Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Robert Benchley
A featured article possibility, a few things I do know: I'm working on a public domain image for the infobox with his grandson (really!), so that's forthcoming. The subpage with his works is incomplete, but is being compiled as I write this and may, in fact, be done by the time anyone sees this. I also need help on the lead. Outside of that, pointers would be appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Automated review
edit- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks! Resurgent insurgent 06:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you could stub this red link in the lead. Not really an obstacle for FA status, but some reviewers do not really like red links; especially in the lead.
- The lead could be a bit more expanded, in order to constituted a proper summary of the article. Maybe some more things about his career or his life, but again do not overexpand it; keep it concise. Two paragraphs (a bit bigger than the current ones) is fine.
- For citing books you could use Template:cite book. Keep also in mind theexistence of Template:cite web and Template:cite news. It is practical, and will relieve you from any possible inconsistencies.
- "Although Benchley was known for misleading autobiographies of himself". Why was he doing that?
- The first four paragraphs of "Biography" are what? Early years? Personal life? General instriduction (I do not think so)? Family?
- "irreverence of the magazine". Irreverence towards? The Tribune editors? And irreverence was expressed with the pacifist articles?
- "The two were given a good deal of freedom, but Benchley's coverage of the war and focus on African-American regiments as well as provocative pictorials about lynching in the Southern United States earned him and Greuning scrutiny from management." Is the prose here OK? I may missing something here (as a non-native English speaker).
- "The Algonquin Round Table" is too stubby. Maybe you could merge it or expand it a bit, but again not a very serious flaw.
In general, I think the article is well-written, and comprehensive.--Yannismarou 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)