation. You are inconsistent in this matter. Correct these mistakes.
  • Insufficient biographical information. In particular, the article lacks information about his early life. More details about his political career and his whereabouts after his defeat are also welcomed.
  • I'll agree with Electrawn that the article is POV. Most of it is a lonf criticism against Stephens. His defense is under-discussed.
  • We donot need the full text of the e-mail. Keep what you think most important and turn it into prose.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
  • You don't have to say "Assemblyman Stephens" all the time. 'Stephens" i is OK.--Yannismarou 15:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lee (Virginia colonist)[edit]

I recently created this article and would like to see if anything needs to be improved. There is still more information about him but I would like to fix it as is for right now. Hoping to get it to GA status. T REXspeak 00:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrawn[edit]

  • Summary:
    • Use of colonist. Try and step outside and see the article from a worldview and ignorance of the subject. I suggest adding "British subject and colonist." Wikify to explain british colonialism.
    • Summary: Why is the Lee family notable?
    • Summary: "The other branch was headed by his brother Henry Lee I, grandfather of "Light Horse" Harry Lee." is probably not needed in the summary.
  • 2nd Summary paragraph:
    • Try and merge elements of this to the first paragraph and into marriage and family. I don't think going into a list of Lee's sons exploits is appropiate and notable in the article summary, save for later.
    • Copyedit needed. Spelling, wording, prose. "called for the recall" :) "Important" and "Excuse" are POV words to avoid.
    • Is the most notable thing he did was procreate?
  • Early Life:
    • Who, What, When, Where, Why, How not fully answered.
    • Expand sentences to paragraphs on how he became powerful.
    • If Thomas Corbin is notable, wikify, else just leave as "uncle".
    • When leasing, you usually lease property from someone...who owned the plantation? British government? Virginia?
    • Copyedit: "his uncle" would be better as "an uncle"; engaged is better and more understood than Betrothed; "had decided" ?; Sentence run together.
    • Use of cquote and quote doesn't seem to move the article forward, hard to understand such poor english.
  • Marriage and Family:
    • Use of Prominent. To who? All of Britainia? Virginia? A region in virginia?
    • Summarize briefly his family role and the eventual roles his sons would become. Move from 2nd Summary paragraph. Expand on his sons and family legacy in "later life" section.
    • Copyedit: Akward sentences and paragraphs are frequent.
  • Potential Missing Section: Political Career
  • Missing Section or subsection: House of Burgesses
    • Notable things Lee did within his role in the House
  • Missing Section: Ohio Company
    • Notable things Lee did to found and start this company are missing.
  • Stratford hall:
    • This section should be a subsection under some sort of political heading.
    • I am not sure if the cquote and quote by Phillip is relevant to the biography.
  • Later Life:
    • Section title should be changed. Later life after what?
  • References/Notes/Overall:
    • Citations looks great. More the better.
    • Infobox is great.
    • Editor enthusiasm is great.
    • Any online sources?
    • Is there an article on Lee in the 1911 or 1922 Encyclopedia Britannica that can be merged in with this article?

Overall, the article sits somewhere between start class and B class, leaning toward start but current B class assessment can stay. I may insert a framework and copyedit to help you along. On the priority scale, this person is low priority. Electrawn 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice start, but my first comment is that the article is incomplete. This is my review:

  • The lead constitutes a summary of the whole article. All these things about his family and his children should be placed in section "Marriage and Family". Check WP:LEAD
  • I see two huuuuge sections, "Early life" and "Marriage and Family", and two tiny sections, "Stratford Hall" and "Later Life". Why? And why all this information about his family? Is it so important? His later life is not important? This is an unbalanced article.
  • Are there any comments or criticism or assessments about his career, his political opinions, his decisions? What we can call "legacy".
  • Why only two references? In notes I see more sources. If you chose to keep both sections, then the sources citated (not in detail, but the pages should be definitely mentioned) in "Notes" should be also mentioned (in detail, but without pages) in References.
  • Some sections are under-citated. Try to have at least one inline citation for each paragraph.--Yannismarou 20:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Duckworth[edit]

Hello, Tammy Duckworth is running for the Illinois 6th district of congress. This race has now be come heated. I have submited this article for peer review because I feel article is substandard, bias and non-encylopeidic. I feel it needs work to bring it up to the wikipdeia standards for Biography for Living Persons WP:BLP as well as Neutral Point of View. WP:NPOV For this to happen, there needs more editors, to help and improve the standard of this article. Thanks Chitownflyer 08:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Electrawn[edit]

  • Serious WP:NPOV#Undue Weight problems with all the criticism sections.
  • Early Life section doesn't answer Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. Specifically, why did she join the military.
  • Political career doesn't answer why she wanted to run for congress.
  • Citations throughout the article potentially violate WP:RS, blogs used too frequently.
Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Criticism, WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:RFC, {{{template:biography}}}|Wikipedia:Criticism, WP:NPOV § Undue Weight, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:RFC, {{{template:biography}}}]]

I am not sure this start class article is ready for a full peer review. A WP:RFC may be a better idea. That said, I'll made my comments brief and general. Electrawn 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Electrawn has pointed out the main problems of the article. I don't think this is a bad article, but it needs work and a more thorough research:

  • Per Electrawn about the POV problems of the criticism section. What I mean: In this section Duckworth criticizes, but she is not criticized! Which are the criticisms against her? What do her opponents say about her opinions. Elaborate and expand the stubby sub-sections of this section.
  • Poor prose and incoherent writing. This is clear because of the main one-sentence paragraphs. The article is not a collection of phrases. The article must tell a story. Try to do it!
  • When you citate an online source, you must say when it was retrieved.
  • I accept blogs, if they donot constitute the main part of the sources. Try to enrich your sources.
  • Too many external links. Are you sure they are all necessary? And what is http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979272153285983805 for instance? This tells me nothing! Explain what source this is. And again you donot sya when these sites were retrieved.--Yannismarou 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyndham Robertson[edit]

Wanting to get it to GA so welcome any suggestions! --plange 03:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Thanks to you, Plange, I've learned all Virginian politicians of the last century (kidding!)! The article is good and well-placed for GAC. My major concern is its length. it is a bit short. But I suppose FACs are most exhaustingly examined for covering all details. GAs can be short. Minor remarks:

  • "He was then elected to the Virginia House of Delegates for the 1838 session. He was then re-elected for three successive sessions, ending his service in 1841." Check a bit your prose. Here, in two centences in a row, you start with "he was then ..." This repetition is not nice.
  • In "Legacy and writings" I think the first phrase "Robertson was an early donor to Emory and Henry College, the interest of which furnished the Robertson prize medal for "encouraging oratory" would be better situated at the end of the section.
  • My suggestion is that at the beginning of a new paragraph don't start with "He..." but "Robertson...". --Yannismarou 17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hazelwood[edit]

I have made some changes to the article recently, the article doesn't have much traffic and I would like some feedback and a peer review to further improve the article. Thank you. Dual Freq 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Good article overall. Have you thought of nominating it for GA? A few remarks:

  • Sections "Family" and "Education" are short. You must expand them or merge them into a new section named "Family and Education" or "Early years". Further information about his early years are welcomed.
  • At the top of the chapter "Exxon Valdez Oil Spill" you could link to the main article Exxon Valdez oil spill, using this template:
    Main article: Exxon Valdez oil spill
  • Your story stops in 2002. Don't we know anything about him after this year?
  • Section "Pop culture references" should be turned into prose. As it is now, it looks like a Trivia section, which is not recommended.
Thanks for the review, not much has been said about him in the last few years. His last mention that I could find was around the 15th anniversary of the oil spill in 2004, but it was just a rehash of the other material. All I can find is that he still lives in Long Island (or at least pays taxes on a house there), but not much else. I've prosified the pop culture, and merged the early years section. I'd like to find some better pictures and more information about early years, but news articles didn't say much about siblings and I really had to dig to find the name of his daughter. That section is pretty much the best I can do right now. Thanks again. Dual Freq 23:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Roskam[edit]

Greetings. This Peer Review has been created for the Peter Roskam article.

Currently, The Peter Roskamis running for the Illinois 6th district for congress. This race as proved to be very contentious race with the democratic Nominee, Tammy Duckworth running for the open congressional seat this November 2006.

I have requested this review, due to the edit wars and NPOV disputes, and bias editing that now plagues this article. The Editors would appear to have a political agenda. This article needs to be right, conforming to the standards of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Since it is a hotly contested race, there needs to be a better cross section of Wikieditors and/Administrators reviewing and correcting, this article, so that, it may conform to Wikipedia policy for Biography for Living Persons as will as Neutral Point of View.

Thanks Chitownflyer 14:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

At the time of my reading it, it seemed NPOV to me. I made some minor fixes, but here's some things I'd recommend:

  • Expand lead per WP:LEAD
  • Too many short one-sentence paragraphs
  • Too many one-paragraph sections, combine into a parent heading
  • The Notes section needs to be cleaned up -- you have very few web citations that have the full citation (title, publisher, date, access date)

--plange 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Plange got most of the problems. As far as the POV issues are concerned, I think the article has no major NPOV issues, although I'm not familiar with the American political life. I saw the last debate has to do with a link. This is definitely a versus-Roskam link, but this is not a problem, if pro-Roskan sites or his official site with his own views contradicting the accusations are also mentioned. A few more remarks:

  • Section "2006 Congressional campaign" faces serious prose-problems. It needs rewriting; right now it seems like a list of chronologies and events.
  • Sub-sections in section "Positions" need merger or expansion. Have in mind that in this section you can also mention critics of Roskam's positions, respecting, of course, the NPOV policies of Wikipedia.--Yannismarou 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Michael Hall[edit]

Old Peer Review

This is a recent GA and I'd like to know what it needs to reach FAC. Since the previous peer review, the article went through a massive rewrite and copy-editing. The GA reviewer said it's pushing FA status. All comments welcome. Thanks! Nat91 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

As far as I'm concerned I have nothing else to propose. From the first moment I believed that GAC was redundant and this article should go straight away to FAC! That is why I rated as A-Class! In terms of content and material, I think the article is there. In terms of prose, I'm not a specialist, but I also think it is Ok. Of course, any additional "polishing" would be welcomed just in case some reviewers in FAC find any detail you've missed.

Something that could cause some problems is the fact that all your photos are fair-used tagged. You may be criticized and asked to delete some of them. But I donot know how this problem could be solved. GO, find him and take a photo! I assume not easy!--Yannismarou 07:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how hard the FAC process is, so I wanted to make sure the article met all the criteria before nominating it. As for the prose, it was copy-edited by an English native speaker. I think I've already added everything I could find and replaced some citations for others I thought were more reliable.
As for all the fair-used tagged images, I see other FAs on actors (Eric Bana, Diane Keaton, etc) also have fair-used images. This article, in my opinion, only has "essential" pictures, illustrating different stages of the actor's career. Since the article is not short, I think removing pictures would not be a good idea. And true, it's not like I could find him to take a picture of my own - unfortunately. Okay, I'm gonna go for FAC. Hope I won't have too many problems! Nat91 10:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FAC is always tricky. The most important is to be there, active and ready to respond and address the cocerns of those commenting or objecting.--Yannismarou 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert[edit]

All the original Peer review issues have, I think, been dealt with. What now? What needs done for FA? All comments welcome. Vanished user talk 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zantastik[edit]

This article looks good. As far as what needs to be done before it reaches FA status, I would suggest two things. First, though the article's bibliography seems solid, the footnotes should refer to these works more often; there are relatively few footnotes. Additionally, I would suggest that the well-done list of his works be transfered to a new article List of W. S. Gilbert's Works, to which you can link in the article on the man. --Zantastik talk 23:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy[edit]

Comments:

  • Mixed reference styles: convert all references to cite.php.
  • Putting the References section in alphabetical order will help readers associate footnotes with References.
  • ISBN numbers on all books will contribute to the quality of the article.
  • References should include only works actually used in citing the article: were all of those sources used, or should some of them be listed as Further reading? If they were used, there should be inline citations for them.
  • Please expand all footnotes to a bibliographic style, for example:
    • The Memoirs of Jessie Bond needs some kind of information about the author, etc., to tell us why this personal website rises to the level of a reliable source. Providing more bibliographic detail in the footnote will help.
  • Even within the footnotes, there isn't a consistent style - please use one style:
  1. (Gilbert 1890, pp. 158–9).
  2. See Ainger, p.148, and Stedman, pp.318-320.
  • The text is severely undercited: work on beefing up the inline citations is needed.
  • Is there no criticism of his work?
  • I haven't looked at the prose in detail, but the lead indicates a need for prose polishing and copyediting for redundancy and fluidity; some details (such as dates) can be eliminated from the lead and covered in the text:
    • Gilbert's most popular collaboration with Sullivan, The Mikado (1885), became one of the most frequently performed works of musical theatre in history.[3][4] That work, together with H.M.S. Pinafore (1878), The Pirates of Penzance (1879), and several others of these comic operas are still performed very frequently today throughout the English-speaking world and beyond.
      • Gilbert's most popular collaboration with Sullivan, The Mikado, is one of the most frequently performed works in musical theatre; other Gilbert and Sullivan comic operas, including H.M.S. Pinafore and The Pirates of Penzance, are performed frequently throughout the world. (Find a way to avoid using the word "frequently" twice.)
  • I agree with the comment above about transferring the list of works to a separate article, which can then be summarized back to the main article.

I suggest serious work on improving the citations, as well networking to find new editors for a fresh look at copyediting, followed by a new peer review before approaching FAC: there is still much work to be done on the article, but an excellent foundation is in place. Sandy 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right then! The multiple-form cites are fairly easy to fix, as is spinning off the list. I'll do that ASAP. Vanished user talk 18:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done what I could with what I had to hand and a slight flu. Vanished user talk 21:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Much improved. Most remaining problems have already been mentioned. I'll just point out once again the lack of citations. And I agree that the list of works is very big as it is now. Such lists are not esteemed in WP:FAC. A seperate sub-article with a summary of it here is a nice idea. Some further minor remarks:

  • In notes, you don't citate the external links the right way. You should include title and author (if there is one) - date it was retrieved is also recommended. Check any recent FA with external links in references section to have an idea.
  • If some sources in "References" are not used in "Notes", then they could be moved to a seperate section named "Further reading".--Yannismarou 11:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. A little worried about the Nancy McIntosh reference not being used, but suspect that was more of a reference to be used later than one used now. Vanished user talk 21:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Duke[edit]

While I am not a fan of the person, the article and editors to the article have been able to hold NPOV. Further, the article is well sourced without giving undue weight to minority views. I think it is a great encyclopedia article, and reluctantly nominate it for a peer review and possible "A Class" assessment. Electrawn 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Very interesting article! And really NPOV! These is my review:

  • Section "Youth and early adulthood" needs inline citations and expansions. I think that there must be available sources for these first steps of the particular politician (whom I did not know!). I think it would be nice to further clarify this period of his life. And inline citations go always straight after punctuation-not before not after a gap. And, when you have more than one inline citations in a row, donot leave a gap between them.
  • In "Political Career" the prose needs improvement. In general, the flow of the article is not so good. Make the article tell a coherent and well-structured story. In this particular section, you have stubby sub-sections. Merge them or expand them. And create normal sub-sections, using ===...===.
  • "Affiliations" is also full with stubby sub-sections and one-sentence paragraphs (not recommended). Work on that. And something else: Affiliation isn't it connected with "Political Career"? "Controversies" as well. You can merge these three sections into one, reconstruct this new section and create sub-sections, improving the poor prose as well.
  • And what are exactly the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan? I know Ku Klux Klan, but the Knights? Explanation needed: A few words, one sentence would be enough. Have in mind that ignorant Europeans (like me!) are reading the article! Same thing with the National Association for the Advancement of White People, European-American Unity and Rights Organization and the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Explain a bit!
  • Same thing with Ernst Zündel. You link, but I'd like two-three words about him.
  • I saw that once or twice you have four inline citations in a row. Until 3 it is OK, but 4 I'm not sure. It is ugly stylistically and not good for the flow of the article. Can't you reorganize them a bit?
  • In "Publication" you have 3 lines for one book and three paragralhs for another. I donot like this layout. Expand, merge or re-organize.
  • I donot like "Comments on Internet websites" as it is. You can create a more thorough section, describing Duke's ideas and beliefs. This could go just after "Political Career" or "Publications" or it could be merged with "Publications".
  • I also think "Public appearances" is a part of his political career. As it is now the prose is poor and the section looks like "trivia" (just like section "Affiliations"), which is not recommended. I think it could also be a part of his "Political Career", either incoropareted in its sub-sections either as a seperate sub-section (and with a better prose).
  • "Guilty plea and incarceration" is also very interesting, but it should be connected with the rest of the article. As it is now, it looks like an "orphan section". I think it should go befor his publication or ideology section (if you create one) in connection with his political career. And more details concerning his legal problems would be nice.
  • In biographies, I like sections with assessments etc. I think you could create one in this article, especially for such a controversial person. Keepin the NPOV philosophy of the article, you can elaborate on his critics, assessments of his career, positions of his supporters, impact of his activities etc.
  • In section "Interregional Academy of Personnel Management" it is not nice the way you link external links. Since you have inline citations, link them through them. And have in mind we donot link external links like that[7] but like that.
  • It would be nice if you could find one or two more photos, especially if the article gets bigger.
  • If you want to quote any Duke's statement check President Ford or Nagorno-Karabakh War for different ways to quote.--Yannismarou 09:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alcibiades[edit]

I've completed another copy-edit of the article. I know some more tweaks are still necessary before going for FA (the article is already GA), but I thought it was high time I had some suggestions and thoughts from peer-reviewers.--Yannismarou 13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Great article, I just made some minor tweaks. Only things I found were:

  • Lead seems a bit long
  • Under Recall to Athens: "The Peloponnesians mooring their ships together, they fought with their adversaries as they sailed down upon them" - this sentence doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean: "The Peloponnesians, mooring their ships together, fought with their adversaries as they sailed down upon them" but still there's too many pronouns to know who is what...
  • Under Recall to Athens: "His performance is judged as skillful" should that read: "His performance is judged as skillful by historians"?
  • Under Assessment: "According to Vlachos the expedition had nothing the extravagant or adventurous" do you mean "According to Vlachos the expedition had nothing of the extravagant or adventurous"?

--plange 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! Working on the lead. I've reduced it a bit, but I'm reluctant! It is so well-written by Robth! I'll check the language issues.--Yannismarou 17:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead trimmed now a bit.--Yannismarou 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

John Floyd (Virginia politician)[edit]

Expanded this from a little stub and would love outside viewpoints, especially anyone familiar with this period in US history (Clay, Calhoun and Jackson era). Would like to nominate it for GA soon, so all comments welcome! Also, I have not even tapped his diary yet and am wondering if I should... --plange 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I think that GA is not going to be a major problem. Thereby, I'll be a bit more "stringent" and I'll comment on the article based on FA criteria:

  • The main problem is that you rely on (almost) a single source. This is very poor for FA (I'm not sure for GA). You can use his diary as a reference. Do it!
  • Section "War of 1812" is too short. For FA such sections are not recommended. You could expand it or merge it.
  • Section "Marriage and children" may also be a problem. I'm not sure if it can stand as a seperate section. Do you have extra information about his personal life? You can merge it with "Early Years", if you think it appropriate.
  • I think external links are recommended to go after references. And since you have only one external link, I'm not sure if you need this section.
  • You have many long quotes within the prose. For GA I donot think this is a problem. But if you go for FA, you may face criticisms.
  • I'd like to see a section about the legacy of Floyd (assessments etc.). But I donot know the availability of sources.
  • You could expand a bit the lead section.--Yannismarou 17:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
  • I've combined War of 1812 and marriage into "Family and early life"
  • Moved external links
  • Added some legacy but not sure what kind of stuff goes there typically?
Stuff about his impact in the next generations. About the way his work influenced the future. What's left behind him?--Yannismarou 08:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • expanded lead a bit
--plange 03:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Corrigan[edit]

As this article is continually shaped, there is an ongoing NPOV war raging on the history and comments page. Need to have a few more unattached persons dropping by and helping to form it into a better, balanced whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodyw1 (talk • contribs)

Yannismarou[edit]

"Corrigan's performing career has featured a diverse variety of sexual activity, including semen swallowing rimming and Cobra Video's first-ever double anal penetration" Ouaou!!! What can I say? Only one thing: Ouaou!!! These are my comments:

  • Every information, which is relevant to the article and verified should be mentioned. Therefore, if the section I quoted is verified and relevant, then OK! But is it? I checked the link and I went to "Schoolboy Crush DVD *Bareback*"! What is that?? An advertisement! An unsigned advertisement. Is it verified? I donot think so! The citation is, for me, an invalid source. That's what I think. And something else: Why is this piece of information necessary? Is Corrigan the only pornstar who does "semen swallowing". For the double penetration maybe OK (this definitely hurted! I sympathize the guy!). But, I repeat, my main problem is the lack of a verifiable source: Let's say citating an advertisement is OK; is it explicitely mentioned that "Corrigan participated in Cobra Video's first-ever double anal penetration"? I confess I did not read it (I had enough with penetrations!).
  • If the above information belongs to the article (?), then "dates in the 10th grade or his pie-in the sky pretensions to be a film director" also belong to it. If verified this information concerning his early life is definitely important. I donot understand this discrimination. This is a biography and all verified biographical information do have a place in this article.
  • Do you care about improving the article? If so, then expand or merge the stuby sections, merge or expand the one-sentence paragraphs and rewrite the lead according to WP:LEAD: the current lead is not a good summary of the article.
Response[edit]

I'm the one who made the move for more eyes on the BC article. I was accused of being too "pro" Corrigan, and rather than continue to debate the point, felt that the more people involved, the less a chance of whatever non, NPOV bias I have would creep into the article. I've tried to be fair, but, there you go.

Anyway, I don't really think the semen/cum eating/double penetration stuff belongs in the article. It's nothing that other performers haven't done. There's no source I've seen that makes Corrigan "notable" for those practices and it personally smacks of someone saying "Hah-hah, look what he's done!!" The only way I can see that it matters is by mentioning those activities with BC's comments about how much he hated doing those scenes. I've read interviews where he's discussed this. Considering though I'm a bit biased, I've stayed out of this debate.

As for the biographical information about his parents, reasons for his move, etc. I agree that it's all necessary. I've read the biography policies for Wiki and it all seemed appropriate. But my continuing to put the information in, and my reasons for keeping it in, were causing a revert war. We all were cautioned with being banned because of said war. If you'd like to add your view, then please do.

I'd love to improve the article. I'd love to move the stubly bits together. As usual though, that whole "revert war" starts to rear its head. If people like you are there to mediate and makes sure it's done properly and fairly, then my request for help was worth it.

I'll work on redoing the lead paragraph if you and whomever else will keep an eye out to make sure it doesn't just become an endless series of reverts and threats of reverts.

Jodyw1 20:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva[edit]

I have been improving this article for about six months. I'm sure all the information is correct, but I'm not sure if it can be called a 'good' article yet. I would appreciate some feedback on whether it conforms to the high standard required of biography articles. Thanks, -GilbertoSilvaFan 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I saw the article failed GA. I'm not sure I agree with that. I liked it. Anyway, these are my suggestions for further improvement:

  • More sources and inline citations. For instance section "Praise and criticism" needs inline citations, so that these assessments are verified. The same with "Style of play".
  • Most of the sections and the sub-sections are stuby, consisting of one paragraph. This is not recommended. Merge them or expand them.
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs. Merge them or expand them.
  • "Trivia" sections are no more recommended. Incorporate this material in the other sections, by turning it into prose. Section "Quotes" seems to me listy. I would also propose to incorporate these quotes in the main prose or put them into boxes. See, for instance, Gerald Ford to see how these quote-boxes work or Demosthenes were two different quoting systems are used.--Yannismarou 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Maybury[edit]

I have just drastically expanded and illustrated and reorganized this article. I need to be reviewed! Esp: Should I remove the stub indicator? Johnzw 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I think you can remove the stub indicator. I've rated as a "start article". These are some things you can do:

  • Expand the stubby sections you have.
  • Add more information about his life and re-consider the whole structure of the article. For start check WP:LEAD
  • GA and FA need references and inline citations.
  • When you citate a book, you must mention all the information about it (ISBN, publisher etc.) Check any Featured Article and you'll understand exactly what I mean.
  • "Journals & Newspapers" section could be merged with a new section (with sub-sections if necessary) about his life.--Yannismarou 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having great difficulty uncovering information about "Moneyworld"; in fact I can find no indication that this publication even existed. Johnzw 02:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justinian I[edit]

Such an important figure deserves a good biography. I would like to improve it, but I need some suggestions. BlaiseMuhaddib 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bcasterline[edit]

This looks like a pretty good article to me; not sure why it's rated "Start-Class". I think it could be submitted to WP:GAC with some work. Specific issues:
  • Information on his early life is sparse.
    • Who was his father?
    • His military career and imperial succession are both packed into one sentence without any details. Did he fight in any battles? And why did he succeed his uncle? There must have been some politics involved.
  • What killed him?
  • The legacy of his law code is addressed, but not in any detail. Some specific examples of its influence would help.
  • Inline citations would be a plus, especially since religious issues are bound to generate POV-related disputes.
I think organization is the main problem: the article does not follow his life, but covers it in one section and then discusses his reign by topic, in no particular order. That might be fine, but to me it made the article seem somewhat scattered and disjointed. I might give religion its own section, and then combine "Legal activities" and "Military activities" with those of his life. Hopefully this gives you somewhere to start. -- bcasterline • talk 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

The article has very good material. These are my concerns:

  • You need inline citations. Especially, if you go for FAC. I also think that your references are poor. A more thorough research is necessary.
  • You seperate "Life" of Justinian from his military, judicial and religious activities. I'm not sure this is the right structure. Mayfe you could incorporate all these avtivities with Jusitinian's life, creating sub-sections and enriching his life.
  • I think a legacy section or/with a section with assessments about Justinian's rule could be useful. For instance, he is criticized for puruing vain conquests and trying to recreate an empire, which was already lost.
  • I know there is a discussion between scholars about Iustinian's origins. You don't say a thing about this topic.--Yannismarou 09:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am working to a complete rewrite of the article. It is visible at User:BlaiseMuhaddib/Sandbox.--BlaiseMuhaddib 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Boas[edit]

Boas is one of the founders of modern anthropology and responsible for the place "culture" and "cultural relativism" have in our society today, and is largely responsible for the scientific critique of racism. I put a lot of work into this article, but know that everything can be improved. Boas deserves a superb article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

The article is very informative and it is obvious by a person willing to do a great job. But it needs a lot of work if it s to go for GA or FA:

  • I saw it is 69Kb. The size alone is not a problem. The problem is that most of this size is prose. And it is a huge prose. I'll come back to this issue.
  • You have no in-line citations or you citate the wrong way (for instance (Boas, 1909 lecture; see Lewis 2001b.)). This is a great problem if you go for GA or FA. Check the FA criteria. In each paragraph you must have at least 1 citation or more. In general for citating check Wikipedia:Citing sources.
  • You must also citate Boas' quotes. By the way I think you have too many of them.
  • Within the prose you have afew external links. This is not recommended. You can create inline citations and link to them correctly. This is wrong:"...factor. (See [8].)..." This is better:"...factor..." Since you already have a section with external links, then in the main article link to them when absolutely necessary and preferably in citations.
  • Sources and further reading must not be mixed.
  • It is good if you add more photos. For the lead photo you can check some of the infoboxes for bios.
  • The lead is way too short. Check WP:LEAD.
  • The notes and citations section(s) go(es) before references and further reading.
  • Alphabetize categories.
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • Sections like "Students and influence" are recommended, but are all these names necessary? I fell dizzy!
  • Try not to have too many red links. If necessary, create yourself some stubs.
  • You mention in the beginning the date of his death, but then I got lost. All these information about his theories obscure a bit the biography itself. I think you need a better organization and restructure of your material. I also think information about his later years and death should be better gathered.
  • And now the most important for me: I told you that I believe your prose is already big. Some of your sections are too long and with a lot of material. They could easily consist seperate articles. For instance the section "cultural anthropology". In sections like this you can keep the main information and create links like this:
    Main article: cultural anthropology
    or
    See also: cultural anthropology
    See if such a solution fits in some sections of your article. Your primary goal must be the achievement of a good level of article flow (without, of course, omitting valuable information-it's a tricky goal!).--Yannismarou 07:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boone[edit]

I've just completed a major revision of this article, drawing upon the 20th century biographies. I'm knowledgeable about the history of Boone's time and place, so I'm certain there are no significant errors of fact or interpretation. Major points of disagreement between historians have been noted in the text or footnotes, especially regarding the issue of history versus folklore, a central concern in Boone historiography. All comments are welcome. • Kevin (complaints?) 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Very well done! I actually don't have any suggestions-- the things I found were very minor and I just changed them myself...I'm going to nominate it for GA as I think it's ready... --plange 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've made some more revisions, and I think the article is looking pretty darn good, if I do say so myself. —Kevin 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Corzo[edit]

I think this article has good information -almost all the available about this person-. I'd like to know some opinions from the team. Thanks in advance. --Julián Ortega - drop me a message 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

An option is to further improve your article and go for GA. But it needs work. A few tips:

  • You have no sources neither inline citations. Where did you find the material for your article? Name your sources. Make a section with references and footnotes and add some inlene citations.
  • The article must have a certain struture. According to GA criteria, "(the article) follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections". So, you may have to create a WP:LEAD and sub-sections.
  • Alphabetize categories.
  • Many of your paragraphs are too short; sometimes with one sentence. Trim or expand them.--Yannismarou 06:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

This sentence didn't make sense: "where she also manages its health segments, previously in charge by Claudia Palacios, who is currently working at CNN en Español." Do you mean "previously headed by Claudia Palacios..." also "currently working" needs to have a year associated with it, as it won't make sense in the year 2020, i.e. "who, as of 2006, works at..." --plange 02:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank S. Scott[edit]

I feel I have exhausted all of my avenues of information for this article (to include Scott Air Force Base resources). Anything else I might pursue to input into the article would inevitably be WP:OR. I'm not experienced whatsoever in writing biographical articles and request peer review to get input from those who have the experience I lack. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Intrigued by other avenues for sources you mention. Primary sources are allowed as long as they meet WP:V --plange 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stationed on Scott AFB, and my impending move here prompted the creation of the article. I utilized all the sources that were available online, as well as any publicized sources I could find on base (which only duplicated the online-available information). I've given thought to visiting the base history office to see if I could glean more information — but if it's not publicized in anything official, or something that couldn't later be referenced by somebody who doesn't have access to military sources, can it be used? Not that I know there is more information to be had, just the possibility. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely worth asking over at WP:V -- I think as long as someone can access them physically, i.e., they can go there and see the documents, it's useable. I know I've used primary sources that can only be viewed if someone goes to Duke University's special archives. --plange 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about archived news sources that are pay for only? I've found that Google news is capable of searching such archives [9], but you have to pay to access the articles. I'm willing to do this (I see it as a boon for researching tons of articles, too), but somebody would have to pay to verify the sourcing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good question -- I don't feel comfortable enough to answer that myself, so I'd pose that on the talk page for WP:V --plange 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best bet imho for paid news services are those which are online archives of newspapers (you get the newspaper, the date, the page number). That's enough. I don't know what services there are in the US but I've used one called ProQuest in the UK to help with sourcing for articles relating to The KLF. --kingboyk 22:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC) PS Why is this section called Plange? Are we peer reviewing her?! ;)[reply]
LOL! No, but I was the one who reviewed his article. Instructions say to add your name as a subheading, so... --plange 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aspasia[edit]

I just finshed the rewriting of the article (so, I'm sorry for any typos or other deficiencies). I think the article has the potential to become GA or FA. I would like to have the opinions of the members of the group.--Yannismarou 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bcasterline[edit]

Very interesting. There are some language-related problems, most of which I tried to correct. Some I couldn't figure out:
  • "Aspasia figures in ancient philosophical works..." Do you mean she "appears"?
  • "Aspasia was in emulation of Thargelia..." Did she consciously emulate Thergelia, or was she just in retrospect similar to her? (In the latter case, "similar to" would be a better expression.)
  • "Worsted in the war, the Milesians came to Athens with loud complaints against the Samians." Bad sentence.
  • "...the notional date associated with the dramatic date of Plato's dialogue, Menexenus." Not sure what this means.
  • "Plutarch raises the query..." Is the quote that follows a query or an exclamation? Looks more like the latter to me.
  • And a grammatical note: it's best to use 's to show possession, even if names end in s. Thus, Pericles's death, not Pericles' death.
I made some minor organizational changes, to which I hope you don't object. Also seems like Lysistrata (as part of the general "influential women in Ancient Athens" theme) deserves some mention, maybe in the philosophical works section. Besides some awkward wording, though, I'd say this is a very good article. The footnotes, citations, and references are especially comprehensive and well-organized. -- bcasterline • talk 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is better "Aspasia figures in the philosophical writings of Plato ... " or "Aspasia appears in the philosophical writings of Plato ... " ?--Yannismarou 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that they sometimes wrote about her, I think the latter is a better way to say it. -- bcasterline • talk 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

  • "Aspasia figures in ancient philosophical works and is regarded by modern scholars as an exceptional personality" - might be good to continue this sentence and say what made her exception in the eyes of modern scholars
  • "The war begun with Athens' intervention in the quarrel on behalf of Miletus" doesn't appear to be a complete sentence.
  • "He attributes the Megarian decree of Pericles, which excluded Megara from trade with Athens or its allies, to prostitutes being taken from the house of Aspasia in retaliation for one of their number having been drunkingly kidnapped from Megara." sentence doesn't quite make sense. Do you mean this? "He attributes the cause of the Megarian decree of Pericles, which excluded Megara from trade with Athens or its allies, as retaliation for prostitutes being kidnapped from the house of Aspasia by drunks from Megara"?

--plange 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the valuable suggestions of both of you. I tried to implement them and I hope the article will be soon ready for FAC. I just want to point out a thing concerning the remark No 3 of Plange. Aristophanes narrates that:
  • A Megarian courtesan was kidnapped by drunk Athenians.
  • The Megarians retaliated, kidnapping three harlots of the brothel of Aspasia.
  • Pericles proposed the Megarian decree in retaliation to the last kidnappings.--Yannismarou 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro del Valle[edit]

The editors would like comments from the group on areas that need improvments. Note subject can be controversial on his political beliefs.--Oldwildbill 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice article, but for FA it needs work:

  • Some sections are really under-citated. Especially the section "World War II". 9 inline citations for the whole article are almost nothing. Try to have at least one (or more) citations for each paragraph. Subsequently, try to find more sources, so as to add more references.
  • Some paragraphs are really small with one or two sentences. Some users do not like paragraphs with one sentence. And especially when a very long paragraph follows a very short one and then we have again a very short one, this does not look fine. Try to merge or expand some of your paragraphs.
  • I am not sure if such a long quote is recommended for the lead. It is a laudation for Del Valle and covers almost 1/2 of the lead. But the lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. I'm not sure the lead as it is succeeds in its role.
  • Inline citations go exactly after the punctuation without a gap between the punctuation and the gap. You have some mistakes. Sometimes you leave a gap; sometimes you omit the punctuation. Be consistent.
  • Some awards lack the year they were awarded. Also prose is recommended by some users for these sections.
  • Check a FA for the correct formatting of books.--Yannismarou 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Besides the comments above, I would add that you should try and expand the lead to 3 paragraphs and it should be a summary of the article. For instance, there's currently no mention in the lead of his controversial ideas. --plange 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humbert Roque Versace[edit]

The editors would like for the group to make comments on areas that need improvement and any ideals for expansion.--Oldwildbill 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

The prose looks to me fine, but, since I'm not a native English speaker, I'll let such judgements to other users. My remarks have to do with the structural problems the article has:

  • I understand you want to make it FA. Then, according to my opinion, it is small. You have to expand it. I see that you have only one section: "Biography". You have to expand it with more information and divide it in further sections.
  • Taking into consideration the current length of the article, tha quote in section "Medal of Honor citation" seems to me huuuuuge. I also donot like the fact that this section has no prose.
  • Section "Awards and decorations": No prose. Not recommended. And you must mention in this section the years of the awards.
  • Section "In memory": Looks like a "trivia" section, which are no further recommended for FA. In general, there is a problem with these three sections:"Medal of Honor citation", "Awards and decorations", "In memory". Maybe you can rewrite them, add more prose or create one section with a better article flow. In this case the quote might also be OK. But I'm still wondering it if we need it all.
  • Inline citations go exactly after the punctuation. Do not leave a gap. I corrected two cases I saw and I think all your inline citations are now OK.--Yannismarou 14:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

The only comment I would make is that the Awards section should be removed from the body since it is already in the infobox. --plange 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Chopra[edit]

I just want an honest opinion on the writing and all on this article because I would like to bring it to the Good Article Status sometime. (Samir contributed more than me on this article although. --Deenoe 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

The article is well-written and well-citated. The problem is that it does not constitute a thorough biography, but focuses on two particular incidents: the whistleblowing and the racial discrimination. But I'll treat this article like all the other biographies:

  • Photos are needed. I donot think it would be difficult to find photos related to this article.
  • When was Chopra born? Very few words about her origins and family are needed.
  • What are her whereabouts now? This is a biography for a living person; we want to know what she is now doing.
  • If you expand the article with this information, the lead will also need a slight expansion (WP:LEAD).
  • The link of East Indian sends me to a disambiguation page. This is wrong. Send me straight wherever you want, because in the disambiguation page I have more than ten links and I do not know which one you want me to choose.

In any case, I believe that the article is not far away from the GA status.--Yannismarou 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. For the picture, I am currently in discussino with Shiv Chopra to have a picture that is free of use completly. When I'll talk to him, I'll ask him about his origins and his whereabouts now, even if I think that currently Shiv Chopra is still in a battle with the public service. I'll also correct the fact that the link gets on a disambiguation page.
Thanks again.--Deenoe 10:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armatus[edit]

Hello. This is another biographycal article I would submit for review. Please, let me know how it can be improved.--BlaiseMuhaddib 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RelHistBuff[edit]

Here are my immediate comments following a quick look.

  • In terms of structure it seems fine but it does appear to be written by someone whose first language is not English. That's ok, as that will only help to make the English Wikipedia that much richer, but then you need a native English editor to improve the writing and to go through a thorough copyedit. Hopefully you have other Wiki-editors to help out (maybe the ones who helped you on the Basiliscus article?). If you are alone, first try a spell checker ("amend" instead of "emend", "exercised" instead of "exercited", "rejoyced", "joying" etc.). You might try a grammar checker by simply copying/pasting into a word processor. There are some sentences that are currently incomprehensible and difficult to correct as an editor ("During his wandering, the people called him "Phyrrus",[5] either because he was of reddish complexion or deceiving him" - Does Phyrrus mean something related to red or to deceptions? If so then that needs to be explained to the non-specialist reader.).
  • The lead section needs to be expanded and should be able to standalone as a summary of the article. You mentioned the year of his death but when was he born?
  • The inline citations are good.

Good luck with the progress. RelHistBuff 13:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)I run it throught the spellchecker, I hope it is better now. However, a style refresh by a native speaker would be better
2)I feel the lead section already summarizes Armatus' role. Are you referring to something in particular missing? As regards his birth, I found no reference about it.
--BlaiseMuhaddib 08:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

I corrected some grammar, but I was puzzled by this: "because he was of reddish complexion or deceiving him" -- on the deceiving part, it seems incomplete, unless you mean "because he was of reddish complexion or they were teasing him" --plange 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the text according to your suggestion.--BlaiseMuhaddib 22:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"either because he was of reddish complexion because they were deceiving him" -- sorry it still doesn't make sense... --plange 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"either because he was of reddish complexion or because they were teasing him", ok?--BlaiseMuhaddib 01:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to make sure that's what you meant -- deceiving him would mean that they were lying to him, but teasing would mean that they were making fun of him. The former is what doesn't make sense, but I want to make sure that the latter is actually what you meant... If so, your last sentence above is correct. --plange 15:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original text "And being called Pyrrhus by the mob of the people in their acclamations incited him to be fixated on this sort of repute; if they called him this because he had a ruddy complexion they were saying something reasonable, but if it was intended as praise of bravery they were beguiling [him] as [one would] a child; for he did not smite heroes like Pyrrhus, but he was a womanizer like Paris."[10] --BlaiseMuhaddib 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! Yep, then I would use teasing or even mocking --plange 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basiliscus[edit]

Hello. This article was submitted for peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Basiliscus/archive1), and greatly improved thanks to the collaboration of the reviewers. It has been suggested by them to submit this article for review also here.--BlaiseMuhaddib 13:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Much much better! As you can see the article is now rated as A-Class by the Wikiproject Biogaphy. I have nothing more to suggest. Let's see what the other reviewers are going to say. I just wanted to laud the good work done.--Yannismarou 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Good article... Just a few things:

  • In the lead, this doesn't sound right to my ear, but I can't cite why: "wider accepted" -- more widly accepted sounds better to me....
  • Whose doing the rejecting here? A source that can be cited, or the editor who wrote this part? "be rejected as either an error of the copyists or a gross exaggeration"
  • Need a different verb than impelled here, since the subject is not human: "In the obscurity of the night, these destructive vessels were impelled against the unguarded and unsuspecting fleet of the Romans."
  • "did not like the Isaurian officers affiliated by Leo I in order to reduce his dependency by the Ostrogoths" -- "affiliated by" doesn't make sense here-- are you trying to say they were officers "affiliated with" Leo?
  • I'd change "should have been" to "was probably" or "was most likely" (if the sources support this), since otherwise it sounds like the editors are making a judgement call? "Finally, the support of Illus should have been wavering, given the massacre of the Isaurians allowed by Basiliscus"
  • I caught some misuse of prepositions, and fixed them, as well as some grammar problems, but I would suggest someone going over this to catch for this, and also mixtures of UK and US spelling. Assumed you were using UK, since it was used early on, so I changed a US spelling to UK I found.
  • I'm not familiar with this word "ostenting" in this sentence "ostenting his disdain towards Basiliscus"
  • Several footnotes have no notes, i.e., they're like this: "^ a b c d e f g h i j k"
  • There are a lot of instances of years wikilinked when not accompanied by a month and day. While not wrong, make sure it's helping to further the story -- see WP:CONTEXT and its policy of "Only make links that are relevant to the context."
  • Also, your reference section should be just the full citation to your source, while the page numbers should go with the corresponding footnote...

plange 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind on flaky footnotes thing not having rest of citation -- cite.php is having issues and I did a purge on the page and it fixed it!
Thanks for the review. I mostly followed your suggestions, with some notes:
  • As regards the rejection of Nicephorus Gregoras figures, the rejection is made by Gibbon, who is cited at the end of the paragraph (the paragraph is heavly based on Gibbon);
  • "impelled" -> "propelled";
  • the Isaurian officers were associated with Leo, but I wanted to stress that it was Leo who associated them in order to balance the Germanic influence, so I choose "associated by". Should I change it?
  • "ostenting" is arcaic, and has been changed in "showing";
  • Are you sure about the pages in notes? The cite book template has a pages parameter, so I tought it was meant to be filled when a subset of the book has been used.
--BlaiseMuhaddib 13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: the rejection, I might weave Gibbon into that sentence just so it's clear who's doing the rejecting.
  • How about: "did not like the Isaurian officers that Leo I affiliated with in order to reduce his dependency on the Ostrogoths" (also changed dependency by to dependency on)
  • I'm reasonably sure I'm right-- that pages param is used if you're using the cite template in your ref tag. Since you're doing the CMS style (which I prefer too) the reader needs to know which page the particular part you cited is pulled from. I will get another opinion though, as I'm still kinda new...
plange 05:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the bit about the number of ships in the fleet, let me know if now it goes better. I also adopted the formulation you suggested about the Isaurian affiliation.
As regards the pages in the footnotes, my opinion is that the current way is better, since it shortens the list of notes. There are no problems for those who want to check the references, since only few pages of each reference is actually used.--BlaiseMuhaddib 13:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Plange asked me to comment here.)
The method currently used would probably be a valid—if rarely used—form of citation if all the citations were in that form. At the moment, however, some page numbers are listed in the references, while others (and their associated works) are present only in the notes (e.g. Krautschick, Samuel, etc.). I would suggest having all page numbers in one place—either directly in the footnotes with no page numbers in the reference list, or directly in the reference list with no numbers in the footnotes—but definitely not mixing the two, which is rather confusing. Kirill Lokshin 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put all of the citations with pages in the reference section, with the footnotes only referring the work cited. The only exceptions are the references for claims made in the footnotes themselves, but otherwise not recalled by the text. Let me know if this is good.--BlaiseMuhaddib 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me. Kirill Lokshin 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Farley[edit]

Article has already generated some controversy. Please see Talk:Melissa Farley and an "NPOV" box has also been placed on the article. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 23:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I donot know if the WikiProject Biography/Peer review is the right place to discuss POV problems. Of course, this is a biased article, but I think that such assessments are not out purpose here. A few more remarks:

  • This is a "stub". It needs a lot of work, before a peer-review can offer anything useful. The article lacks a dissent structure (where is the distinction between lead and sections?), a dissent content, references, in-line citations, pictures etc.
  • As far as the POV problem: This article is biased. I agree with User:Peter G Werner that the phrase "Farley's research contradicts commonly-held myths about prostitution: for example, the myth that street prostitution is the "worst type" of prostitution, the myth that most of those in prostitution "freely consent" to it, the myth that prostitution of men and boys is different from prostitution of women and girls, and the myth that legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution would decrease its harms." is POV. The editor sounds like an advocate of Farley and provides no references for such a statement. Rephrasing and citation of such statements is necessary.--Yannismarou 12:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Gyllenhaal[edit]

Article has been worked over over several months and has been put forward for GA status. It would be good to know what else could be done to make it any better than we have already done, possibly for an FA nom in the future. Dev920 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RelHistBuff[edit]

As you have put this forward for GA status, I would like to make some quick comments from my experience with the GA process in order to expedite getting the article to be passed.

  • The lead section should conform to WP:LEAD so it may need to be expanded with a better summary that can stand alone by itself.
  • A photo of the Jake Gyllenhaal will most likely be requested. From a biography standpoint, it is also desirable.
  • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs. They should either be expanded with more information or merged together if possible.

Those are my comments based on this first scan. I hope this helps and good luck on getting GA status. RelHistBuff 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have sourced a Fair Use photo from Jake's website and have emailed the largest Jake fansite to ask if they will release one of theirs into the public domain. I have expanded the lead section to include his career and sex symbolism; I will also add a section on his political activism and add that to the lead section as well.
I will see what I can do about the one sentence paragraphs, but some of them are long enough to stand on their own I think, and some don't really fit with anything else. Dev920 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice article. But I'm not sure it'll get the GA status. A few remarks:

  • Citations go after punctuation. You are not consistent.
  • I agree that too many one-sentence paragraphs is a problem for many users. You or I may not agree, but you'll face such criticisms.
  • You talk about his political activism, but you've put these remarks in the "Personal Life" section. I'm not sure the currect structure is OK. A reorganization of the material in this section seems to me necessary. Maybe the creation of a section "Political Activism" is necesssary.
  • You only citate sites. A better variety of sources (magazines maybe) is recommended.--Yannismarou 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly deal with the issues you have raised. However, if you review the links, you will notice that the majority of them are links to a large number of interview with newspapers and magazines; is this OK? Dev920 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved all citations to after the nearest full stop. I have created a section entitled "Politics and Society" and moved all details of his activism there. I have merged or expanded every one-sentence paragraph I could find, with the exception of the one in the lead section which I feel it perfectly succinct; I have added references to support the new information (much of which is magazine interviews).
Is this OK?Dev920 23:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much better. Let's see if there are going to be any futher suggestions during the GA Candidacy.--Yannismarou 14:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Good article! Just found a couple of things:

  • A double possessive which makes the sentence a little awkward: "Billy Crystal's character's son" - I'd try to rearrange the sentence to avoid this.
  • Do you have a source for this paragraph? "Jake expressed some mixed feelings about the experience of being directed by Ang Lee on Brokeback Mountain, but overall has had more praise than criticism for his directing style. While he has had complaints about the way in which Lee tends to disconnect with his actors once filming has begun, he has also had much praise for other aspects of his filmmaking style, especially the in-depth preparations that Lee makes with the actors before filming begins, and the sensitivity with which he approaches the material in the film. At the Director's Guild of America awards on January 28, 2006, Jake also praised Lee for "his humbleness and his respect for everyone around him." --- definitely needs one since it's attributing a criticism of Ang Lee to Jake...
  • There's an incomplete sentence here: "Jake's current project in the upcoming movie "Zodiac", in which Jake plays a detective on the track of the notorious Zodiac killer" -- perhaps "in" is a typo for "is" in the first part of the sentence? Also, is there a wiki article on the Zodiac killer? I've never heard of this killer, so not sure how notorius, but for the ignorant like myself, it would be good to give some context here....
  • grammar problem here: "year on having tree planted in a Mozambique forest" is it "a tree" or "trees"?
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) you should change subsequent mentions of Jake to his last name only.
  • "visited USC with his sister to encourage the students to vote" -- USC should be spelled out per WP:MOS, plus the link is going to a disambiguation page so reader still doesn't know which place is meant.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT you should avoid wikilinking subsequent mentions of the same instance (Brokeback Mountain, once wikilinked, does not need to be wikilinked again for the rest of the article, etc)

Hope this helps! plange 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All your points raised seem to have been dealt with by stevenscollege. Do you have anymore? Dev920 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph W. Tkach[edit]

I am requesting another Biography project peer review of this article and an assessment on whether this is an A-class article. It currently has GA status and has gone through a general peer review. Many improvements have been made since it reached GA. I have placed the old Biography project peer review comments in the archive below. I am not sure if this is the best way to archive old peer reviews. RelHistBuff 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive1

Yannismarou[edit]

I think the article is A-Class and can go even higher. It was already a very nice article when I first reviewed it and it is even better now. I don't have much to propose here. Some minor, mainly technical, remarks:

  • You could wikilink some more technical terms, such as deacon.
  • One time you say Herbert W. Armstrong, then Armstrong, then again Herbert W. Armstrong! You say once Herbert W. Armstrong and then is always Armstrong.
  • Check double wikilinks. I think you wikilink tithing twice (minor issue of course, but I don't see any major issues in the article!).
  • "The impact of Tkach’s tenure as the head of the WCG was tremendous." Personally, I don't like this phrasing so much. I would prefer a more mild wording.--Yannismarou 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments. I implemented your suggestions. I agree that "tremendous" is a bit strong so I changed it to "notable". I intend to submit this for FA status so any other suggestions to help attain that goal are welcome. --RelHistBuff 11:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Trigg[edit]

This just failed a GA nomination and so I've worked on it some more, but honestly I think I'm too involved now to look on it objectively. Any feedback or criticisms welcome! plange 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

Hmmm... You are a Trigg as well! Interesting! Very nice and well-sourced article. But I think you already know that. I'm not experienced in peer-review suggestions, but I'll try to make a few comments:

  • The most obvious thing first of all: It is not nice that there is no photo of Trigg. When I see the infobox, I'd like to have a photo of him and not of the county named in his honor.
  • I'd like to have a short explanation (half a sentence) of what is a Justice of the Peace. Of course you link it, but I'd like to go to Justice of the Peace just for further information and not for a simple explanation. Beyond that I feel bombarded with terminology concernig the political institutions and organization of Virginia. But I donot think there is much to be done about that. In any case, it is difficult for a non-American to follow a terminology such as Committee of Safety, Committee of Correspondence, Revolutionary Convention etc. A non-American gets tired, since he needs some further explanation about all these things.
  • "Trigg one of several appointed as its first Justice of the Peace,[4] and he also served as magistrate". Is there a verb missing here ("Trigg [was] one...") or my English is poor? It may well be the second, since I'm not a native speaker!
  • You mention twice that Stephen Trigg Logan was the law partner of Abraham Lincoln in Springfield. This repetition may be necessary, but when I first read the article I thought: "Oh! Come on now! I just read that a few lines before!"
  • I read in a template: "It is true than an unhappy Difference..." Is "than" correct?

I cannot find anything else!--Yannismarou 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yannismarou! I will work on your suggestions, I really appreciate it! Unfortunately one I won't be able to do anything about because I have been unsuccessful in finding a photo or portrait of him... :-( plange 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've addressed all your points! Thanks so much for the feedback! plange 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RelHistBuff[edit]

Hi. I'd like to give some comments concerning the quotes in the quotation templates. I do not know about the rules on their usage, so I am making an assumption to give some opinions. Please excuse me and ignore my comments if there are existing rules!

  • The use of the quotation template is a bit disturbing while reading the article but that is my own personal opinion. However, my impression is that the template should be used to quote something that Stephen Trigg said or wrote (and only if it is something profound or noteworthy), not simply what a historian said. Normally the Virginia Webb Howard quote would be placed in a footnote and not as part of the main text.
  • The picture of Oconostota overlaps with the quotation of the letter from the colonists and it makes it look like Oconostota made the quote! Again, the use of the template does not seem appropriate here. I would put this in the footnotes as well.
  • The last two quotes from the references are dangerously close to peacock terms. It's true that they are referenced, but without sufficient context (as one could get by reading the original source), they appear disconnected from the article. I would recommend removing these or if they remain in the text, provide more context on the qualities that the quotes had noted about Trigg (i.e., his popularity, intelligence, physique, bravery, Indian-fighting abilities, etc.).

I hope this helps! RelHistBuff 12:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I got clarification on the usage of the quotation template and changed accordingly - I also took out the pic of Oconostota... I took out the last pull quote as I had reservations about it myself when I put it in, and so you just confirmed that it was a bad idea :-) Is the one that's left okay? It's not as peacocky sounding and seems to sum up his article. plange 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better overall. The final quote looks fine, at least for your article. I guess these things should be use sparingly. Seeing your use of the quotation template, I experimented with it myself by including a final quote (an obituary) at the end of the article I am working on, but afterwards I decided against its inclusion. The prominent appearance of the quote made it appear too much like pushing a POV. But in your case, it is quite modest. RelHistBuff 09:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Ganz Cooney[edit]

How does this bio look, so far? I've not got into the main bulk of Joan's career, and I've only been working from one interview with her (albeit about four hours long), but it's a pretty good start, I hope. I'd like advice on what to do with references, as it is indeed so mono-sourced. -- Zanimum 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou[edit]

I do not think I can help you much about the references. But I'm sure that in Internet you'll find material and other links to books, interviews etc. Reading the article, it is clear to me that more sources are necessary. This will also improve the prose and the coherence of the article. Some minor remarks, mainly on style:

  • You end the article in 1968. You say you've not got into the main bulk of Joan's career, so I expect more information to be added and some wording about her whereabouts nowadays. What is she doing? How did she end her career? What is going on with her business? Is she an active businesswoman?
  • I do not like the Trivia sections in general. But this is maybe a personal peculiarity. I just think that trivia should be incorporated within the other sections. As it is now this section seems to me like full of scattered information.
  • Many users do not like one-sentence paragraphs. If you ever go for GA or FAC you should take care of that. I am one of those who believe that it is nice for the style as well for the better interconnection of the material to merge one-sentence paragraphs.
  • Can't you find at least a photo? Rich photo material with good captions is highly recommended. You'll see that there are also some nice infoboxes for bios and famous persons. You could use one of this and add a photo.
  • You have to expand the lead section (WP:LEAD), especially if you enlarge the article.
  • As it is now, the "Childhood" section seems gigantic to me. Keep a good balance between the sections. If you add, of course, more sections and the article becomes bigger, then this section might be ok as it is now.
  • I donot like too many red links within an article (for instance One of these things). You can create yourself some of these articles as stubs.

That's for a start. I hope that I was helpful and that we'll soon have a more consummated image of the article with the information you want to add.--Yannismarou 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demosthenes[edit]

Demosthenes has already been peer-reviewed by fellow-Wikipedians. But I would like to have the opinions and the contributions of the project. I think this article I've rewritten has a good potential.--Yannismarou 11:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Enjoyed this! I think my only critique is that it seemed to assume the reader already knows that period of history really well. Here's the things that stood out to me:

  • This sentence "Athough Aeschines maintained that his Crimean mother Kleoboule was a Scythian by blood,[6] she was probably of Greek descent.[7]" seems out of context since there's no tie-in on who Aeschines is in relation to Demosthenes at this point? We later find out he was a great rival, but we don't know that at this point so I was confused when I first read this part....
  • "Another time ecclesia had refused to hear him and he was going home dejected, an actor named Satyrus followed him and entered into a familiar conversation with him."[29] - there's a close quote, but no opening quote?
  • "This is the reason Aeschinus taunted him and referred the nickname "Batalus", ostensibly invented by his own pedagogues[31] or by the little boys with whom he was playing" this assumes we already knew either from prior knowledge or a previous mention in this article that Aeschinus teased him. How about "This caused Aeschinus to taunt him and refer to him with the nickname "Batalus"..." I'm still confused on who Aeschinus was? Did this teasing take place when they were boys, or did he happen to know that little boys called him that when Demosthenes was a child?
  • "In 348 another peculiar event " what was the first peculiar event?
  • "Demosthenes is said to have collapsed" do we know why? Exhaustion? sickness?
  • probably should reconstruct this sentence so you're not using the pronoun "we": "before the Theban people is not extant and, therefore, we ignore his convincing argumentation"
  • "Philip drew his opponents in Chaeronea" seems confusing - he drew them into this city? or he engaged the people of this city who were his opponents?
  • "Demosthenes played a leading part in his city's uprising" when was this uprising? Was it right then when you're referring to it? If so, might need a little explanation/introduction. Was it the celebration of the death? If so, it's not clear the celebration was an uprising...
  • "Alexander whizzed to Boeotia" I'd used a different verb here than whizzed, since it has a slang connotation that could make this sentence kind of humorous :-) How about "rushed"?
  • Also, right about here you go seamlessly from Philip's death into referring to Alexander. Might want to introduce him just a tad here, saying that he succeeded Philip as King of Macedon....Might be interesting also, in introducing him, to mention how his accession affected the Athenians, like (and I'm just making this up as I don't know anything about this time period) "In Alexander, the Athenians found a strengthened opponent" or something like that, some kind of indicator or cue for the reader in how to put Alexander in context in relation to the departed Philip's policies/personality.
  • "main objections to the crowning" what's a crowning in this context? Hmm, discovered what it meant by going to the On the Crown article, so perhaps pulling just a little from there to give us ignorants some help by saying: "Ctesiphon proposed that Athens honor Demosthenes for his services to the city by presenting him, according to custom, with a golden crown"
  • Harpalus: what's the implication here - was Demosthenes accused of mishandling the money? Did he take some? Reading the Harpalus article I see that he was, so you might want to say that here...
  • Oratorical skill - "Demosthenes' "affects no learning; he aims at no elegance; he seeks no glaring ornaments; he rarely touches the heart with a soft or melting appeal, and when he does, it is only with an effect in which a third-rate speaker would have surpassed him. He had no wit, no humour, no vivacity, in our acceptance of these terms. The secret of his power is simple, for it lies essentially in this, that his political principles were interwoven with his very spirit."[5]" who said this? A contemporary of his or of us?

plange 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried to take care of all the issues you mentioned.--Yannismarou 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pericles[edit]

A general Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/archive2 is still under way, but the response was not the adequate. That is why I asked for a special Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Pericles as well as for this peer-review. The article re-written by me is an A-class article and a failed FA and GA nominee. Since these failures huge improvements have been made by me and two fellow users (Druworos and Konstable). I think this article is too close to be FA, but I need your support!--Yannismarou 08:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Very well done! Just some minor notes:

  • "He was the son of the politician Xanthippus, under whose leadership Athens had won in Mycale in 479 BC, though he had been ostracized only five years before" - the part: "won in Mycale" threw me off and I had to go two links deep to infer you meant that Athens won at the Battle of Mycale
  • I might change this: "If his long political career lasted more than 40 years" to "If Plutarch's assertion that his political career lasted more than 40 years is true," for 2 reasons, one it butresses the sentence for the reader and not assuming they already new he had a career spanning 40 years, and second, I took out "long" since it seemed redundant
  • Hmm, not sure why just after then, you say "According to tradition, Pericles made his first political appearance..." at a different time.
  • "According to J.D. King," might want to mention who he is. Same with T. Buckley, George Cawkwell,Platias-Koliopoulos and A. Vlachos (also is that quote from Platias-Koliopoulos meant to have a lower-case P for Pericles? Just wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo)
  • Might want to source this: "The fact is that, when the great war erupted, Pericles did not seem as powerful as he used to be and, consequently, Athens' imperial pre-eminence started to tremble" so it won't sound like your opinion
  • The structure of this sentence needs to be worked on-- it doesn't make much sense to me "He did that being afraid that Archidamus could spare his estate, either because of their personal friendship or trying to calumniate him"
  • Right after this it says "In any case, seeing the pillage, the Athenians were outraged and they started in some indirect ways to express their discontent towards their leader" so are you referring to the plundering of Pericles farms or of Attica?
  • "would have a completely different plan in mind and what may be called a dubious agenda." probably needs a source
  • "One could not fail to note, however, that the passionate " might want to re-word this to say that "some historians have noted"
  • The timeline doesn't show unless I hit hide and then show...

plange 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I tried to take care of all your minor notes. I just show that the article was renominated for GA by a fellow Wikipedian and member of the project. My intention was to go sraight for FA nomination, but GA might also be a good start.--Yannismarou 09:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had much experience with FAC, so I may not be the best judge, but I think you might be ready to go for FA too plange 15:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi[edit]

Would love to have this article upgraded. Any comments will be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Interesting article! I know next to nothing on this subject, so there were many things that looked like it was just assumed were common knowledge so I marked them as needing citations, especially when opinions were being given, as you want to make sure you cite a secondary source that gives that opinion and not that it's yours.

  • "It is considered by many to be one of the greatest works of mystical poetry" Could be flagged by someone as both WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK.
  • "Shams is believed to have been murdered by disciples of Rumi who were jealous of his relationship with Shams (also spelt Shems)." earlier it's stated that it might have been Rumi's son?

I noticed too other potential WEASEL and PEACOCK terms, but I'm new at this so perhaps you should have more experienced editor take a look too. plange 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a lot of that... I will attempt and work to gather sources and tone down the hagiography . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds cool! Sorry, also forgot to note that you should probably switch to using {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates for the references. They will ensure you have things in the right places, and with the web citations you should have the date you accessed too (which is a parameter in the cite web template). I had a hard time finding Aflaki (when I came across this "As Aflaki relates") because his name wasn't first. Also, you should also cite page numbers for each reference. When citing from a number of different pages, I generally prefer to put the full reference in the "References" section listing the full details of the book and only using short-form citations in the Notes section (as here, for example). plange 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Plange... that is my modus operandi, although I find the {{cite book}}, a bit demanding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do too, that's why I like doing the short form of just "Last Name, title, page num" in my refs (so that I don't have to keep using the cite book thing) and then just do that in the references section....plange 00:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow[edit]

Copying statements from the article talk page: I saw this article has been listed as a GA for a while without a review. This is close to a good article but not quite there yet. Some things you could do:

  • Per WP:GTL, "see also" section is not in the right spot, and should not include external links
  • It's not ideal to mix footnotes and inline links, the numbers overlap and can be confusing.
  • All full dates (D-M-Y) should be wikilinked so date prefs work.
  • It could use some WP:NPOV balancing in places, and some mention of criticism would be nice.
  • Three of the images are "fair use" but seem more like ornamentation to the text.
  • There are many [citation needed] tags scattered through the text; some of those statements really do need a citation.
  • If you have a legacy section, the modern import of Rumi should probably be located there, and not also in teachings.
  • There are some technical words that would seem to appear out of nowhere; what is a "ghazal" if someone didn't know ahead of time?

Just a few ideas. This is certainly an important historical figure and he deserves a good article with the reference material at your disposal. Gimmetrow 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the useful feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, is this article supposed to be a GA nomination? Reason I ask is that the user making the nom did not seem to have any history editing the article. (Saw only one edit, marked "rvt".) Anyway, article is pretty good but still has pieces of hagiography. I puzzled over the wikilinking of "transcends". Gimmetrow 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a lot of work. I will be working on it starting tomorrow. It may take a few good weeks of research and copyedit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So would you concur in a simple delisting of the GA nomination, without a fail template? Gimmetrow 21:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delisting is a good idea. Let's relist when we are ready. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Johnston[edit]

Was a teeny stub which I expanded. Want to see what I need to do to get it to a level for a GA nom plange 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, it got GA, can anyone give me feedback to see what it needs for FA? Thanks! plange 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen[edit]

The list of names in the "family" section is confusing. It seems like the list overlaps with the body text. Do you need both? If you're going to keep the list, it needs at least a direct introduction. Maurreen 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're quick. That's a lot of kids.
For the ones that don't have a date of death listed -- I expect that you haven't been able to find that out. But it might be good to write "date of death unknown" or somesuch.
Also, ironclad oath needs explanation. Maurreen 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see my note on the 14th Amendment talk page. Maurreen 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, since he'd been a state senator before the War he must have taken the oath, so then participating in the rebellion disqualified him... I probably should make that clearer, thanks for noticing! Also thanks for your other feedback and fixes! plange 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maurreen for peer reviewing and for your edits! I've revised it to hopefully clarify the 2 items you mention above. Let me know if it needs to be re-worded better. Thanks! plange 23:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Thanks. Maurreen 21:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier[edit]

Important actor GA, need ideas as to how to reach FA. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange[edit]

Good work! I just made some minor tweaks and changed out a word that you were using alot. In the War section, I'm now curious to know what the change was? Do we know? I know there's no explanation for why the change except for what he said but would be good to know what the change was... more quiet, more reserved, grumpy?

  • "It was the first widely successful Shakespeare film, and was considered a work of art by some" by whom? critics? Might be good to source this one so you won't get accused of WP:WEASEL.
  • I'm new at this, so I might be off-base, but is this WP:PEACOCK? "The result, however, was an astounding success"
  • The Hamlet area too under trilogy needs some sourcing and has some potential peacock terms....
  • This left me hanging and intrigued: "He became the founding director; however, his career at the National ended, in his view, in betrayal, and tragedy" what happened?
  • You have a lot of short sections and maybe it might be better to put the Shakespearean trilogy and the National Theatre info under a section called "Directing career" or "As Director", and then take the short info on The Entertainer and merge it with Later career and use it as a lead off into the character acting part. Like:
Since the end of World War II, apart from his Shakespeare trilogy, Olivier had made only sporadic film appearances. Towards the end of the 1950s, British theatre was changing with the rise of the "Angry Young Men". John Osborne, author of Look Back in Anger wrote a play for Olivier titled The Entertainer, centred on a washed-up stage comedian called Archie Rice. As Olivier later stated, "I am Archie Rice. I am not Hamlet." During rehearsals of The Entertainer, Olivier met Joan Plowright.[12] He left Vivien Leigh for Plowright, a decision that apparently gave him a sense of guilt for the rest of his life.[citation needed] Olivier married Plowright on St. Patrick's Day, 1961. Leigh died in 1967. By this time, Olivier had left his romantic screen persona and became a character actor, appearing more frequently in films and was unrecognisable as Othello in the film adaptation of the National Theatre play. After being gradually forced out of his role as director of the Royal National Theatre, Olivier became concerned that he had not done enough to provide for his family after he died....(pick up rest)

plange 23:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ Brown-Mann, Spanish Paintings, 43
  3. ^ E. Foundoulaki, From El Greco to Cézanne, 100-101
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/2006&oldid=311196973"