Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/2007/Failed

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography‎ | A-class review‎ | 2007


Failed edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was fail.

Andrew Saul edit

I am nominating Andrew Saul because I know that it is extremely close to becoming a featured article. As it stands now, the piece comprehensive, verified, contains no original research, and in line with all policies. It may need a few style changes and some copy editing, but nothing that should preclude it from A-class that I can see. It will help to have some fresh sets of eyes and collaboration.

I'd just like to say before hand that I realize it is long. It is about 9,000 words, most of the 70Kb is actually markup. I know that the first part of the TSP section and the TSP Funds probably have the least to do with Saul himself, however I think explaining them is integral to understanding the rest of the article for a nonexpert user. I realize the funds portion is nearly verbatim from the TSP wiki-article (which is itself verbatim from the TSP government website), however I am not a finance expert and I'm really not qualified to explain it any better then it already is.

Anyway, I hope that you will support Andrew Saul for A-class and eventually FA-class as well. MrPrada 07:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Article undergoing peer review. Will look at it after finished such review. -Duribald 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was not promoted.

Pablo Ganguli edit

I think the article contains all the important information that is available, and is well cited. It could be longer, if more were taken from the cited sources, but I think the length now is appropriate for the importance (or lack thereof) of the subject. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I haven't encountered any reference to such before, but I think the biggest drawback might be the multiple forms of notes and external links. I'm no expert in this though, but I think it would probably be best if only one were used. I would appreciate any comments from others who have more experience with this matter, though. John Carter 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article lacks persondata and the infobox seems half-filled. The introduction is too short and the prose too laconic. For example it is mentioned in a sentence that he lived in Wales - Where? Why? Do we know the names of his parents? And couldn't "India" and "United Kingdom" be merged to one paragraph, considering the length of the latter paragraph? Overuse of headlines is a mortal sin. More info on the festivals and the subjects work with them would be nice. The festivals seem both interesting and notable, but I get very little of an idea of what they're about and what they're like from the text. As Carter points out, more categories are needed and the mix of reference types is a definite style flaw. These are some of my concerns. Peer review and GA recommended before attempting A class review. - Duribald 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Duribald above. John Carter 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not promoted.

Nancy Reagan edit

Mrs. Reagan's article is now a Good Article and is in very "good" shape. As a public figure, Nancy Reagan is still important in the political world, and an article about her should be considered one of great importance. I think this article, because of it's fine prose and current GA status, belongs in the A-Class department. Happyme22 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - content for what there is of it seems good. The lack of any information about the 1975-1980 time period is what seems to me to be possibly the largest stumbling block for A class designation. Some coverage of her activity during that era (I'm assuming she did something, like campaign for her husband?) during that period would probably be appropriate. John Carter 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although the article is readable, well disposed, has infobox, has a good use of pictures and is excellently referenced, it lacks persondata (which could easily be added) and as Carter pointed out there's nothing about '74-'80. No wokr done since june - no promotion. - Duribald 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not promoted.

Thomas Huxley edit

Was rated A-class recently. Uses both styles of in-line citations (also Harvard style).

  • Oppose - Article is clearly incomplete. "Friendships and character" ends with "[work in progress]". "Educational influence" lead section and "Royal and other Comissions" are completely unsourced. One quote is sourced "ref to come". This I think is probably sufficient to withhold A-Class rating, at least until the work is finished. There are other reservations as well.
  • Several of the quotations in the quotations section are not sourced, or have ambiguous "was used several times"-type comments.
  • I also believe that the number of citations in general are insufficient. Much more thorough referencing, particular regarding matters of opinion or conclusions, seem called for.
  • The last paragraph of "School of Mines and Zoology" contains several comments which look like original research, "it is surely strange...", "That must be part of the reason", and others. If there exist sources for these, I think they should be indicated in the text itself, like "[Source] said it was strange, or "[Source] concluded part of the reason", if they are to be included as currently structured at all.
  • Statements about "periods of depression" seem to me at least to be inadequately sourced and vague. Is the writer indicating the possibility of clinical depression? If so, at least one link to an appropriate page would also seem to be called for. Parenthetical clause in first sentence is also probably inappropriate, particularly the rhetorical question in it. John Carter 21:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't read this at the time, so it's quite interesting to look back now. It's almost overladen with refs now; the refs were in a bit of a typographic mess for a while: half-way through an editor helpfully changed the system, not realising that contributor didn't understand it... I've tried to keep the page readable and interesting—he was such an interesting man, he deserves it! And quite a lot of work went into the graphics. I was encouraged and helped by Fred.e who rescued me from despair more than once. It has been an educational experience. And, sorry for any original ideas — they do tend to pop out when one's not watching. Macdonald-ross 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Still many parts unreferenced, although others are well referenced. - Duribald 19:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not promoted.

Mary (mother of Jesus) edit

  • Article has already been assessed as A-Class by the Saints and Catholicism projects, curious as to whether this project would also give such a ranking. John Carter 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments:
    The amount of pictures makes the layout somewhat messy.
    Is it Regina caeli (213.000 Google hits) or Regina coeli (711.000 Google hits)? My memory of Latin classes (which is very long ago) says the latter.
    Can Bible sources really be used as references? This looks to me to be original research. Try to find a secondary source.
    Some statements need sourcing. I've added an example, where it is stated that some speculate, but no ref is given. There are very few refs for an article this size, and it becomes even less when the Bible refs are discounted.
    Some weird sentences: "an enrollment, see Census of Quirinius". Can this be merged like "an enrollment"?
    I find the use of Bible references like Matthew 27:55 or Quran references like [Quran 23:50]} in the body of the text very irritating.
    As it is now, I guess I would lean more towards oppose than towards support. Errabee 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Opposition seems reasonable based on the points above. John Carter 14:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per above! Especially the Bible as a fact source is questionable. If the article had said that the Bible claims, it might have been better, but it's presented as fact. - Duribald 16:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the discussion is not promoted.

Vincent Massey edit

This article is about an important Canadian political figure. It is thorough and well laid out. A-Class review requested. --KenWalker | Talk 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Article lacks WP:PERSONDATA. Article appears to be based on a single source, which is generally considered far from sufficient for even a good article rating. Introduction, of just one sentence, is far too short for existing article. Article is also lacking in reference citations, as is generally required. Several sections, particularly "Military career", "Political career", and "Return to Canada" are unusually short. "Political career" heading is also at least potentially problematic considering that diplomatic service, which comes later, is also often generally counted as "political"; a more specific heading might be preferable there. Plerse see the WP:MOS, particularly for text formatting, lead section, citing sources, and footnotes for some of the comments which might most help this article. John Carter 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. SpecialWindler talk 12:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not promoted.

Duke Cunningham edit

Recently awarded A-class by a participant in the summer assessment drive. Errabee 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Article clearly need more reference ciations. Whole paragraphs lack a single one. The article also seems to lack WP:PERSONDATA. Also, on a purely stylistic matter, I personally think four "infoboxes" in one article is a few too many. John Carter 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per carter above. - Duribald 16:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of this discussion is: request denied; awaiting result of FAC.

Karmichael Hunt edit

I feel this is A-class material. SpecialWindler 03:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the only reservation I have is the presence of the "needs free image" template, but I think that is a big one, as it definitely gives the impression of incompleteness from the instant you see the article. I regret to say that I have to see it as being probably enough to withhold A-Class, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that no such images of the subject, even old school pictures, exist. I do note that the picture doesn't have to be notable current, just a free image. John Carter 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Well I'm working on that. SpecialWindler 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that it's not A class, you can not class it and I will re apply it to here when it has a free image. SpecialWindler 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new free image has been added in place SpecialWindler talk 05:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article could indeed use some copyediting, especially in the 2006 and 2007 sections. If the copyedit banner is removed (when the concerns have been addressed), I'll be happy to support A-class. Errabee 12:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is really hard to say an article that has an existing "needs ..." template (photo, copyediting, whatever) on it is A-class. If the copyediting concerns are addressed, I don't think that I would have any qualms about supporting it. John Carter
I'm working on it. SpecialWindler talk 05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page was proofread by User:Miriam joy and I feel is ready for another check for A-Class review. SpecialWindler 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been copyedited thrice now, (by ONUnicorn, Sticks66and Fishal). See the history. It should be given A-class status, if anyone respons. I will query any problems immediately (or as soon as I can) SpecialWindler talk 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is now up for Featured Article Status as a FAC, due to no response from this A-Class review. SpecialWindler talk 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Don't be judgemental. We have given you feedback, and you should be grateful for that. We *do* have real lifes, you know. I'm failing this review for two reasons:
    • If it passes FAC, it has no use for A-class anymore
    • All those infoboxes make the article look very messy.
  • 13:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not promoted.

William March edit

This article received a B-class rating in March, 2007. Since then, I have integrated the trivia section into the main text, added more citations and rewrote many of the individual sections. I think this article is a good candidate for an A-class rating based on the depth of the biography and the overall content. - Diarmada 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article needs more references. Three paragraphs completely lack them, others are only quote citations. I'm not sure that is sufficient to withhold A status though. Would appreciate other comments from reviewers before making my decision. John Carter 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In addition to John's objection, I think the lead is too short for an article this size (it should be two to three paragraphs according to WP:LEAD). The lead also presents information that is not presented in the article itself, which is apparent through the use of the notes in the lead (e.g. champion of the poor and disadvantaged is never used in the article itself); the lead should be a summary of material presented later on. In addition, I think that his most ambitious and critically acclaimed novel, The Looking-Glass does not receive enough attention in the article, where other books like Company K, The Bad Seed, and 99 Fables do receive that attention. The images of the books should then be placed at the section where they are discussed. So I would expect the book cover for Company K at the place where now stands the cover for The Looking Glass. That latter should be removed from the article as it is now, as the fair use rationale does not allow its use on the present page (but it would if there were a section about The Looking-Glass). Errabee 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - based on further comments above. John Carter 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result is not promoted.

Hugo Black edit

Assessed as A-class by a participant in the summer assessment drive. Errabee 13:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - insufficient reference citations. The worst example is the "Civil rights" section, which lacks any citations whatever, including for a direct quote from elsewhere included in that section. John Carter 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Definitely underreferenced. Also I think the image of Robert Jackson can only be used under fair use (and it contains no fair use rationale at all, let alone for its use on the Hugo Black page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not approved

William Shakespeare edit

Got promoted recently without approval. See also its peer review

Oppose. Too many superlatives (greatest, preeminent, excelled, poetic grandeur) are used without references to substantiate them. Uneven referencing overall; 20 paragraphs lack references, including the entire "Other poems", "Reputation", and "Authorship" sections. I note the lack of material on Shakespeare's early life makes that section difficult to improve, so won't comment on that. But the cursory treatment of Shakespeare's writing style in the "Style" section could be improved. The single sentence comprising the last paragraph of that section could be expanded upon. John Carter 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with John, and add the listy nature of the article in the end. The works by Shakespeare merit an article of themselves, and should be removed from his biography. Also, not all the points mentioned in the peer review seem to have been addressed. Also far too many citation needed tags. Errabee 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not promoted

Trevor Pinnock edit

Been passed as a good article. Good enough for A-class? Clavecin 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - article lacks WP:PERSONDATA. Also, I think the minimal content regarding the subject's "early life" could bear expansion. John Carter 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added the WP:PERSONDATA template. There is a not much information readily available about the subject's early life, though I think the main events are covered. Clavecin 14:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lead needs expandion, and not one or two sentences—it needs to be 2-3 full paras. Quadzilla99 04:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lead needs improvement, and the article becomes very listy in the end. I think the recording section should be split off into a separate article, and then this article becomes shortish. Errabee 13:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not approved.

Arctic Monkeys edit

Currently rated A-class. I haven't read it yet. Errabee 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - suggest waiting until the 15th or until the replacable non-free image question is resolved. John Carter 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image was removed, but the logo is also non-free, and the article doesn't seem to be very actively maintained. Errabee 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not approved.

Vincent van Gogh edit

Last core article that has an A-class rating that has not been reviewed. Failed a FAC recently. Errabee 18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This article does need a bit of copy editing, and there is at least one "cite needed" tag which needs to be addressed, but it seems very thorough and well-researched. -- Ssilvers 03:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has excellent information and great illustrations, but I'm not sure it's only one step below FA-class for the following reasons:
  • Some good, solid copy editing is needed.
  • Many significant facts, including some that might be debated or considered POV, are not cited.
  • Several of the references lack full bibliographic information (publisher, place & year of publication, ISBN).
  • Several of the citations don't have accompanying bibliograpic references, so it would be difficult, if not impossible, to track down the source involved, if a reader wanted to.
With all this in mind, I would tend to wait until these issues are more fully addressed before promoting to A-class. Jancarhart 20:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I could grant A-Class to an article with some of the problems indicated above, but not with all those listed. John Carter 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Jancarhart and John Carter. Errabee 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: not approved.

Lance Armstrong edit

Currently rated A-class. I haven't read it yet, so I haven't got an opinion yet. Errabee 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article contains lots of very short subsections and is pretty listy (the racing victories would look better in a more compact table). It also seems under-referenced and somewhat uneven in its coverage. I am guessing that the problem with writing about Armstrong is that there is so much information available about him that it is hard to choose and organize the most important facts. I think this is an important article, so I hope there are some editors who can address these issues. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Whole paragraphs/sections contain not a single reference citation. Also, the structure seems to me to be at least somewhat suspect, as per Ssilvers above. I acknowledge that the selection of information for the article will be difficult in this case, but I can't use that as an excuse to give this existing article an A-Class rating. John Carter 14:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Severely underreferenced. Stub sections. Quotes should be moved to WikiQuote or removed if they're already there. List of victories and teams should be moved to separate article. Errabee 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result of this discussion: not yet approved for A-Class

Malcolm Sargent edit

After discussing the rating with the editors, they have adopted many of my comments. I think this article surpasses B-class and A-class may be appropriate. Errabee 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I won't vote, because I am one of this article's editors, but I can note that another editor who worked on this article has done extremely good research for it, and I believe it to be quite thorough in its coverage of its subject. Ssilvers 04:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely reluctant oppose - I have only one major objection to the article, and that is the absence of a free image and the presence of the free image solicitation in the infobox. The article structure per se seems, good, although I question the use of the phrase "a key source for this article" in one of the photo captions. On the basis of the present inclusion of the free image solicitation, though, I have to oppose promotion. John Carter 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I think GA-class may well be appropriate, I'm not sure that this article is only one step below FA-class. The writing is good, and the professional information seems suitably comprehensive, but I'd like to more information about his early life: family background, schooling, etc. (An info box that contained more biographical data: spouse, children, parents, etc., would be helpful.) The list of references needs to be alphabetized. The picture of Reid's book, "a key source for this article," seems promotional and unprofessional more than scholarly and informative. I find it hard to believe there are no pictures of a man of this caliber in the public domain. Jancarhart 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for these comments. First, does anyone have any idea how to get a photo that is acceptable under WP's copyright rules? Secondly, if this article is ready for GA but not A-class, can someone transfer this to Good Article consideration? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the review is Not approved

Alan Johnston (journalist) edit

Looks pretty excellent, extremely well referenced with expand dates included and is well watched. Current at GAC, but this may take a while and I don't see it as a bar to its nomination/passing here. RHB - Talk 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article may be a candidate for A class, but if it's already going through GA, then let it pass there first. Oppose for now. -Duribald 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being number 2 on the list there, it could still be days before it is reviewed there. I don't see why it can't be passed here and then left at GAC too? RHB - Talk 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA is normally a stepping stone towards A. You can nominate an article for A class without it first having been made GA, but if we only have to wait a short while for a GA assessment, then why should we? -Duribald 10:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of not wanting to duplicate efforts. Let's wait to see what the GA review says, and make our opinion on the basis the final draft of the article that emerges from that review. John Carter 14:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I agree that it would be good to finish GA review first. A couple of other comments:
  • The article could benefit from copy editing. (There are some grammatical errors, one sentence paragraphs, and choppiness.)
  • Is there more early biographical info that can be included: parents, siblings, wife/partner, children, earlier schooling, other general biographical background? Since this is a biographical article, I'd ideally like to see it contain a fuller discussion of all significant aspects of Johnston's life and background, if the information is available.
  • It might be good to have a list of Johnston's major articles, with bibliographic info, included at the end of the article. Jancarhart 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think this article is anything like A-class. It is exceedingly unattractively formatted; it focuses mostly on his time in captivity, and it hardly discusses his writing, journalistic style, etc. -- Ssilvers 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the review is Not approved.

Charlemagne edit

Another core biography. Errabee 14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - 5 reference citations for the whole article is woefully insufficient. John Carter 18:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Carter above. Good article - catastrophic references! - Duribald 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Seems like a good article -- although I don't know enough about Charlemagne to fully judge. Citations are tremendously inadequate both in number and quality: Only one citation, "Einhard," seems to include a page number identifying the citation. The remaining four(!) citations either have no page numbers or are seemingly unconnected to any source included in the list of references. It may be a small point, but references are not written in proper alphabetized bibliographic format and there seem to be remarkably few of them given the importance of the subject. Jancarhart 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I agree - It's a very nice-looking article and seems throrough, but it is so underreferenced that I am surprised it was made GA. -- Ssilvers 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result is not approved for A-class

Anne Boleyn edit

Current GA. Appears to surpass GA-criteria on first sight. Errabee 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure of the precise criteria for A-Class vs. GA-Class, but I would think this article might need more of the following before being promoted so closely to FA status:

  • Full bibliographic information and proper bibliographic format including ISBN numbers for each of the references listed (Right now there are only titles, authors, and publication years; these are not done in MLA or Chicago format. It would help greatly to have them at least listed alphabetically beginning with the author's last name so that a reader can easily find full source information to accompany the citations listed above the references section. At the moment, the references are listed, unalphabetically, by title, and, as mentioned above, have incomplete bibliographical information and non-standard format.)
  • Many more citations. (There are many facts, particularly in the later sections of the article, that are uncited, and it seems to me they should be, particularly those that might be considered debatable or possibly POV.)
  • Citations that can be matched easily to a properly listed reference: Each citation should, I would think, have an accompanying reference so that a reader can find the source for the information involved, if need be. (I spotted no references listed for the citations attributed Elton, Strickland, or Scarisbrick; and those for Ives provide a page number, but do not indicate which of the two Ives books listed as references are being cited.)
  • Perhaps the info box can be "fleshed out" a bit by adding siblings together with birth/death years for the other individuals included.

The article is very well-written and is divided appropriately into pertinent sections. While I don't know as much as I'd like about Anne Boleyn, it seems this article hits on all significant points and presents full, solid information about this important figure. The only significant problems I see, keeping in mind that I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of the content, are those described above, which, while arguably technical, are substantial, particularly if there's any concern that some of the information involved may be POV. Jancarhart 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sadly, I am going to have to oppose this comprehensive, well-written and enjoyable article for one major reason. It does not have enough inline citations. Many sections and subsections have either no citations or only one. Controversial statements and theories attributed to historians need to be cited. I have a feeling that the editor(s) who worked on this article started the process of citation but then stopped because the citations are heavily weighted to the beginning of the article. Like Jancarhart, I would also like to see the bibliography properly formatted. It is extremely difficult to read as it is now stands and does not contain enough information on each book. Awadewit 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was fail.

David Hume edit

Another core biography currently with an A-grade. Errabee 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Almost there, but requires more reference citations. One standard form of citation should be used as well. Also might benefit from fewer red links, particularly in the "Works" section. John Carter 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several issues need to be addressed before this article can be considered A-class, in my opinion.
  • The "Life" section needs to be expanded and broken down into subsections - this is a biography page.
  • The "Legacy" section, while it does provide a lot of good information, needs to be shortened; this page is already 60kb. Pages should exist for all of Hume's major works and forks should be directed there when appropriate.
  • The "Perspectives on Hume" section reads like a prose list rather than a coherent section.
  • I have a feeling that the page was written using the "References" listed at the bottom, but inline citations must be given throughout the page. Currently, only citations to eighteenth-century sources are given. We need citations to modern scholars as well as to Hume's works.
  • The "Works" list should only list Hume's works, not where they are available on the internet.
  • In my opinion, the infobox is out of control. Restricting it to major facts rather than vague influences is more helpful. Awadewit 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above. -Duribald 18:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of this review is not approved for A-class

Edgar Allan Poe edit

Another core biography that needs confirmation for A-class. Errabee 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am opposing for two major reasons and one minor reason.

  • The structure of this article is poor. Since it is a biography page, there should be more information on Poe's life. Also, I find the headings slightly odd "Life," "Career," and "Death." The "Literary and artistic theory" section is unorganized. Some of what is "Legacy" should be in a section about Poe as a writer. The "Legacy" section is also too long; it needs to be condensed. The page should be dominated by information about Poe and his writings. The "Popular culture" section has lists rather than paragraphs.
  • The page is poorly-sourced. The editors need to do a lot of research and radically revise this page. There should be many more citations from reliable biographies for the biography section and the literary sections should rely on the work of literary critics. What is the consensus among Poe scholars regarding Poe's aesthetic theory, for example, or his contribution to detective fiction? To answer the question "what is the consensus among Poe scholars" (and the consensus view is what wikipedia aims to present) requires extensive research. I do not see evidence of that here. Awadewit 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no list of works on the page. Although Poe wrote a lot, there should be at least a partial list of major works with a link to a separate page that lists his entire oeuvre. Awadewit 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Maybe it's just me, but I think a "biography" article should have more than just one section dealing with the subject's "life". I personally think that there is enough potential content regarding his life specifically to constitute a full article, and that the "artistic" sections could easily be spun off into one or more separate articles. However, I acknowledge that I am rather new at this game, so if anyone presents contradictory information I reserve the right to change my opinion. John Carter 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to have three sections on the life: "Life," "Career," and "Death," but, like you, I do not feel that these are adequate, and the description "Career" makes the user think that the biographical description is over. On the point about dividing an author's works from their life, I am generally against that. I think that an overview is at least necessary. Some works need separate pages for a more extensive treatment, but I do feel that there should be a discussion of the author's literary output since that is the reason they are notable. See Mary Wollstonecraft and Anna Laetitia Barbauld for examples of literary biographies that have recently become FAs. Awadewit 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular page, over two-thirds of the total length of the article proper is devoted to his literary career, with only about 12,000 words of 40,000 total in the article dealing with the subject's life per se (Life, Career, Death). I agree with having "some content" relating to the subject's career, but 2/3 of the article might be a bit excessive. Also, based on my own experience with the subject's biography, admittedly in the distant past, I think there are grounds for saying the existing content on his life might be comparatively insufficient. But, like I said, I read up on him several years ago, and may have gotten some things confused. John Carter 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that I agree with you, right? I was just trying to add more information to the debate and more nuances. If you notice, in my oppose I also said that there needed to be more biographical information. Awadewit 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Just amplifying and substantiating my previous comments for anyone else who might see this for clarification purposes. Sorry if it was so poorly phrased that it was reasonably taken as something else. John Carter 02:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Awadewit above. - Duribald 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Overall, I agree entirely with Awadewit and John Carter (see above). Much of this article is well-written, and it contains much good information. There are, however, a number of significant things to be addressed:

  • Citations needed for all facts. (Have added citation needed tags to article in some, but not all, of these places.)
  • Citations that are given fail to include page numbers
  • Given Poe's writing, there should certainly be a substantial, chronological list of his writings, ideally separated by category (poetry, short stories, essays, etc), with years of original publication.
  • While there are a good number of excellent "hard" references for Poe, this article has not relied on many of them. Moreover, while some of the websites cited are clearly credible ".edu-type" references, others seem to be less credible.
  • Given Poe's importance, I agree that the section on his life should be significantly expanded with the section on Griswald perhaps done more briefly in one paragraph. (There is an article on Poe's death, which seems a better spot for such a full discussion of Griswald's obituary and whatnot.) It also seems odd to have the Griswald bit as its own dedicated section with the entire life of the article's more than worthy subject rolled into one single, relatively short section, given the importance of the subject.
  • Info box probably needs more biographical facts: parents, foster parents, siblings

Jancarhart 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the review is not approved

Cyrus the Great edit

Another core biography that needs confirmation for A-grade. Errabee 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support(see below). Article has no obvious gaps that a general reader (like me) finds wanting. A few reservations, none of which probably disqualify the article:
(1) Eleven paragraphs have no reference citations in them.
(2) The article presents two different spellings of Anshān (Anshan).
(3) Several paragraphs are only two or three sentences, and one or two lines in appearance, long. Expansion or merger might be appropriate.
(4) The content on the subject's father, who has his own article, and the separate "family tree" section seem to me at least to possibly be excessive.
In short, the article might stand for a rewrite, but I don't think that is grounds for disqualification. John Carter 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since article clearly needs more references. For example the "Median Empire" section :only has one single reference. That particular section should also have a "Main article:Medes" link in the beginning. There's a lot of that going around. The article is, however, near A status. -Duribald 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as sourcing is clearly something which is to be considered in determining if an article is to be counted as being of A class. John Carter 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While this article seems to be well written and thorough, I don't think it should receive an A-Class rating just yet. (I should also say that I don't know enough about Cyrus the Great to really judge the content itself.) Here are the major problems, as I see it:
  • Insufficient citations. As noted above, most of these are at the beginning of the article and dwindle off to few if any by the middle to end of the article.
  • A number of citations that don't seem to correlate with a reference, making them difficult to track down, if need be, particularly if the web link for an online source is broken.
  • A preponderance of online refereces, which, in and of itself may not be terribly problematic except that (1) it's difficult to tell which of these online references constitute highly credible sources without actually going to the site itself; (2) web pages change or can be eliminated, so having an article that's substantially written using online sources may make it difficult, if not impossible, to locate a source some length of time from now; and (3) I find it difficult to believe that there are not a large number of highly reputable, "hard" sources that would also cover this material. A great number of the online references fail to include access dates and fail to identify the actual source without clicking on the link involved. Finally, I would like to see that those that are actually books available online also include full bibliographic info for a "hard copy" that might be used by a reader in the event the online source is either unavailable or inaccessable for whatever reason.
  • While the idea of separating sources listed in the reference section into "ancient" and "modern" sections may be a good one, I would like to see a reference section that included appropriate bibliographic info telling me how to locate the ancient source involved, if I wanted to. (I know there are "modern" copies of Herodotus, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance -- many in highly reputable, good translations. These should be inlcuded here.) The reference section also needs to be properly alphabetized, and each citation should be clearly related to a reference provided in the reference section.
  • Personally, I found the family tree interesting, but thought that it should perhaps have a caption briefly indicating the significance of the three different "branches." Also, the "Dynasty" box should include Cyrus the Great -- or Cyrus II -- in the two cells (King of Persia & King of Media) that presumably apply to him.
Jancarhart 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is not approved for A-class.

Neil Armstrong edit

One of our core biographies that has an A-grade. Needs to be checked if this still applies. Errabee 11:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong points - good coverage of Armstrongs life, good disposition, good prose, persondata added, good infobox, excellent use of pictures (none of which are copyrighted). Weak points - a lot of sections need more citations or, like "Gemini 11" and "Early Apollo program" lack them altogether. This is not acceptable for an A class article. "Armstrong in popular culture" is in list form. It should be rewritten into prose. Oppose for now, but with a few alterations it will change to support. - Duribald 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Duribald. Errabee 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Duribald above. John Carter 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the review is not approved for A-class.

Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet edit

Template placed by Kittybrewster on the talk page, placing here. RHB - Talk 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild oppose. It is a nice article, but it is still weak on his early life and military career, as well as his family life. Those have to be expanded upon if this article is to get an A-grade. Furthermore, according to WP:NCNT, the name of the article should be Norman Stronge, as there seems to be no need for disambiguation.

Errabee 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, he is likely to have fought in both World Wars, but this is not mentioned apart from briefly in the lead. RHB - Talk 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, maybe he didn't fight in WWII, as he got wounded in WWI, but because the nature and seriousness of his injury is not detailed, it is impossible to tell in a review. Errabee 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article suffers from WP:OWN issues and is also used by some editor in relation to WP:POINT.--Vintagekits 19:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on your reasoning for this? I understand several editors have been commenting on a potential RFC regarding you in Kittybrewsters user space? RHB - Talk 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what that has to do with this and also the one that is based around the work of guy that was banned because he was a sock. You mean the RFC that he has had in his users spaces for what seems like months but has never gone anywhere and will never because its without foundation.--Vintagekits 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. I believe there is some (maybe a lot) of prior history between Vintagekits and the nominator, which I don't have time to look into right now. Suffice it to say that reviewers are reminded to concentrate on the strengths and weaknesses of the article, no more no less. --kingboyk 01:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWN and WP:POINT are not criteria by which articles get judged. It's the quality of an article that determines if an article gets A-grade or not. Errabee 23:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the first 44 years of his life get only two short paragraphs; that should be improved. If he really didn't do much during that time, some sort of statement to that effect should be included. Other than that, and possibly the naming question as per Errabee above, it looks good. John Carter 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the review is not approved.

Ofra Haza edit

This was one of the articles I had downgraded from A-class to B-class earlier. An anonymous user reverted this. Now that we have an official A-class review department, I'll ask for an evaluation here. Errabee 09:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Copyright status of pictures is unclear, structure of article is strange (Obituary before marriage, and why even obituary?), no in-line references whatsoever. Errabee 09:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose *sigh* No references, no persondata, the speculation about the cause of death is controversial (at least in her part of the world) and unsourced (same thing goes for her husband's cause of death), it hasn't passed GA... Should be downgraded to a "B". - Duribald 10:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Errabee and Duribald above: picture status is unclear, no persondata, and article needs in-line citations. John Carter 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downgraded it to "B" status until there's a consensus to make it an "A" class article. - Duribald 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the review was Not approved.

Sir James Henderson-Stewart, 1st Baronet edit

Article was rated A-class by Kittybrewster. I'll leave a comment at her talk page, notifying her about the A-class review department. Errabee 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice article, but needs a picture and an infobox. Content could also be expanded on, e.g. his activities in WWI are very briefly described, in what battle did he get wounded etc etc etc. Errabee 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "his talk page". I can get you a fairly simple b/w head and shoulders photograph which may be acceptable under fair use. His WW1 service would need more detailed research in the Army lists of the era, which I might be able to do. Sam Blacketer 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, his talk page, my bad :) The WWI service record is only one of the sections that should be expanded. Most sections are stubs right now, but it definitely has potential. Errabee 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly not an A class article. It lacks a good enough intro, an infobox and persondata, it could also do with some expansion and a picture. Let it pass GA, before it's ranked A class. I'm lowering the grade, until it's improved. - Duribald 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per the above, I think it could use an infobox and picture. Solid article, but could use expansion in some areas as noted above, if the data is available. John Carter 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of this review was Should be rated Start-class.

O. N. V. Kurup edit

Was awarded A-class by the article's main contributor, Rajithmohan. Should be checked if it complies with A-class criteria. Errabee 13:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • propose downgrading to Start-class. Article consists mainly of lists, which is not compliant with WP:EMBED. The lead section is too short, and too little information has been gathered. Errabee 13:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A main contributor should not rate an article. This article is FAR from A status, and I'm taking the liberty of changing it in accordance with your suggestion. - Duribald 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any problem with the downgrading. But, the article is definitely not on the Start-class. Please do a more accurate rating, and also please feel to put more comments to improve the article. -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a definite start class, it's mostly made up of lists. See comments I just added, at your request. -Duribald 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the Start class rating, listy throughout, though I do like your prose tables. Some statements need citing, such as him being know for a leftist leaning, and there is no infomation on critical response to his works. Also, could you confirm that you can release both pictures under the GFDL? RHB Talk - Edits 12:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downgrade to start - article is sadly lacking in biogrphical content, as would be required for an A-Class article. Also, a stub-class article can be up to three paragraphs long. This article (outside of list of works) isn't much longer than that. It certainly does not provide much information on his life, which would be required, or his campaign, which would be required if it is to be mentioned in the intro, or even the times he occupied any of the specific positions (teacher, etc.) he has occupied. What content there is is good, but not is not sufficient for more than a Start-class rating. John Carter 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start-class. Too list heavy and not enough content for even a B, I am afraid. -- Avi 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Agreeing. Thanks for all the valuable comments. I will try to improve the article. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 05:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the review was not approved.

Linus Pauling edit

This article is our current example for A-class criteria. Let's make sure it complies with our criteria. Errabee 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrade (sadly)
Pictures are not properly tagged
No in-line references, except in a couple of well referenced paragraphs (like the first paragraph of Work on structure of atomic nucleus)
Early life is a mess with all the birth and death years.
In Early scientific career, the singing in his sleep part is very odd

Errabee 10:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was fail. MrPrada 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckham edit

Article has already been rated A-Class by a Biography project reviewer. Wondering whether to confirm or deny such status. John Carter 15:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - on basis of insufficient reference citations. Several paragraphs lack any. John Carter 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with J. Carter a lot of paragraphs lack references entirely. - Duribald 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was fail. MrPrada 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent edit

The article is good enough to be A-Class.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 23:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Only free use images are permitted in templates. I'm not sure that the image in the infobox qualifies as such. The statement about his August 11, 2007, quote needs direct sourcing. The image question, if it can't be used there, might be sufficient to withhold A status. I suggest that further review be suspended until it is definitely known whether that image can be used one way or another. I've left a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions regarding it and hope to receive a response shortly. John Carter 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a free image. The photographer was kind enough to release it under Creative Commons. Spellcast 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - with proviso that statement of August 11, 2007, gets a direct source, as indicated above. John Carter 14:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That never should have been added in the first place, especially in the lead-in (see WP:RECENTISM). Spellcast 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm going to have to oppose for the same reasons said in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/50 Cent. This passed as a good article only only three weeks ago and the reviewer suggested room for improvement, which has not been addressed yet. There's little critical reception of his albums and no reviews of his acting. So it's still not as comprehensive as it should be. Spellcast 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Spellcast. - Duribald 18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was fail. MrPrada 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Adler edit

I have re-written approximately 90% of the Alfred Adler entry over a two month period. I have added scholarly references, increased the number of sub-categories, added relevant links, reorganised the references list and provided additional readings to refer others to. Thank you in advance for reconsidering this entry as a potential A class article.

  • Oppose - article needs WP:PERSONDATA. One-sentence lead is far too short as per Wikipedia:Lead section. Article itself could also be significantly longer, particularly in the biographical sections. There are few if any inline citations.The list of topics in "Basic principles" should conform to a list setup,
  • like
  • this,
  • or not be numbered at all. I would think at this point the best way to go would be to address the concerns about the length of the biographical section and inline citations, and persondata, and then nominate the article for GA consideration. Article does seem to have been greatly improved, but still falls short of FA or A class. John Carter 18:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I have added the Persondata template and substantially expanded the lead. I have also added some more references and re-structured the numbering in Basic Principles to a list set-up. These are very helpful suggestions, and I thank you! Cshelley 17:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in general, at least one reference citation per paragraph is sought. Also, maybe, some of the paragraphs might be broken up, although the latter is purely a minor stylistic matter. John Carter 17:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thanks John, I have followed your suggestions, cheers Cshelley
  • Oppose Article doesn't cover Adler's early life at all, and doesn't have enough citations. - Duribald 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/A-class_review/2007/Failed&oldid=915877661"