Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/2008

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography‎ | A-class review


Passed 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 pass.

Milla Jovovich edit

After undergoing a massive expansion, Peer review, and GA review, I now hope to get an A Class. Eventually working towards a FA. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although article could use one or two more high resolution images. Michel Doortmont (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I spent the last hour reading this, and it looks like an example of the best work on WP. MrPrada (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2008 (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 pass.

Annika Sörenstam edit

Having reached Good Article status and having undergone a peer review, this article has received significant copy edit changes and is now thought to be now an A class article. Mudforce (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctantly support. Nicely written and well-researched, although sometimes I feel overwhelmed by the amount of data and statistics (this is a problem I often encounter in athletes' bios). Personally I also do not like these long rows of citations one after the other (e.g.: "Associated Press voted her Female Athlete of the Year for the third consecutive year and she became the first woman to win the Golf Writers’ Trophy twice in the 55-year history of European golf’s most prestigious award.[66][67][68][69][70][71][72]"). Maybe Sandy's method in Tourette syndrome could be a nice idea. And the prose is not everywhere brilliant (choppy: "They met in 1994 in Phoenix, Arizona, where Esch worked for Ping and were engaged at the 1995 Evian Masters. They divorced in 2006. [57][113] She announced her engagement to Mike McGee ... "--Yannismarou (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edit changes made re suggestions above Mudforce (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (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 pass.

William Stacy edit

This article received a GA-class rating during August 2007, and subsequently underwent a biography peer review during October-November 2007. During the peer review, helpful feedback was received from Awadewit and Kevin Myers, and also from an automated peer review; the feedback was useful in improving the article. The biography peer review discussion is located here. Thank you in advance to the A-class review department for your time and efforts in reviewing this article. (Article background, for your info: William Stacy was an officer of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, and was subsequently a pioneer to the Ohio County and the Northwest Territory.) Thank you, ColWilliam (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assessed as A-class by WikiProject Military History here, while this biology A-class review is ongoing. For your info. Thank you, ColWilliam (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry for the delay. First impressions are that any image of the subject would be welcome. Also, the image caption for Cherry Valley Massacre gives the impression that only one or two people were involved. Changing the caption might be beneficial there. I'll try to do a more thorough review in a day or so. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and “no problem” with the delay. I appreciate your comment about an image of William Stacy, but unfortunately, there is no available portrait, drawing, or likeness of Stacy. (Similarly, Leo L. Lemonds, author of the “Col. William Stacy” book, was unable to locate an image when he wrote the book in 1993.) As you suggested, I edited the caption for the image of the Cherry Valley massacre. Thank you for your time on this review. Regards, ColWilliam (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Early life" mention is made of different reported years of birth and death. Details, maybe in a footnote, to verify might not be a bad idea. The last sentence of that section doesn't strike me as having a particularly encyclopedic tone, with the "a new chapter" phrase. In "Opening days..." the first sentence might change to "...from the beginning...". The last sentence of the first paragraph seems to be drawing a bit of a conclusion without sourcing. A source to substantiate "likely" would be useful. The "village common - village green" could be made a single link, like [[Village green|village common]]. The end of that section seems to be a standalone sentence. At least two sentences would be preferable. The parenthetical sentence for reference 23 might work better entirely in the "Notes" section. Redundant links to other articles should be eliminated. Only one link per page is required. The parenthetical references to Lafayette and others could be turned into a link as above with village commons. Some image might be included in the infobox in any event, as people are used to seeing one there. Maybe an image of the New Salem plaque or the headstone would fit there. None of these strike me as being necessarily major impediments, although they could be addressed rather quickly. I gather I would give support based on the comments above being addressed. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Incorporated all suggestions. Thank you, ColWilliam (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2008 (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 pass.

Hans-Joachim Marseille edit

The article has passed two separate A-class reviews in the WikiProject Aviation workgroup and in the WikiProject Military history workgroup. I feel that it should qualify here as well. Secondly I am interested to know what might be missing for a FA classification. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support There's a hidden comment requesting clarification of "His mother married again and took the name Reuter, which adversely affected Marseille," which you should try to clear up. At FAC you may well find people complain about the lists and tables, preferring prose, but I think you should fight to keep them in as they only add to the article rather than detract from it. DrKiernan (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - seems complete, and has already been granted A-Class by Military history and Aviation. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (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.

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.

Norman Stronge edit

Was nominated last year, seems to have been significantly improved since then. Closest article to A class in WP:UNIONISM and an article important to that project which should be improved to featured status by members.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Family" section is completely unreferenced. It might be seen as being nitpicking, but every paragraph would benefit from at least one reference citation. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully someone will get onto that shortly.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done By shortly, I must have ment three minuites, for tis how long it took!Traditional unionist (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to be well written and referenced. As near to a 'perfect' article as is possible. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a very well referenced article, seems worthy of being an A-class article. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too much unreferenced unattributed POV and speclation. Who says the IRA unit were armed with machine guns and hand grenades? The Stronges received their OBEs with handguns, so why aren't they mentioned as well? "The Stronge family was incensed at the inadequacy of border security" - says who? "Atkins was to leave Northern Ireland later that year to be replaced by Jim Prior" - unless there's a direct connection between the death of the Stronges and Atkins leaving, it shouldn't be mentioned. "James is still listed as succeeding to the Baronetcy" - needs to be mentioned that the claim is disputed. Why is Seamus Shannon's name mentioned? He was acquitted of all charges, per WP:BLP his name shouldn't really be mentioned. Once these are addressed, I'd be happy to support. One Night In Hackney303 10:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, will reference those now. I think Shannon should be mentioned, he was a suspect. Also, what's do you mean by the OBEs bit? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OBE - "one behind the ear". Few more points, in addition to the ones that have yet to be addressed:
  • "The Stronge family's home was then burnt to the ground as a result of two bomb explosions" - not as such. Moloney (p. 324) says the IRA were armed with incendiary devices, which are different to explosive devices. As you can imagine, one is designed to cause an explosion whereas the other is designed to cause a fire.
  • "On seeing the explosions at the house (and a flare Stronge lit in an attempt to alert the authorities), the Royal Ulster Constabulary and British Army troops arrived at the scene and established a road-block at the gate lodge." - no mention of the British Army in the source quoted. The incident is also covered in Urban (p. 223) who states the RUC sent several officers in an armoured plated vehcile, who came under automatic fire and were pinned down and unable to prevent the IRA unit's escape. No mention of the British Army. Similarly The UDA by McDonald and Cusack (p. 118) states the IRA fired several hundred shots at two RUC officers in an armoured car. Again, no mention of the British Army.
  • "The Stronge family was incensed at the inadequacy of border security." - different points this time...needs to be mentioned somewhere (either before or at that point) that the abbey was located close to the border, otherwise it's lacking context slightly. Also the Turtle Bunbury source says the IRA escaped across the border, worth mentioning for more context.
As for Shannon, the incident is worth mentioning but he shouldn't be named per WP:BLP. He was cleared of all charges, and he's definitely not a well-known IRA member (or even necessarily an IRA member at all), as this and this show. Per privacy of names there's no loss of context in removing his name (but keeping the other information), so it's preferable to do so considering his name isn't widely disseminated. One Night In Hackney303 10:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have more sources at your disposal than I, so please help...somehow I doubt you will... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Perhaps if you'd reviewed any of my most recent contributions you'd note they are very sparse in nature, and I have said more than once I am currently without internet access at home. So you can either fix the problems I have listed now(after all, I've told you what the sources say) or wait until I have internet access at home. One Night In Hackney303 14:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the article unravels near the end and decends into POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would reqest some more input from uninviolved editors please!Traditional unionist (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and those who are involved and aware of problems to fix them, rather than list them! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The prose is very choppy, with very short, sharp sentences. DrKiernan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Choppy structure, as per the above. Also, would appreciate more citations in the Midgely and CAC affairs. The phrase "caused a difficulty" introducing the latter could be improved as well. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2008 (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.

Closed 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 due to lack of comment.

Hilary Duff edit

Most of the issues raised during GA nominations were addressed and the article is currently a GA. I'm aiming for a FA status. It's prev FA nomination had failed. Prior to its FA nomination, i had listed it for peer review and no major issues were raised. However i would like nominate it for A-class and would certainly welcome suggestions for help the article attain FA status in the near future. Thanx....Gprince007 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Tenacious D edit

This has been through a lot of peer reviews and has been nominated for FA repeatedly. I think this qualifies for A-class. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Joe Delaney edit

I believe this article fully covers the brief professional career of Joe Delaney, and his heroic act of saving children from drowning. There are not many references because many repeat themselves, and also because his career in the early 1980s was so brief. Reference #6 (Shreveport, LA, Times article) is archived from a link that was blacklisted as Wikipedia spam. I knowingly did not include the spammed link because it is not allowed, so don't think I left the reference incomplete, because I wasn't sure of how to deal with it. This article was given GA-status is March 2008. The article's photo is from an Associated Press file, and the photo's source link is located in the file's page at Wikimedia's Commons. The photo in the section "Death and legacy," however, is fully my own work sourced from my personal camera. I feel that this article is fully capable of becoming an A-class article on Wikipedia. This is my first self-nomination for an A-class article, and any help in making this article flawless will be of great help to me. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel nomination - No one available to review for A-class, simply re-nominating for a Peer review. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:19, 14 July 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Gregory R. Ball edit

I submit this article for A-class review. It has undergone a WP:Peer Review from WP:BIO and WP:MILHIST, and was recently promoted to GA-class by one of the most careful reviewers. I think that having other editors involved in the A-class portion of the review process will add critical feedback and make it even better. MrPrada (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Exisitng content is good, but additional relevant data on subject's personal life, if it exists, would be very welcome, and probably required for A-class status. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found a load of new articles regarding military service and the subject's personal life by querying a military database, so it should be closer to up to snuff now if you'd like to take another look. MrPrada (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Hendrik Pieter Nicolaas Muller edit

This article has been updated vastly in the last week, making it a very complete and succinct encyclopedic biographical article. We are eventually reaching for the highest status for a remarkable and historic Dutch person in the English language WikiProject Biography. Doortmont (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Content is good, although it generally should have at least one, preferably two, reference citations per paragraph. Also, the lead is probably too short to really comply with WP:LEAD. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead problem addressed in compliance with WP:LEAD: was indeed too short, because dating from the original much shorter article. Reference citations are being worked on. Michel Doortmont (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Gordon Bell (American football) edit

This article could use some help progressing up the quality scale from GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - as below, minimal information on the subject's life outside of football. No information on whether he was ever married, had children, or even which radio station(s) he might work for. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Jack Clancy edit

This article could use some help progressing up the quality scale from GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Subject's life outside of football is given at best cursory mention. It is hard to believe that there isn't some content relevant to his broader life which can't be located, particularly for a person who lived so recently. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Elmer Gedeon edit

We hope to bring this to FA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. I think that what this article needs is a peer-review and not an A-Class review. The prose is too choppy in many parts of it (see for instance the second paragraph of the lead, and "Collegiate athletics", where we have the combination of choppy prose and a stubby par). A copyediting is definitely needed. In the printed source of notes 9-10 I don't see any pages.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - At least one single sentence paragraph, and one two-sentence paragraph. Possibly excessive reliance on quotes. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Dick Rifenburg edit

This article could use some advice in progressing up the quality scale from GA. It has failed FA once.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  • "1944 and 1946–1948". I have not seen another time years as red links! Link them or leave them unlinked.
    • Since I last checked only 1944 has been created. How about if I correct the other redlinks for the anticipated page names.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My opinion is that until the other year-red link is made a proper article, no link of any type is needed for the time being.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is not clear why Rifenburg did not finish higher. However, sportswriters of that era had a bias against Michigan. " Prose question: I am not sure if the use of "however" here is correct.
  • "He also worked for WBEN (AM) and WBEN (FM) and as the sideline announcer for Buffalo Bills games along with Van Miller, the long time Bills play-by-play announcer.[27] He also served as the play-by-play announcer for the University of Buffalo Bulls football team.[6] As a radio broadcaster, he is also remembered". Not the best prose. Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rifenburg lived 37 of his years in Buffalo.[6] His wife, Jane was the head of the Buffalo Bills cheerleaders when they met.[29] She is the former Jane Morris.[6] Rifenburg died in December 1994 at age 68.[22] He was survived by three sons" . Choppy ... Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also", in case you definitely need it (I suggest you get rid of it), goes before "notes".
  • "It is ironic that Rifenburg was born in Petoskey, Michigan in 1926 because Ted Petoskey preceded him at his eventual alma mater as an All-American end on the University of Michigan football team after he excelled as a representative of Saginaw County in MHSAA competition and after he made 1926 a memorable year for himself." I fail to understand the exact meaning of this sentence. Maybe I miss something as a non-native English speaker.
  • The lack of photo is not an unsurmountable obstacle to FA status (neither in A-Class status), but the lack of any picture is not helpful either.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not perfect but indeed further improved. Before you go to WP:FAC, I still recommend an overall copy-editing.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Ed Hochuli edit

I feel this biography is complete and meets the criteria for being an A-class article. RyguyMN (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the names of his six children are listed, but the names of his ex-wives aren't. They probably should be. Other than that, not many real reservations that I can see. I'll do a more thorough review later. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John for taking time to review this article. I know you have review some of my work in the past, so I thank you again. The name of his second ex-wife is Brenda, but I'm not able to locate any details of his first wife. Do you believe it is relevant to the article to have both ex-wives? Thanks! RyguyMN (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be relevant. If you can't find them, though, you can't find them, and that can't be held against the article. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry John, but I can not locate a name of the first ex-wife anywhere. RyguyMN (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

Ryan Braun edit

Nominating Ryan Braun, who just won the NL Rookie of the Year award.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has just passed GA review, and been granted GA status.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - based on limited knowledge of sports biographies. Article does seem complete and well-referenced. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (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 due to lack of comment.

William Wilberforce edit

I have been working on this article for about the last year, originally with the intent that it should be completed during the year of the bicentenary of the Slave Trade Act, but it apppears that we’ve missed that. In February it was given a ‘B’ Class rating, but considerable improvements have been made since that. Any comments or suggestions would be welcome – I am still keen to get it up to scratch before the end of the year, if possible. – Agendum (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - article contains some one-sentence paragraphs, which are not really smiled upon. Also, there are a few paragraphs which don't have any specific citations. I read somewhere that FAs should have two or more citations per paragraph, but can't think of where right now. Those are the only real reservations I have, though. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments. Most done, as well as making changes as per other kind suggestions from various editors. Just working on the citations and other minor points now. – Agendum (talk) 21:39, 9 December 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 due to lack of comment.

Lance Bass edit

This comprehensive, carefully sourced article was recently promoted to Good Article status. As its sole major contributor, I am seeking to get additional feedback, because I'd like to move the article towards FAC. I requested a peer review several weeks ago, but unfortunately have had no replies. I believe the article is very strong, but this is the first one I've ever worked on to this degree, so I am hoping to continue to learn from experienced editors about top quality at Wikipedia. Thanks! --MgCupcake 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The only real drawback I can see is that the article contains a few single-sentence paragraphs, which are contraindicated by the Manual of Style. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I did notice that there were a few single-sentence paragraphs, and I merged them. All of the paragraphs in the article are now two sentences plus. --MgCupcake (talk) 01:16, 27 November 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 due to lack of comment.

The Make-Up edit

This article narrowly failed at FAC (review archived here), so I am submitting this review in hopes of gaining A-class status as well as to provide further improvements, possibly in hopes of another run at FA in the near future. Any comments and suggestions are welcome, thanks! Drewcifer 09:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Regretably, musicians are not my specialty. Article, based on what I know of music bios, seems to probably qualify, although I might remove the redlinks to the band members, or maybe try to create at least stub pages for them. John Carter 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Thanks for the comment! I took out both redlinks. Drewcifer 03:48, 13 November 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 due to lack of comment.

Berkley Bedell edit

This article got GA status. I posted it under peer review weeks ago, but no one has responded. I don't know why that is, but I'd like this article to get A status, so I put it here for further review. Thanks. Minute Lake 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - extant red links could be removed. Also think that article might well focus a bit too much attention on political career. More information about nature of business and how and why it expanded, and maybe about post-political career if such is available, would certainly be welcome. Information about when he married, and other details regarding personal life, also seems to be lacking. John Carter 21:14, 12 November 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 due to lack of comment.

Carl Hayden edit

Article that I have been working on and that IMHO is of A-class quality. --Allen3 talk 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Referencing is good. A few grammatical concerns ("Senate" should always be capitalized for instance). Election material should be integrated into the material on his term in office. Some discussion of the circumstances in which he became a member of the US House should probably start that section, before just saying he gave the jail house keys to his deputy. Also, frankly, I'd like to see that directly sourced or replaced with something less colorful, but more exact. Clarification of whether he only had one deputy and that party assumed the office through filling a vacancy and/or running for it separately would be welcome. A few more categories and links to other extant articles would be appropriate as well. John Carter 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganized the article text as requested and corrected the listed grammar concern. A second reference for the sentence you question has been added (the first was used as a source for the mentioned sentence and the three sentences that directly followed and was placed at the end of the supported text). As for your request for addition links, what appropriate articles and categories are missing? --Allen3 talk 22:15, 2 November 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/2008&oldid=915877598"