Wikipedia:Peer review/Hal Block/archive1

Hal Block edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe the article could potentially be a feature article. I previously nominated it, but I was far too inexperienced and it wasn't prepared. I would be interested in any help improving the article. One previous area of failure was the pictures. I've attempted to ensure all pictures now used are in the public domain. However, any advice on any of the sections would be welcomed. While I've been nearly the sole contributor, I'm not proprietary about the article so please feel free to say anything. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You contacted me about this peer review...hope it's ok to comment here. I just had a cursory look at the article - sorry it took me so long to get around to it. While I'm not well versed in what FA standards are, I think the content you have written so far is very, very good. There's only a few little tweaks I suggest (copy edit stuff, minor rephrasing - nothing major). Aside from that, all the content looks well sourced and very well presented. I have a two-week vacation from school coming up, so I'd be happy to help you with any tweaking, etc so you can get this passed to FA status. I don't want to muck it up too much because I do think you've done a bang up job thus far. Pinkadelica 07:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any help, opinions, etc. would be great. Thanks! BashBrannigan (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Infobox: be consistent with italics for the titles of television shows.
  • "Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois, USA California" what does that mean?
>>Fixed
  • The image needs to have specific fair use justification for inclusion in this specific article.
>>I thought it did. The image description page has fair use justification for use in this article.
  • Why not link What's My Line? the first time?
>>Fixed
  • "of What's My Line?." avoid these double periods.
>>OK.
  • As a non-American, I have no idea what USO is. Please expand it in the lead for the benefit of the rest of the world.
  • "Chicago Sun Times " Sun-Times appears to be hyphenated in our article.
>>fixed
  • "Block was suspended and then fired. Block left show"... no need to repeat Block. And what happened to Block afterwards? The lead is supposed to summarise the whole article.
  • Captions with more than one sentence should always end in a period.
>>Fixed
  • "Hal Block was born August 2, 1913 in Chicago, Illinois. Block was originally from the Hyde Park area of Chicago,[1] According" ouch. No need for "Hal", no need for the second "Block", use "He" and why is there a capital "A" after a comma?
>>fixed, except for use of "Hal". First use of name in beginning paragraph of article's body should use full name.
  • "TV game show" is a little colloquial, we'd normally say "television" in preference to TV.
>>fixed throughout article
  • "then the University of Chicago, graduating in 1935, where he majored in law" move "majored in law" bit to after "University of Chicago".
>>fixed
  • "fraternity [6][7] " no spaces between text or punctuation and refs.
>>fixed
  • "At just 21, Block " "just" awards undue weight, your POV to this situation.
  • " Block decided to change his career path and attempt to make a living writing" how many verbs? decide, change, attempt, make, write.... "Block changed his career path to attempt to make a living" is a bit better, but all in all, this sentence sucks...
  • "Hal Block was considered as one of the best writers" again, don't repeat Hal.
  • "The 1930s and 1940s was the Golden Age of radio" is this a quote? Where's the direct ref?
>> sorry, not sure I understand. The direct quote is in the notes to the citation at the end of the sentence.
  • "Block defied the odds" this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper.

That's halfway, there's a lot to do here. I suggest a good copyedit from WP:LOCE to ensure neutral prose. I suggest you also make sure you consider writing as a professional article rather than a (perhaps) fan page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rambling Man. BashBrannigan (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]