Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/2009

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography‎ | Peer review

Charlie Soong edit

I just finished a complete rewrite and restructuring of this article, and I'm aiming for Good Article status. There are a few problems that I would like to acknowledge first. First, the birthdate is a contested issue, and I felt that it was most accurate to include the range of years in which he is thought to have been born. The best thing would be to have a section on why there are multiple dates on record and what they are. Second, the sources about Charlie Soong are scarce to say the least, and all of my information comes from one book. I have cited the different pages on which each section is discussed. Any feedback on the article would be greatly appreciated, as this is my first fairly large contribution to wikipedia. My goal is to clean up and rewrite all the articles relating to the Soong family. Hugi (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Muhammad Ershad edit

The article has gone through an extensive expansion backed by cited materials since it recieved a B class rating. I am hoping for at least a Good Article status.--GetItRight82 (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard edit

I have completely rewritten this article from scratch following concerns that the previous version - not written by me, I hasten to add - was excessively POV and based on original research. (Compare before and after.) The replacement article documents the military career of L. Ron Hubbard, who served in the US Navy from 1941-45 (active service) and 1945-50 (reserves). I would like to get it up to at least GA standard and preferably FA standard, and would appreciate feedback on the current text. I've avoided, wherever possible, quoting from primary sources but I should say up front that there are some primary source quotations simply to meet the demands of NPOV - the account would be extremely one-sided if Hubbard's own POV could not be quoted. The article will need to be re-rated as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a parallel peer review ongoing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard – I think it would be best to keep discussion in one place. JN466 08:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Panarin edit

Aimed to hopefully become a Featured Article. As the maintainer is a Bulgarian, some phrases may not "sound" natural to a native English speaker. Some copy-editing by native English speakers has already been done but it's probably still imperfect. If you know Russian, if would be helpful as most of the sources are in Russian. But the main thing is not the language, of course, it's the content and organisation of the article. Your helpful suggestions for improving it to reach the level necessary for a Featured Article nomination will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for reviewing it! --Лъчезар (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will to Power (band) edit

I'm hoping for some constructive criticism about the state of the article now. I attempted to overhaul the content (which led to a whole bunch of drama, starting at EAR and progressing to ANI), trying to make it chronological, unbiased and well-referenced, but I'm too involved in this to see if I've succeeded in anything. Please compare it to the version which existed before a few weeks ago to get the gist of what I tried to do. Any input is welcome, thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Robinson (horticulturist) edit

I have written this entry about my Father-In-Law and would like to make it into a proper encyclopaedia type entry. As this was my first, I am looking for pointers as to how I can improve it over all. I would love it to be so good as to become a Featured Article. Atellyer (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Mitchell (football coach) edit

I would like to solicit opinions on whether this article meets the requirements of a Good Article. If not, please let me know how it needs to be improved. The only major GA criteria that I know it does not meet is an image....if anyone has an image for this article, please let me know. -- Deejayk (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jezhotwells edit

It is not neccessary for an article to have an image to pass GA, although it is good if it has one. Have you checked out WP:Finding images tutorial for some tips on finding an image? If that fails you could post at WP:Requested pictures. If you can not find an image it is best to remove the image placeholder as its use is discouraged as is shown at WP:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders.

A brief glance at the article shows that it is well organised and referenced. I did not check out the references.

The lead needs expanding from one sentence. Check out WP:Lead section for some tips. I would suggest that it is near GA standard.

You could list it at WP:GAN and carry on working on it, as it will take a while for it to reach top of the list. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article's lead, as you suggested. I've also once again tried (and failed) to find a suitable free image on the web. I will post a photo request, but I'm not optimistic that will turn up a photo. Hopefully the lack of an image will not be held against the article. I've listed the article at WP:GAN. Thanks! - Deejayk (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jackson edit

This article has recently been much expanded, with associated articles (particularly the linked albums now referenced and wikilinked etc.) Looking towards a possible assessment as Good article status. If not, a critique might push me, and hopefully others, in the right direction. Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pace (Jamestown) edit

Does this article pass muster for Biography WikiProject? Comments, suggestions, and improvements more than welcome. This is my first from-scratch Wikipedia article, so please let me know if I'm not following proper protocol here. Glen Mark Martin (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Pinter edit

I welcome review of this article, particularly concerning its length, detail, referencing style, prose and accessibility for Wikipedia readers. It would be good to get direction on ways to take it forward to featured artcile status. There has been disagreement amongst editors on the general style and tone of the article - in particular one editor's resistance to improvements suggested by others. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wangari Maathai edit

I've recently significantly expanded the article, primarily through the use of her autobiography Unbowed. I have attempted to add various other references throughout at the more possibly contentious points, as of course her autobiography will reflect on her more favorably. I'm hoping to bring this article to GA status soon, and then hopefully to continue towards FA. As biographies aren't necessarily my forte, I was hoping for some assistance from the Wikiproject to further improve the article. -- PEPSI2786talk 06:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hekerui edit

A few quick points on style:

  • Headings shouldn't start with "the", per WP:HEAD  
  • For an article of this length, the lead can be expanded to summarize the article better.
  • Some dates should be delinked per MOS:UNLINKDATES.  
  • Footnotes should directly follow the text with no space (there are some that don't).  
  • A picture that doesn't fill out the infobox width of 225px can be scaled to its natural size (here 175px).  
  • "February 28th, 1992" should be "February 28, 1992".  
  • I think the long quotes in "Controversy" subsection can be summarized.
  • Typos:
    "womens rights" to "women's rights"  
    "colocated" to "collocated"  
    "it's focus on the environment" to "its focus on the environment"  
    "minitstyr" to "ministry"  
    "a bogus organization and it's members" to "a bogus organization and its members"  
    "hte case was thrown out" to "the case was thrown out"  
    "the governments response" to "the government's response"  
    "beseiged" to "besieged"  
    "across from Uhuru park" to "across from Uhuru Park"  

Hekerui (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and corrected most of the issues you've mentioned, adding a   to the one's I have done. Thanks for the help. -- PEPSI2786talk 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Israilov edit

This is a short article about a Chechen soldier who accused government leaders of human rights violations, and whose death in Austria is a subject of controversy between supporters and opponents of the current Russian-allied Chechen regime. I edited the article to deal with what I saw as tendentious quoting of Chechen officials. I am also concerned with the quality of some Russian-language sources and the authenticity of material on the "Caucasian Knot" website. I hope this is an appropriate way to request input from other editors. I do not think this will ever be a GA or FA, as the subject is not a historically prominent figure. What is needed from this article is a neutral account of Umar Israilov's short life and the little that is known about his death. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure myself whether Aliyev's blog qualifies as a reliable source. Otherwise, the article looks relatively good, although I would like a bit more detail of his early life if such information is available. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed that reference before, with the same concern, but another editor restored it. I'm also concerned about the authenticity of an alleged interview with a British journalist; that too was restored without responding to my concerns. I'm stepping back to avoid edit war. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle edit

Requesting review of article as has already attracted favourable attention and news coverage from The Washington Post. It would be good to encourage editors by showing what is possible on Wikipedia in a short time. Would like to review to A-Class. SunCreator (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably round up a couple of editors to look at this article. It's exceptional work for such a short time. But you should put it up for GA first. That's the usual order of things, and GA has more active reviewers that can give you pointers on how to improve the article. -Duribald (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Duribald mentions, GA comes before A-class. Now, even though I have commented and edited this topic, I'll mention one thing. The article has indeed come a long way in a short time; but, it is in no way ready for a GA review. Stability alone would would cause the article to fail. That's not meant to offend any editor, but until the issues of: 1.) her birth date, 2.) Nationality British vs. Scottish, 3.)the WP:EL issues are resolved, the YouTube links - are all resolved, the article won't pass muster. This isn't to say that the article is bad, just to say that it does not meet the criteria of GA on the stability issue alone. (Wikipedia:Good article criteria). SunCreator, you've done some marvelous work with the Boyle article, but until the rapidity of editing dies down, it's going to be very difficult to get a good article assessment done on this. Patience. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work so far, but I agree, this is quite unstable at the moment and unlike the articles on, say, Barack Obama and John McCain, there is no semi-protection keeping it stable. Hekerui (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with the above, wait until after the media frenzy on her performance dies down a bit before adding. And personally, I wouldn't nominate an article without any pictures. I hope those going to her semi final performance have their cameras with them... 78.133.77.127 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictures do not matter. The main problem with the article are the Youtube links and lack of some information - and others used too much. (ie. Someone cannot be "48-49" years old, you are either 48 or 49.) Stability is a big problem before, as many articles have been denied solely on the stability issue. --haha169 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture matters but only a little.
  • No issue with youtube links because there are none in this article and hasn't been for some days. Unless you think it's an issue there is no link?
  • The Date of Birth is a problem, but not one that has a solution at this point.
  • Stability is not such an issue as you might imagine - but still a minor one. Most of the edits are adding something and then reverted. Edits affecting the display of the article yesterday amounted to moving some commas, changing tense and adding some references. Vandalism and good faith improvements(adding picture, dob, american spelling etc which is later reverted) are quite within acceptability. See here. SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I guess the bottom line is: it's really going to come down to "who" does the review. I can't imagine there would be any shortage of takers on that one. ;) Best of luck — Ched :  ?  14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized the youtube links were gone for so long. Sorry about that. --haha169 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Howe edit

I've listed this article for peer review because…Colleen Howe sadly passed away recently and the article will probably be viewed quite a lot by the WWW, and it should be ship shape - as one of Wikipedia's finer works. Kind regards and thank you SriMesh | talk 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JiggleJog edit

Apparently you listed your desire for a review in both "biography peer review" and "general peer review". I reviewed your article over here. But I am still working on it—that is, copyediting the darned thing. Finding a good copyeditor before you request a peer review is always a good procedure. This allows your reviewers to read your article without constant interruptions like missing commas or spelling, or absolute confusion. JiggleJog (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Robert Ford (politician)[reply]

Mario Ančić edit

I expanded and added sources into the article. I'm hoping GA? I'm sure there are maybe some spelling errors, because English is not my native language. So if there are someone who can help me with that. Can someone give me some pointers on what else must I do. --Göran S (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GregorB edit

I'm not a member of WikiProject Biography, but I'm going to try my hand here as a member of WikiProject Croatia. Further reviews are more than welcome, of course.

References

The article is well-referenced, using inline citations. Still, it could use a couple more throughout the tennis career section, particularly in the playing style section, which is completely unreferenced.

Coverage and accuracy

Ančić's tennis career is chronologically described in detail. Is it too detailed? Reading the article, I never had the feeling it went into unnecessary detail or trivia. (For a perspective on cruftiness, see Ian Thorpe - an FA-class, no less.) I could not find any inaccuracies or outdated information. Some pieces of information are missing, e.g. it is not clear who coached Mario before 2005. Personal life info is also a bit scarce; more about it later.

Structure and supporting materials

In terms of structure and supporting materials, the article is on par with Leander Paes, a GA-class tennis biography described as "an example of ideal page structure". Everything's there.

Grammar and style

Needs a copyedit: grammar and style mostly. Some copyedit work has already been done. In this department, I'll defer to native speakers.

Final remarks

I believe that the article is a real GA-class candidate. Once it is copyedited, I don't see a major obstacle.

What I feel is missing from the article is an outside perspective - what other people say about Ančić? What does he say about himself? For example in this interview (in Croatian) we learn that he has never lit a cigarette in his life, his motto is that enduring is more important than hoping, and that the secret of his success is 80% perseverance and work, 20% talent. Granted, these are factoids (self-reported too), but they could make the biography more rounded provided there's a way to incorporate them into the article. GregorB (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Shapiro edit

As an important figure in the Texas State Senate and a potential US Senator, the page should reflect her contributions and relative importance. I am hoping to achieve a GA or B Article in the near future. --Longhornsg (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hekerui edit

I have cleaned up the article quite a bit, added some content and sources and added Fact tags where necessary. The article definitely requires work to become a B Class article. References should be added to source the existing material and the article should be expanded, especially with regard to Shapiro's work in the senate. If possible, a picture of her should be added. Also, when the article has more content the lead should be rewritten to provide an appropriate overview of the article. I assessed the article to Start Class and changed the importance rating in WikiProject Texas to "Mid" in accordance with the criteria set forth on its assessment page. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Harrison edit

This article was promoted to GA a few months back, thanks to the work of editor Charles Edward, among others. Since then, I've added some more information and hope to submit it for FA consideration. Coemgenus 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is of featured quality as of 2009. No review necessary. Hekerui (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward edit

This article has recently been "tag warred" over alleged POV and neutrality issues; also, the first peer review is more than two years old. Any constructive criticism from someone outside the argument is greatly appreciated. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Pinkett Smith edit

This article underwent a peer review in late December 2008. It was recently an FAC but was not promoted. A copyeditor (JamieS93) was kind enough to fix some minor prose and MoS issues during the past week. I have no idea what else to do with this article and how to get it to FA status. Any suggestions would be extremely helpful. Thank you so much. – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[go to JPS talkpage]--Anne Teedham (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol

I'm really sorry it's taken me so long to get to this review and copyedit. Let me start by saying Nice Work. The level of research and depth here is impressive. I've polished the prose as much as I can, so hopefully you'll have more success at the next FAC. I recommend getting the other folks who voted against it last time to have a look before you re-nominate it.

Here are some thoughts and comments I had while reading. You may incorporate or ignore them as you please.

Early life

  • I've retitled this section to indicate that it includes discussion of family in general. I disagree with the comment on the article talk page that the focus is confusing; most biography articles start with a discussion of the parents.
  • Pinkett Smith majored in dance and theatre at the Baltimore School for the Arts, graduating in 1989. Can we specify which degree she earned?

Acting career

  • I switched "rave reviews" to "positive reviews". I worry that "rave" is not neutral.
  • With regard to images: The subject of your article isn't the only possibility for images. For example, I added a pic of Queen Latifah to the section about Set It Off. You can find images of people and events and places related to the article (scanning the hyperlinks is a good way to get ideas), and then add those. Be sure to make clear in the caption what the image subject's relationship is/was to the subject of the article. (I've added some others, too. Feel free to change or remove any of these.)
  • She subsequently landed a role in the film If These Walls Could Talk (1996), as Patti. Give one less-than-a-sentence description of who Patti is in the movie.
  • The sudden appearance of Will Smith as her husband in the final subsection of this part is confusing. I recommend adding a sentence to the first subsection (in the part about her earliest auditions) which mentions that she met Will Smith and married him in 1997.
  • I notice that most acting descriptions are in the past tense ("...played the supporting role of Sonji Roi..."), but then suddenly we had one in the present tense ("Pinkett Smith plays Janeane Johnson..."). I fixed this, but you should go through the article and see if there are other tense-switches.
  • Because this is a biography of a living person who is constantly acting and developing new material, you will have to be vigilant about updates to the article. When it becomes an FA, you (and other editors) will need to be careful that updates don't interfere with the quality of the writing.

Musical career

  • I agree with the earlier review (I can't remember where it was) that we need to pick one classification of Wicked Wisdom, and stick with it. If "metal rock" is the chosen category, fine. Go through and make sure it isn't described in some other way at any point. (I've tried to do this, but I wanted to see if you had a different phrase to use, and you should check it yourself as well.)
  • "Stated" is usually not a very effective a word for attributing quotations. I much prefer keeping it simple with "said".

Marriage and children

  • I retitled this section partly to avoid confusion with the earlier Family section, and partly because "Relationships" seemed like an odd way to describe her marriage. (It made me think there would be info about other people she'd dated.)

Charity work and politics

  • The connection between Pinkett Smith and Meg Ryan isn't clear with regard to Sarah Palin. Either explain why Ryan's being mentioned here, or just leave her out of it.
  • I vote for removing the info about Obama being elected; it doesn't really belong in this article. (If you really feel like the last part of that sentence needs a mention, work it into the first part of that paragraph.)

Other

  • That's a pretty extensive "selected" filmography! I recommend limiting it to 12 or so movies.
  • I don't know that the "Other notes" column is important. Most of that info is in the article text, so I recommend removing it.
  • My understanding (from working on Barton Fink) is that the IMDB isn't a reliable source for info about movies. (It's used here for the awards table.) I can't recommend a better source, but you could go to each of the awards' websites and citing those.
  • Do we really need a link to the website of the New Village Leadership Academy? I'd vote to remove that one, since it's only tangentially related to her.

Again: Well done on the work so far, and I believe that this article will soon be graced with a well-deserved bronze star. If you have any questions, please let me know. Good luck! Scartol • Tok 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry West edit

I just wrote this up from a C-Class affair to a GA, and plan to make this article a FA. General comments are always appreciated, and specific input to following points is valued especially:

  1. References: is the ref-fing FA-worthy, or does this article need more sources
    1. Info about West's early life is scarce, are 2 multiply used refs ok
    2. Do you need book info to get a biography to FA?
    3. Also, do you ALWAYS need WP:CITET templates?
  2. Sections: is the sectioning ok or too dense? Do I need to introduce more "breaks" for the reader?
  3. Pictures: one pic of West and one of him as the NBA logo; are the other pics of the people he is closely linked to informative or rather a drag
  4. Prose flow: I am not the best prose writer in WP, and I unspecifically feel the flow is sub-FA.

Hope not to have scared people with this list, any tips are appreciated. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say, on my screen there's quite a bit of white space where the images are close together: at the "Late success and twilight years" and "Legacy" section headings. You should try to arrange them so that this white space is minimised. (If you can't see it, try other web-browsers or resolutions). DrKiernan (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Anne Teedham edit

I would like to suggest to you that you reach out to a copy-edit volunteer.

Essentially, the problem is that you try too hard to make your sentences complex. There is nothing wrong with simple sentences. Yet, rather than having you correct something yourself, a good copyeditor will achieve the preciseness of your voice without rewriting your style. It is always good for a writer to find his own, good, personal editor.

With regards to DrKiernan's comment.... I may or may not understand precisely what the good Dr means by "there's quite a bit of white space where the images are close together" (unless he means that he would prefer to have the "stacking" of one-upon-the-other without any visible whiteness); however, I believe that a more preferable correction would be for you to alter your images from side-to-side, e.g. "align:right, align:left, align:center". Anne Teedham (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Mae Sendikson edit

Good article. Liked it as far as I read. Which was as far as the first mention of Wilt Chamberlain, (subsection: "Leader of the Lakers"). By that time, I had become overwhelmed by the numbers (76.3%-this, 34.3-that). I think that you need to cut back on the statistics. Give us only the most vital and most important from this point on (i.e. "Leader of the Lakers"). Too much of a good thing becomes overly boring. After the intensive (and interesting) detailed play-by-play of the 1962 NBA Finals, all the statics need to be shoved into the background: your reader is now more interested in the rivalry between Los Angeles and Boston.

As to the images, I agree with Anne. You need to place them throughout the article rather than stack them. Also, Wikipedia wants those images to illustrate the article rather than be static. Your images are static. An illustrative image would be one which shows an illegal shove of Elgin Baylor by Sam Jones. If you are going to write as an in-depth an article as you have written, then give the fans what they want to see: action action action, and plenty of it. Make your article come alive rather than look (and read) like a boring bunch of static statistics. Somewhere around here is an artilce on Rudolf Wanderone. In it, the editors worked the reader's attention into a dramatic shootout between Minnesota Fats and Willie Mosconi. The drama lofts that article into the realm of the featured category. Good article though. Liked it a lot. Jerry West is on its way to featured...eventually.Mae Sendikson (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Gerritsen edit

I have started expanding and sourcing the article, and have managed to receive a publicity photo from the subject. I know it is missing any substantial criticisms, but I haven't been able to find any. I hope mainly to get the prose looked at, fresh set of eyes will be great. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Mae Sendikson edit

Generally, I had little difficulty with the prose--though a good copy-editor from time to time will be a pleasant addition. Find one with whom you can work. My first reaction to the article was your Lead--or, specifically, the lack of one, that is. I was well into the Thrillers section before I realized how notable Gerritsen is. I understand that you are expanding so I suggest that you read the PJ Haarsma review below (and article, plus discussion pages, and all tangential material), and see how well that article progressed. I believe, also, that you will find Ann Teedham's suggestions in the Margaret Murie review good guidelines to follow. Mae Sendikson (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes. I have always had trouble with writing the lead, but I was leaving it until I found some more balancing material. Work will be continuing shortly :) » \ / (⁂) 14:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II edit

This article is listed for peer review because it aspiring to be a 'Good Article'. It needs expanding in places but frequent criticism is that it is too long. This needs more opinions. You must bear-in-mind John Paul II was Pope for 27 years. Another criticism is tone of article, serious POV issues and hagiography. It is also suffering from undue weight and "synthesis of sourced". Prose sometimes wanders, but rarely flows. Length and tone are probably greatest issues with the fact that it is triffle "rigid". Needs improvement EtonLibrarian (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christa McAuliffe edit

I've never gotten a biography to GA-status, and I'm hoping to eventually reach that point for this article. I'm especially concerned with how to handle Christa_McAuliffe#Legacy. I've already reduced the Legacy section and I've tried to fully reference the article and add more relevant context about what she was like as a teacher, what she was going to do in space, and the circumstances/coverage of her death. --Jh12 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pin Malakul edit

I have so far been the sole contributor to the content of this article. Waiting for an assessment has proved to be a test of patience, but I believe that with the recent expansion the article should be able to pass the B class criteria. Would like to know what others think of the article and its chances, and suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article has passed GA review. I would like to hear suggestions on further improving the article. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Haarsma edit

As I'm a bit new here, I am looking for a review of this article to see what can be done to make it a Good Article by WikiProject Biography standards. I'm in the process of writing a more in depth article about Haarsma's work The Softwire series, but it's not ready for review as of yet (hence why I still have it in my User namespace). Any critiques or suggestions for this article would be much appreciated. Thank you. Kethra (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Anne Teedham edit

Hi, Kethra. I've been in the background watching carefully, and have now determined that your article has progressed quickly to the B class level. I have given it a Top Priority importance because I feel that Mr. Haarsma's work is very noteworthy, and compelling, and timely. I expect modern-day readers will want to know in the future as much as possible. The Rings of Orbis, and Johnny T, and Mr. Haarsma sound exciting. I believe that you should concentrate on the criteria for the Good Article [1], essentially No. 6: "Illustrated, if possible, by images." I would like to see your current image (The Rings of Orbis screenshot) enlargened so that the artistry is more visible. Also, I think that I would like more explanation about the game. I am confused slightly: Why would the primary winner of the game want to be the best Citizen? It would seem to me that the object of the game would be for the winner to be somehow Johnny T always escaping his pursuers. Concentration on item No. 6 may lead to more images (as well as more in-depth) detail (and greater length of article), and these, in turn, could quickly move your article into the category Featured Article. I have one problem at the moment with the expression: "lugging around". To me, that expression is close to slang because of the word "around"; and I would offer just "lugging" instead. However "lugging" does not convey as much as say "muscling" but perhaps there is another far more explicit verb to convey the image suggested by the expression "lugging around". This expression is perhaps something the other editors will ponder.

Also, I added WP:Persondata to the main article, but I believe you should alter the details to your likely. For instance, the date of birth might be nice to have month and day. Inquisitive readers like those kinds of things. Anne Teedham (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mohun edit

Hi I just wanted to get a quick review of this article as I (eventually) want to get it to GA but I can't make much headway with it at the moment. Any suggestions welcome - Dumelow (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks over-sectioned. I'd try to merge a few, or use sub-section headers (===) rather than section headers (==) in parts. Please consider adding {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut out a couple of the sections, let me know if it still looks too much. I have also added persondata to the article. Thanks for the feedback - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Anne Teedham edit

I found the article interesting, encyclopedic, and well-developed. If I were to ask for anything more, it would be that I wanted just an extra little something, somewhere, which would have made me feel as if Mohun was more than a textbook identity. By that, I mean: I wanted to know more about him as an "adventurer", a man, a human being, a person who could witness cannabalism and...what? say something about it, I suppose. I believe that the closest I got to experiencing Mohun as a man was in his remark about participating in the burning of the chieftain's village: "[I was] satisfied in my own conscience that I had rid the country of a brute and unnecessary member of society." I think that I wanted this same kind of commentary elsewhere: a little insight into his human-ness. On the whole though...very good article. Anne Teedham (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, thanks for your work on improving and reviewing this article. I agree that it is always nice to see something of the character of a person in their article and that is certainly something to strive for in the future (when hopefully more sources surface) - Dumelow (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Callie edit

This article has been rated as a Start class for some time now, and I'd like to improve it. I feel that there are ample references, and ample detail about her life, and the pending court case (Which I will update again towards the end of the month when the case is due to be heard). Basically, I'd like to know why it's still on Start, and what can be done to improve it. GrahamDo (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Anne Teedham edit

I reclassified Ashley Callie to B-Class, because it contains sufficient detail in order to meet that classification, however I found it necessary to make several major copyedit corrections (for grammar, phrasing, and spelling). I stopped mid-way through in order to allow you to see the difference between your writing and my reading. Your prose is difficult: you tack dangling phrases to the end of sentences. In addition, you use slang expressions such as "up until".

Passive writing (or writing with the use of phrasing such as "was driving" or "was on her way" should be avoided. Rather, active verbs work more to a writer's benefit. For instance, On 8 February 2008, at around 22:30 SAST, Ashely Callie drove her Smart Car into a red Renault on the corner of 4th Avenue and Tana road (in Linden).[3][13] Callie was on her way home from the Pirelli Calendar launch in Hyde Park.

On the whole, I would say that your prose needs a good copyeditor before you seek further evaluation.

Lastly, I believe that your use of the cquote may look better using one of the "bordered and backgrounded" examples seen HERE. However, unless there is a real significant reason for the pull quote style, you may find that other editors will find this stylizing excessive, unnecesary, and less preferable than a simple blockquote, or a simple, straight-line quote. Anne Teedham (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anne. I really appreciate all the time you took on this article. Thank you! :) I have reviewed your changes, and I agree with all of them. Passive voice is something I have a problem with, and I realise I need to work on in all my writings (see, there I go again!). :p If I'm not careful, I find myself slipping into that way of writing and speaking. I will think about your suggestions for the quoting. I didn't like the simple <blockquote></blockquote>; I thought it looked too "plain", and felt that cquote looked better. I like the Quote box2 template though, and will definitely consider it. Thank you! GrahamDo (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more

I am sorry, but I feel that the image of the driver of the second car serves little purpose in this article, and probably will cause more WP:BLP issues than the image is worth. Therefore, I removed it. Additionally, I believe that the facts surrounding the accident should be discontinued for similar reasons. (Personally, I feel that you should exercise a more conservative approach to the driver of the second car by referring to him as the driver of the second car, rather than naming him. Thus, I made that change for you.) I believe that you may find a close reading of WP:BLP and WP:NOT two articles worth consulting. (I also removed a great number of wikilinks because Wikipedia does not have articles for those wikilinks, nor will some of those wikilinks ever reach status of Wikipedia notability requirement. I hope you will give serious thought to the discontinuance of the cquote. Anne Teedham (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Pretorius' photo back, and re-named him. I feel it's not a BLP issue, because there is no doubt whether he was the driver of the second car, but only whether he was culpable. Thus I think the photo is quite relevant. I have named him in the introduction only, and everywhere else he is referred to only as "the driver." I hope this is an acceptable compromise. I've created a section on the talk page for this to be discussed further.
As per the cquote issue, I find the normal quotes far too plain, as I wanted them to stand out. After thinking about the quote box 2, I'm afraid it might actually be too gaudy. :( Haven't had a chance to test them out yet, though. I will definitely look at it. GrahamDo (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Pitcairn, Jr. edit

This is my first 'from scratch' biography. Of course I'd love to see it become a FA, but I'd be quite happy with a GA. Basically, I would like some general feedback about the structure and level of detail, and to have pointed out any obvious bio-format errors I may have made.

Also, I really don't know what level of priority the subject merits - he was clearly one of the major entrepreneur/industrialists of the US (created a F500 company), but is far less known today than many others.

Thanks in advance! --wormcast (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See HERE Anne Teedham (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrafox edit

This is my first serious attempt at a Wiki article ; I want to get it right. I know it's tiny and unimportant, but still, any help with even the basics would be appreciated! Free chiru (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript review edit

The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.

Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Free chiru (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hag2 edit

First of all, let me remark that your prose is very good and that it shows that you will be able to continue broadening your efforts with very little difficulty. Secondly, I agree with everything written previously by the javascript. I would like to emphasize though that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style is an excellent guide.

One item that I believe you will find very helpful is the section regarding footnote citations. There is a Wikipedian around here named Wildhartlivie (User:Wildhartlivie). He has referenced a few noteworthy templates on his talkpage. If you look at any good articles (such as Rudolph Wanderone), you will see citations in action.

It is good to learn how to cite as quickly as possible; other editors will require it.

Now, on the whole, since we are in agreement that you need to broaden your article to give your reader a much more in-depth (and encyclopedic view) of Ultrafox, I think you want to concentrate on finding as many details about the band as possible: from the "creation", through their "touring" history, and into their "public lives". A good, "background approach" to this kind of thing is to follow days, to months, to years in a linear approach. Anecdotes are another vital element. A good example to be seen right now is in the Rudolph Wanderone article where Minnesota Fats first acquires his nickname from the movie/novel The Hustler.

Also, in "Style".... When you write about the uniqueness of Ultrafox's sound, go into detail using examples from their music in a similar manner as a music reviewer does. Your readers will want to know how and why their sound is "unique", and how it has been influenced by others. Try to exhaust your readers with great detail; it helps to have more than less.

Another point: refer to the band members as if you do not know them. First-person familiarity does not read well, nor sound too encyclopedic.

I'll look in the future for you sometime again. Have fun. Hag2 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time =] I'll see what I can find. Free chiru (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:GrahamDo edit

I did not finish reading your article, but I read the lead and "skimmed through" the rest. It seems like a rather well-thought out article, with lots of footnotes. Your prose and writing style seems good. I didn't finish it, though, because I'm not really sure what qualifies it to fit into this project (I could be wrong). GrahamDo (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Murie edit

I'd like to get this article to B-class or better. Reading the general criteria it seems to meet them, so I'd like peer review to give me more specific guidance about what I need to fix.

Review by Anne Teedham edit

When I read through your article, I had a desire to learn more about why Margaret Murie received the recognition that she received. Or, in other words, I would have liked greater in-depth material, examples, anecdotes, stories, background, behind-the-scenes information which led ultimately to the awards. That sort of thing. Of course, this does not mean that those requirements make for the difference between a C-article and a B-article; they just help in furthering an article along towards becoming a Good Article. Consequently, I would say, sit back, look at an abundance of Good Articles and strive for that kind of assessment. In the meantime, follow this route:

  • Keep working on the article. Chances are that other editors will notice its existence and join you in working on it. If nobody seems to notice it and you'd like one or two to do so, mention the article in the talk page of a relevant "WikiProject" (e.g. Environment), or WikiProject Biography, or both.
  • You may find that the newcomers will be interested in aspects of the person that don't much interest you, or will relish aspects of editing that you find a bit tiresome. Thus their work will complement rather than compete with your own.
  • If this article is about a person, consider adding {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Provide coding similar to this: [http://....(space)A WORD OR TWO] for your red-links, and link your reader to an external source which provides reliable verification when Wikipedia's wikilinks do not work, or do provide...but that material is stupid.

Do not worry too much about a B-class assessment. Someone will come along and assess it. Yet then, nothing extraordinary will happen. It is better to find readers.

Just start dropping hints and links all over the place. For example, just ask a few editors to stop by and read your article and comment upon it on the talkpage. Anne Teedham (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Lauderdale edit

I'm submitting this article for peer-review. Basically, it's the second article I've written, and because it's about a living person (and I tend to write somewhat "flowery". ) I want to make sure this article meets wiki's standards. (It's definetly got references!! ). Feel free to leave a note about what got changed over there. Thank you ! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Wanderone edit

Previous peer review.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because:

This article has been a GA for some time and needs to progress to FA.

There is also a dispute between the two most-contributory editors to the article (one much more so than the other, but that shouldn't be a major factor) on the overall shape and flow of the article. The original GA form of the article had bibliographic and filmographic details interspersed throughout the prose. This was changed into a version with separate filmography and bibliography sections, with the material in the main prose considerably summarized. An even more summarized variant with these sections also has been produced, but the article is presently back to an integrated version with no film/biblio sections (and considerably more material than the original). A fifth option (no diff to show) would be to keep most of the material in the prose, but pared down, and have very summary bullet-pointed bibliography and filmography sections (this would permit moving minor details about these things to those sections, and even removing questionably notable talk shows and stuff from the main prose and only mentioning them in those sections). Note: A great number of minor improvement edits are not accounted for in the above edit history links; they are provided just as an easy way to get to the four versions for structural comparison purposes. I.e. the fact that the later versions are better than the earlier ones in several unrelated respects shouldn't affect what article structure to use.

One of the two major contributors also feels that the lead is overly long (as was noted in the original pre-GA peer review, when the lead was even longer) and not focused enough on what makes Wanderone notable, while the other major editor disagrees.

Input from editors experienced at peer review and FA work, and not involved in the editing of the article, would probably be quite valuable here.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rudolf Wanderone/archive1.

Ramakrishna edit

Several corrections, additions, improvements have been made to the article over past 2 months, I think this article can at least become a good article., but before this assessment, a peer review will be very helpful. Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 09:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Davis edit

a previous peer review was conducted on January 2nd, 2007 and is now archived here

It's been over a year and a half since the last review. Since then I've cleaned up and reorganized the article, and added more references to improve it. I'd like to get some fresh advice from the community regarding what else I should do to continue improving the article towards Good Article status. --Maelwys (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Anne Teedham edit

I would like to suggest to you that you reach out to a copy-edit volunteer. Anne Teedham (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the advice, I'll try that. --Maelwys (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donal Lenihan edit

Hi - I hope this article can be reviewed for the following reasons.

  1. It is of a well known Irish Rugby manager and sporting personality that should have a good Wiki article.
  2. There are a number of other articles for Irish rugby managers that if I get good feedback I will do similar work on them once I see the feedback.
  3. Just want to see how my wiki style is :-) as I have been editting and creating for some time and wanted some peer input.
  4. Got sick of patrolling and wanted to take a break and put a solid bit of time into makingthis article look better.

All help, feedback appreciated....--BustOut (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very short, and there are no images. You may like to try expanding the article, and investigating whether there are any free use images that can be uploaded/added. DrKiernan (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hag2 edit

  • This article needs lots of work. Editing mentally as soon as I began reading, I managed to make it through three sentences. The following are my reasons for abandoning the article after the third sentence:
  • First of all, the Infobox baffled me since it was so large but contained so little. However since you are writing about the game of rugby and about rugby players, I elected to ignore my bafflement, and move on...under the supposition that these kinds of articles require these kinds of Infoboxes.
  • The first sentence was missing vital punctuation—as is your above commentary. There was no opening parenthesis-bracket and the missing commas between adjectives bothered me greatly: they are absolutely necessary in this case. Also, the single sentence lead should be followed by something! Thus, I would move the town into a second sentence: for example—

"Donal Gerard Lenihan (born 12 September 1959) is a retired, Irish, rugby union player with 52 international caps. He was born in Cork."

— incidentally...which stinks. How will my ten-year-old daughter know what is meant by "international caps"?
  • Writing about a person on a first-name basis, is not encyclopedic. Nor is using acronyms without explaining them in full title. Thus,

"Donal was raised in a sporting background as his father Ger was a national boxing champion and GAA player. He was a student at UCC and played for the rugby team while studying there."

— is meaningless to me.

Spell them out first: Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) and University College Cork (UCC).

  • All this is why I gave up after the third sentence, and concluded that your article needs much work. Sorry. I will look in the future for you some time again. Hag2 (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/2009&oldid=311193615"