Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Requests: add Mary McLeod Bethune
Rainer1 (talk | contribs)
505 edits
Line 36: Line 36:


== Requests ==
== Requests ==
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Fefe Dobson}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mary McLeod Bethune}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mary McLeod Bethune}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Three Stooges}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Three Stooges}}

Revision as of 19:06, 5 September 2007

Template:WPBiography Sidebar

Shortcut

The peer review department of the Biography WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality. The process is intended to make marginal and good quality articles to excellent, encyclopedic ones. However, use of a peer review for articles assessed below the Biography WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewers' time.

Editors with article requests involving significant policy and/or POV concerns or edit wars should use Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and/or Noticeboards (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for living persons and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for others.) before a peer review.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Biography WikiProject. Please consider reviewing someone else's article too, if you request yours :-)

Instructions

Requesting a review

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write what you hope to gain from a peer review. For example, what are you aiming for with this article? Do you hope it can become a Featured Article? Good Article? Or something else? Remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.
  6. Add a link to your article to the beginning of the Peer Review announcement list.

Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== Review by [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WPBiography}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.
  3. Remove article from Peer review announcement list


Requests

Fefe Dobson

I hope to get the article of Fefe Dobson to Featured Article status and I would like suggestions for what needs to be done. Rainer1 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 07:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary McLeod Bethune

After adding to the article on Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, I checked the link to Mary McLeod Bethune and noticed there were no references. In attempting to search for them, I noticed that almost the entire article was cut and pasted from other sources. I am a most unlikely biographer for Bethune, but the more I read about her, the more impressed I was by her life and the more astonished I was that her article was not of a higher quality. I worked on it for several days, rewrote most of it, and referenced everything I could find. If not for the information I added, her article should be featured for her extraordinary life. Moni3 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Thank you. I wasn't aware that existed. --Moni3 11:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Three Stooges

I would like to eventually get this article to FA status. DTGardner 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hope springs eternal, but there remains hours of work to do. There are pastel templates for lack of references, original research, and a long trivia section at the end. You need to find a group of editors who can cite in-line references and tighten up the writing style, adding section breaks and organizing the material so that it is easy to read and understand. You don't have to do it yourself: post a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to ask for help. Shalom Hello 20:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven

Hoping to bring it to FA standard. DrKiernan 13:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68

  • Every paragraph should have at least one citation, even if it's a repeat of the citation for the following paragraph. It keeps the article from looking like it has uncited text.
  • You don't need to put citations mid-sentence, you can combine them at the end of the sentence.
  • You don't need in-line citations in the intro if the same information is repeated with citations in the main body, which appears to be the case here.
  • You don't have to have citations next to each other, you can combine them into a single citation.
  • The information that gives Mountbatten's opinion on something, such as the naval skills of the Turkish navy, should make clear that this is Mountbatten's opinion, not necessarily a generally recognized fact as the text appears to indicate.
  • Quotes that are four lines or longer should be blocked (placed in an indented paragraph-see the WP:MOS).
  • The last paragraph in the "final years" section needs a citation.
  • Identical citations can use the "refname" citation format to combine them in the footnotes section. Instructions on how to do it are here: [1].

All in all, a well-written, informative, and enjoyable article to read. Nice work. Cla68 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DrKiernan 07:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AZPR

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack White (labour unionist)

I'm hoping to improve this article to a Good Article standard. Exiledone 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeru Miyamoto

Well, here goes nothing. I've noticed that it had failed to get a FAC, most likely due to the fact that it's not even a GA article. I've noticed the criticism was that there were hardly any references in the article. There was a large trivia section earlier. So I had moved the important parts from the trivia and added to the main article and removed the unneccesary trivia from the article. What I would like to know is if this article is anywhere near a GA status or if it is. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 17:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem I just noticed is too many external links. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 17:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Contractions outside of quotations, such as "he'd", should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 13:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mumia Abu-Jamal[reply]

Dave Hillyard

I am hoping to get any and all feedback possible on expanding this article. It is a relevant article about an American Saxophonist. I hope the article to one day be considered at least a "Good Article".

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Azaria

Speak a few solid days getting this to GA, and now I need some opinions to take it further. Mainly on the layout of the career, if anyone has any sources to expand the early and personal life sections, and the prose (which I think needs work), and anything else. Thanks. Gran2 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Scartol

Hurray for Hank Azaria! I've loved The Simpsons and Mr. A for years, and I'm delighted to see him get such a thorough, well-written page. The structure of the Career section could use some work; see below.

Here are some notes, in order of their appearance in the article.

  • "as she could speak both English and Spanish" – how about "as she was [is? she still alive?] fluent in Spanish and English…"?
    • Done.
  • Give an example of how they loved showbiz? We already have the bit about his mom; maybe just say "Their love for show business…"
    • He just says that they love all forms of showbizness and that they most have seen every movie ever made.
  • Link up Forest Hills (and indicate it's in Queens)
    • Its already linked once in the same section.
  • "…whom he became good friends, Azaria noted that…" this comma should be a semicolon
    • Done.
  • "…better than I was…" better at what?
    • I think you've mistyped the quote or something, because it has always said "Oliver was a better actor than I was."
  • Nice tidbit about the Italian TV promo gig
  • First two sentences of Early career both start with Azaria. Make the second one "he"
    • Done.
  • Give names of clubs in which he performed standup?
    • Sources don't mention them.
  • Personal beef: I don't like the word "regardless". "Still" works fine here.
    • Done.
  • Give the events leading to his being a part of The Simpsons in chronological order. Explain his role in Roger Rabbit, then explain how he got the replacement gig as Moe, then tell us who called him for the audition, etc.
    • I don't understand, surely it is anyway?
  • Can we get a source for the Groening/Simon story of "make it more gravelly"? It's a good story, and I'd hate to see it struck for lack of citation.
    • It is sourced, the whole paragraph uses the same source.
  • The first Simpsons paragraph is a bit long; find a way to break it in two.
    • I've tried, but it really only works as one.
  • "As well as Moe…" Personal beef: I'd prefer "In addition to Moe…"
  • Group his basing Simpsons characters on real people all in one place. That is to say, move the bit about Pacino to the later ¶ and then you can follow through with Sellers and Robinson.
    • Pacino is relevant in above paragraph, and is recapped before the others as well.
  • "…who Azaria thinks has a similar personality to Apu." This is pretty obvious, I think. It's demonstrated by the fact that he used it in his voices.
    • Not necessarily, he could have just taken the voice. For example, Wiseguy doesn't really act like Charles Bronson, he just sonds like him.
  • The laundry list of the other characters is great info, but each sentence takes the form of: A is based on B, while C is a voice he chose for reason D. See if you can't get more sophisticated with your sentence structures.
    • I'll look into it.
  • I love the line about Grimey.
  • The behind-the-scenes stuff about The Simpsons is good, but it would work even better (for me at least) if we had some actual quotes. Give an example to back up the Groening praise?
    • Groening doesn't give any examples in the source, he just says it.
  • "As with rest of the principal cast…" I'd say "Azaria, with the rest of the principal cast…"
    • Done.
  • "…he stop working on commercials as he found them…" should be "He stopped working on commercials, as he…"
    • Done.
  • Career section structure: I'd give two ¶s on "Early career" – one for the first ¶ as is, and one about commercials and Roger Rabbit. Then just make a Simpsons subsection, followed by one for "Other voice roles". Then one for "TV and film", and one for "Stage productions". (Or, if there's not enough for a separate stage subsection, combine it with TV and film.)
    • I think that would be going a little to overboard on the sub-sections.
  • Give a year for Nobody's Perfect. If the year of the award was different, give it too.
    • Done.
  • Comma needed after Holy Grail.
    • Done.
  • "After beginning a relationship in 1994, Azaria married actress Helen Hunt…" To make this less confusing after the previous sentence (about an earlier relationship/engagement), I'd say: "In 1994, Azaria began a relationship with…"
    • Done.
  • "Hunt had appeared in Mad About You with Azaria," better to say that he had appeared with him, insofar as she was a star of that show.
    • Done.
  • "In early 2007, Azaria was spotted having dinner with singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow." Murrrrpmmhhpphh.. Feels like something that belongs on Access Hollywood, not Wikipedia. If it's not an actual relationship, maybe it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
    • If I can't find any more sources for it, I'll remove it.
  • "He has won four Emmys out of a total of seven nominations, he has won one Screen Actors Guild Awards, being nominated four times, and has one Tony Award nomination to his name" – I'd reword it as: "He has been nominated for seven Emmys and won four. He has won one Screen Actors Guild Award and nominated three other times, and has been nominated once for a Tony Award."
    • Done.
  • No comma needed after the word "image" in the caption of the Simpsons screenshot.
    • Done.

I hope this is helpful. Again, nice article. Good luck with it, and drop me a line if you have any questions. — Scartol · Talk 21:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done most of the stuff, I disagree with some of your structural propsals, but will consider some form of them. I've gone through each of your points to explain what I have done. Thanks for the review. Gran2 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honoré de Balzac

I have taken the HdB page from start-class through a successful GA review. It has been thoroughly combed over by the inestimable Awadewit, and I'm interested in submitting it to FA candidacy. I've worked really hard on it (to which he can attest), and I've got my eyes on the FA star. Thanks in advance. — Scartol · Talk 01:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Balzac. Haven't read anything of his besides Père Goriot a few years back, but it was the only good novel I read in school that year... I admit my experience with biographies of high quality is somewhat less than my real areas of expertise on the wiki, but I'll try and throw in some good comments at least.
  • References: this is just me, but I can see some FAC reviewers wanting more references. Six references isn't too much. But I can't say too much about their quality.
  • Lead: to me, it seems a bit disjointed. The first paragraph is fine, but the next three seem to sort of "jump". While they do summarize the rest of the article, they appear awkward, like you threw them in after reading over it once. Perhaps merge the last three paragraphs into one, which flows better? It's especially jarring since the rest of the body prose is excellent.
Other than those minor and extremely subjective suggestions, I have nothing more to add. The flow seems fine, and the layout and organization roughly corresponds to other writer FA's, so it doesn't look like anything is missing. If this comes up for FAC sometime, I'll be sure to chime in my hearty support. :) Happy editing, David Fuchs (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly. I agree that the lead is a bit jerky, but I'm at a loss as to how to rewrite it. I think I may be too involved at this point (even after a bit of a break), so if anyone has ideas, please let me know. If the sources provided aren't sufficient, I'm at a loss; it's all the local library had on the man, and I think we can all agree that the information paints a pretty detailed picture.
Thanks again. — Scartol · Talk 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on my most recent re-reading, it seems to flow more smoothly than I remembered it. But of course I'm not an objective judge. Other folks? — Scartol · Talk 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great article. The biography is really top notch, reviewers at FAC are much pickier than I am, and they might have isolated suggestions, but everything you need about his life is there. You could probably break the bibliography into a second article, if you so desire. Right now, it takes up about half the table of contents.
My only suggestion is to have more about his place in French and world literature. What are the hallmarks of Balzac's work that mark it as realism? Why do some argue that it's naturalism? What was his influence on Zola? On Flaubert? Books on French literature, on realism, or on respective authors that he has influenced should have good bits. (This will also help improve the sourcing—unfortunately David Fuchs is right, reviewers at FAC are going to want to see more sources. You can also use Keim and Lumet, and the anthrapoetics journal articles as sources, rather than external links.)
I think this is very close to featured article quality, it might pass as it stands, but I think that more about his place in the western literary canon will be the clincher. And, as a side note, I just learned about the ability to link references like in the Charles Darwin article. I'd be happy to help implement that nifty linking here, if interested. --JayHenry 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some more thoughts on sourcing: when presenting an article with relatively few sources you'll want to have evidence that they're exceptionally good sources. A simple link to a review attesting that they're good, especially comprehensive, etc. should help quell concerns. When you say local library do you mean the 10th largest research library in North America? You probably can't check books out, but I'll bet you can get in and make photocopies. No students will be there on a Saturday morning in September, and in just two or three hours you can probably find a few really good books, skim their introductions for relevant material, take some good notes. Make a copy or two if needed. Some people (me) really enjoy this sort of thing, others not so much. If you think you might enjoy it, it will definitely help push the article across the FA threshold. --JayHenry 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more quick thought -- a little bit more about his place in world literature might also be what's needed to really make that lead pop. --JayHenry 01:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor López

I've listed this article for peer review because I and my co-author (Ksy92003) hope to take this article to WP:GAC in the near future. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start would be with the suggestions made by this automated peer review.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Hfarmer 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cillian Murphy

This article just passed a GA review. As the sole major contributor, I would like to get wider constructive criticism and suggestions to ready the article for an FA nomination. Thank you! --Melty girl 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration on goal for review: I think it's a pretty strong article, and is comprehensively sourced. All comments are certainly welcomed, but reviews concerning its overall quality and tone (as opposed to comments only about small details) would be particularly helpful feedback-wise. Thanks. --Melty girl 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comments

  • Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
 Done--Melty girl 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this in the Manual of Style? If so, I'll do it. Just wondering. --Melty girl 15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Melty girl 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Enuja

  • Wow, this article contains lots and lots of inline citiations -- good job! One thing that some of the facts lack, however, is in-article context. For example, look at the last sentence of "early life," "But at this stage, performing meant dreams of being a rock star." which doesn't have any quotes. As a reader, I don't know who is saying this, and it seems like the writer of the article is editorializing. It's quite possible that this is a quote, but it should be clear to the reader what is being quoted, or the statement needs to be more neutral. The last sentence of the next section, "From music to acting" also lacks context, and in this case it also lacks a source. I think the article needs to be gone over with a fine toothed comb to pick out statements with an editorial tone, and to clearly attribute all opinions. The wealth of citations also break up the flow of the text, but I think most of that could be fixed by linking the words of the text together; by copy editing. I'm also not terribly happy with the lead section. At first I thought it might have too much information, but on a second look I think it's simply that it needs better organization. Maybe the lead isn't the place to put essentially his entire filmography, but if it is, the filmography paragraph needs to be separate from the rock musician paragraph. Enuja 05:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving the article a read and offering feedback, Enuja. Many questions...
  • About your concern re "...dreams of being a rock star." This is a sourced fact. According to Murphy, at this stage in his life, he dreamt of performing as a rock star, not an actor. The citation provided backs up this fact. I don't see it as editorializing, because it's a fact about the subject's life according to the subject, not an opinion (i.e. "he would have been a great rock star!"); it merely relates the fact that that's what he says he wanted to be at the age when he first performed for an audience. Can you elaborate about why this seems like editorializing to you and suggest how it might be changed? I'm confused, because many FA articles I've read make statements of fact like this without constantly using quotations like you seem to be suggesting must be used, and as long as there are citations, it's considered verifiable. In fact, many people seem to complain if there are too many quotes. Do I simply need to keep writing variations of "According to Murphy..." and that's what's missing here? Sorry to be verbose about this, but I'm honestly confused, so any elaboration you can make would be helpful.
  • About the citations. I'm a bit confused here too. You first congratulate me for providing citations, then you say it breaks up the flow of the text. I strove hard to provide a citation for every fact introduced, which I thought was necessary for verifiability. So I'm not sure how to do that without inline citations. What did you mean by "most of that could be fixed by linking the words of the text together; by copy editing"?
  • I followed WP:LEAD and summarized the article, which is a bit long, and that means the lead should be proportional to that. It isn't his whole filmography -- it's only the career highlights. Also, I think it would be strange to make the one and a half sentences about his brief stint as a rock musician into a whole paragraph, and I don't think it deserves more length than that, since he's a professional actor. The lead is in three paragraphs: 1) the 1-2-3-4-5 basics as per WP:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph, 2) his performance career highlights, 3) a bit about his relationship to his industry and to celebrity. How would you suggest either strengthening that scheme or changing it?
Thanks so much for your feedback. --Melty girl 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was unclear. Yes, I do think you need to keep writing variations of "according to murphy" because, without reading the source, I didn't know if Cillian said more recently to a reporter that he was still dreaming about being a rock star at that time, if Cillian wrote at the time that he was still dreaming about being a rock star, if friend reported that the was still dreaming about being a rock star, or if a writer in a chatty, editorial "news" article said he was still dreaming about being a rock star.
What I think breaks up the flow of the text is that the format seems to follow the sources instead of the sources following the text. One format I see too much of is "Sentence with fact. (citation) Sentence with fact. (citation)" Instead, the information needs to be broken down and re-arranged in order to make smoothly flowing text, with sources sprinkled wherever the fact happens to come, instead of usually at the end of a sentence. And one source can even cover more than one sentence. Look at this sentence " In 1996,[12] The Sons of Mr. Greengenes were offered a five-album record deal by Acid Jazz Records.[14]" I assume that any source that says who offered what record deal also says when it was, so sources 12 and 14 should both be at the end of the article. The copy editing that I'm suggesting is to re-write most of the sentence, keeping all of the information and citations, but just moving everything around.
If you think that every movie in the lead needs to be there, and that the middle paragraph shouldn't be split, there needs to be a way to make that paragraph flow better.
Don't feel bad about not understanding me; I was afraid of getting kicked out of a computer lab, and I was working very quickly, and think my writing suffered. Again, sorry about that. Enuja 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about your writing! Thanks so much for getting back to me.
  • Thanks for clarifying about "according to Murphy" and clear attributions. I will need to go through the article carefully like you suggest and address these. (As I am in the process of moving, that may take a few days!) I did, however, fix the two specific problems you pointed out.
  • I try to write for the clearest prose, then put the citations after the text they support. Writing with the goal of citation placement seems counter-intuitive to me. I tried to write well, then I did exactly what you suggested above as a practice: the "sources are sprinkled wherever the fact happens to come." Let me address the example you give: "In 1996,[12] The Sons of Mr. Greengenes were offered a five-album record deal by Acid Jazz Records.[14]" The reason for the placement of these two citations is this (your assumption is wrong): the first source states what year his band was offered a record deal, while the second is the only article ever to specify which label offered them a deal and that it was for five albums -- but it doesn't mention the year! That's why I needed two citations. If I put them both at the end, it might seem like inexplicable double-citing, while choosing one would not fully verify the sentence. But putting the first citation after 1996 signifies that it verifies the year, while the second one supports the remaining clause. I don't see a way to rewrite the sentence and still make this sourcing clear or make the prose better -- and I actually don't find it difficult to read this sentence in the first place. The more citations in an article, the more reliable it is, right? The eye has to learn to read past them no matter where they're placed. Isn't it better for the prose to be the best it can be, then have the citations "sprinkled" in where necessary?
  • I'll have to give the middle paragraph some thought. I'm not sure precisely why you feel it doesn't flow, but I'll mull it over. Thanks! --Melty girl 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that certainly seems like the only way to handle record deal citations, as long as you know the two sources are referring to the same deal. I do disagree with "the more citations in an article, the more reliable it is," however. To me, it's "the more reliable and complete the sources, the more reliable the article." Hopefully I'll go over the article in more detail and edit it a little for flow in the next few days. Enuja 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with the distinction you've made re my comment about sources. That is a much better way of putting it. Looking forward to your edits. --Melty girl 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Mainer

Thanks to AnonEMouse, I got some great tips on getting this article up to B class and getting a free picture. Now I'd like to get it up to Good Article status and I wanted to know what I could/should do to do that. Any help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I think it's a bit too short, that's my biggest GA concern. I'm willing to do whatever work is necessary. I'd also like to review one or two of the other requests here. Do I need to be a member of WPBIO to do that? Cheers, CP 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can review. DrKiernan 07:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson

As a representative of the Harry Potter WikiProject, I feel that this article meets all of our criteria for featured article status. As a featured article needs to meet all the required standards of all appropriate WikiProjects, I would appreciate any comments from the Biography WikiProject as to what, if anything, need be done from your perspective before it braves FAC. Happy-melon 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Melty girl

This review was discussed, expanded and responded to at Wikipedia:Peer review/Emma Watson. (Melty girl 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think the article is comprehensive and well-sourced. For me, the main issue to address is the confusing organization of the sections of the article. Their order and hierarchy seems confused, and the section names are often misleading. But these things are easily fixed. First, about the broader outline of the article:

  • The first section is called "Biography," yet the following three sections all seem to be biographical; for example, what is "Personal life," if not part of a person's biography? I would indent the second, third and fourth sections under the "Biography" section heading -- this would make them become subsections instead of topline sections.
  • I would put Filmography before Awards. I think it's better to read about the parts played before reading which of these roles won awards.

Onto organization within the sections:

  • The last three paragraphs in the "Harry Potter..." subsection would probably be better separated into their own subsection, called something like "Celebrity and wealth," because they are about Watson's celebrity, not her involvement in making Harry Potter films.
  • I would lose the "Interests" subtitle under "Personal life". It's superflous, since "Personal life" is good enough, and the second paragraph in that section doesn't describe "Interests" anyway, leaving only one short paragraph.
  • Similarly to "Interests", the "Watson on Hermione Granger" doesn't accurately describe what's in that section. There's info on Watson herself, as well as Watson on Rowling. I would lose this section title and simply work this text into the "Harry Potter" section -- except for the feminist comment, which I would move to "Personal life," since it's really a comment about Watson herself.
  • Minor edit: I would remove the periods that follow the dates in the Filmography box. Those dates are not sentences.

I think that once you rearrange the article some, you'll also find yourself tightening up some of the language and the flow. You've got a great start; I think you just need to be a little more strict about the organization of the article. Cheers, Melty girl 03:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lombardo

Previous review

This article is on a metal drummer, would appreciate any feedback to get it read for FA. M3tal H3ad 13:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Linking recommends against linking words in headings. DrKiernan 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn

  • Second paragraph of 'Early years'- is that meant to say 'disc jokey'? Presumably it is meant to say 'disc jockey'?
Typo has been corrected. LuciferMorgan 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of Hendrix songs played should have speech marks- MoS says it should be formatted- "Song", Album and Artist.
The list of three Hendrix songs now have speech marks. LuciferMorgan 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's a direct quote, but we'll see who makes it to the top, lets place a bet is missing an apostrophe in 'let's'. Is this deliberate?
  • Do we know his child's name?
  • First line of second paragraph of 'Grip Inc.', album name Nemesis is not in italics.
The album name is now in italics. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second line, Solidify is also not in italics.
The album name is now in italics. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, I will take another look later. J Milburn 19:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know both his kids names but don't know which one was first. I'll look into it. M3tal H3ad 13:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some more points- J Milburn 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 24 is a little lacking in detail. Is that a book? Or just something he said at the festival? Can we even reference that?
It's something he said at the modern drummer festival. The video is on Youtube and since it would breach copyright i don't know how to add more detail.
Breach of what copyright? If the video was taken by the uploader, then we can cite it as a source (as long as we are certain it is genuine, I think it is reasonable to believe it is) if it was ripped from a documentary, live stream or DVD or something, we can cite that. Alternatively, have you taken a look on the Internet archives for the relevant concert? J Milburn 12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It got deleted of Youtube, but i found the source - http://www.drummerworld.com/Videos/DaveLombardo.html a documentary, thanks for the help. M3tal H3ad 13:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to slip between calling the drum set TAMA and Tama- I'm no drummer, so I am not sure how correct that is.
  • The last paragraph of 'Return to Slayer', the second set of quotation marks are not closed.
  • The line "Apocalyptica Lombardo enjoyed playing a duo – and asked if Lombardo would like to record a song for their next album." doesn't seem to make much sense, and that paragraph repeats 'Lombardo' a lot, too.
Thanks again for the comments. M3tal H3ad 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CloudNine

  • The first paragraph is, in my opinion, slightly confusing and doesn't flow well. It should state why Lombardo is notable; I recommend moving the contents of the second para up to the first, and perhaps removing the show-and-tell sentence. Your call though.
  • I thought Origin was meant for bands only? Noting his origin and birthplace is a little ambiguious. Also, the flags aren't really required.
  • General question: is his birth name just Dave?
  • "moved to California"; should this be Downey, California?
  • Grade school is a little inspecific (I note that the grade in which he brought in his drums in mentioned above though). You may want to replace it with an age or something; grades are usually country-specific.
  • "100,000 years" -> "100,000 Years". "Talk of the town" is quite colliqual as well. "Word of Lombardo's ability spread" sounds a little more formal.
  • "This inspired his musical interest in drums, which resulted in him joining the school band playing the marching drum, although he thought the marching drum was "not for him"." Seems like a run-on sentence to me. "Musical" in this context seems redundant.
  • ... by listening to the record repeatedly and word of Lombardo's ability spread for being able to perform the drum solo. Due to his new found popularity, he was asked if he could play the song "Moby Dick" by Led Zeppelin." To me, this sounds awkward. Could be better phrased as "... by listening to the record repeatedly. Word soon spread of Lombardo's ability to perform the song's drum solo, and he was asked to perform Led Zeppelin's "Moby Dick". (Also, who asked him? School friend perhaps?)
  • "Due to him arriving home at 4:00AM, his parents threatened to put him in a military school." This is unclear; was it every night, or just the once? CloudNine 13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add more comments soon. CloudNine 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I just noticed the origin in the infobox as you mentioned it - so i removed it. M3tal H3ad 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VisitorTalk

The research and references are fine, but the writing style needs significant editing to bring it up to encyclopedic standard.

The article often bumps together parts A and C without mention of part B of the story.

"With the drumkit, Lombardo purchased his first record..." implies that he got a really bad deal trading in the kit at a pawn shop for one LP! This sentence should be rewritten. Did his father include the record along with the kit?

Moby Dick reference jumps from "was not familiar with the material" to "after doing so" (playing the song with mastery, I assume you meant). Need a transitional sentence.

"...parents threatened to put him in a military school." Did they withdraw the threat? Did he have to give up late night events until leaving home?

"As Slayer's line-up was complete..." Did the band already have everyone but a drummer? The article jumps from King's own guitar collection, presumably at his home, to a full band taking the show on the road.

Hoglan appears and promptly disappears from the article. Is he really relevant?

Lombardo's wife appears without a mention of when they were married.

"Grip" section jumps from appropriate past tense into present tense discussion of events in the past.

He had to miss the 2005 Fantomas tour. Did he ever tour with them?

Should change to "Ten years after departing from Slayer..." and include the name of the manager.

The Christy quote should either cite the exact words for "blown away," or the summary should be rewritten to a less cliche term. Finnish should be capitalized.

VisitorTalk http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Dave_Lombardo&action=edit&section=4 Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Dave Lombardo (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I agree with you on the poorly written part in some places and alot of sentences start with Lombardo did...He then.. I'll see how i can fix this up and the other things that still remain. Appreciate the comments. M3tal H3ad 11:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're very responsive to constructive criticism, and I see a lot of improvements in the article. Good job! One more minor point: when describing a purchase made in Los Angeles, you don't need to include "USD" - just "$1,100" is enough. Are you working on other articles? VisitorTalk 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Lombardo *insert verb here* has been a problem from the start and I'm slowly cutting them down. I recently re-wrote two articles, Silent Civilian and The Blackening (still needs a recording section and do-away with the "history") M3tal H3ad 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the "Recording" section - I'll try speeding things up a little. LuciferMorgan 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WesleyDodds

I've done a copyedit of the entire article. However, the prose still needs attention and is the weakest component of the article as it stand. I recommend having another editor read and copyedit the page. The article in general seems ok, but I'm not too sure about the exensive use of reviews. Certainly there neds to be critical recognition of Lombardo's work, but since he's only a component of a complete group, single out sentences in reviews that mention him often seems like stretching the point. I'll try and offer more comments soon. WesleyDodds 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the point as regards the review, since it gives readers a perspective of Lombardo's work as a whole. I do agree the prose needs work though, but I can't think of anyone else who will copyedit the article further. LuciferMorgan 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought: could the reviews be better utilized in the "musical characteristics" section? As part of the biography they seem somewhat out-of-place. WesleyDodds 09:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure. In the biography section, it's meant to show the critical reception he has had over the years. LuciferMorgan 11:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Tigerstedt

Would be grateful for any comments or input on style, scope and content of the article. -- Grimne 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 14 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

  • Your article has no citations. References are not enough. Try to have at least one inline citation in each paragraph.
  • Any picture of him?
  • Only his name should be bolded in the lead.
  • Do not wikilink single years; only full dates. Check WP:MoS.
  • "She had been studying the violin in Switzerland and had met Tigersted through her brother Albert Nybom was also studying in Köthen and who was a class mate of Tigerstedt." Prose issues.
  • "Tigerstedt returned to Germany in 1913, founding a company with the Swedish merchant Axel Wahlstedt and the Swedish engineer Hugo Swartling. This was the first in a series of unsuccessful business ventures. Although Tigerstedt is able to complete his work with the sound-on-film technology, their laboratory is confiscated due to unpaid rent. It is later returned to them, but it is finally destroyed by a fire." You change tenses here and afterwards. Inconsistent.
  • "Unfortunately, his achievements ..." "Unfortunately for whom? POV.
  • "His German colleagues however, told him that the vacuum tubes could not be developed further and that there could be no solution to the problem with the weakness of amplification. Tigerstedt however, continued". Repetitive prose.
  • Cite your references properly, utilizing Template:cite book.--Yannismarou 11:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Thea Gilmore

I am requesting this article be rated as "Start" as opposed to "Stub". It seems substantially similar, for instance, to the A. J. Croce page, which is cited as a canonical example of "Start" class bio pages. That's all. Jkraybill 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gomez

Hoping to improve this article to Good Article status but I have kind of hit the wall with it. ANy help appricated.--Vintagekits 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Scartol

This article has a lot of good information and referenced data. Its main problems seem to be organization and grammar (spelling and usage). I'd recommend some thematic reorganization (see notes below) and an afternoon with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, going through and fixing the little bits.

Note: This is my first peer review. I apologize in advance if I lead you astray in any areas. Also, I just noticed that someone did a review of sorts on the article's talk page. I don't think I'm duplicating anything written there, but I apologize if this is the case.

  1. A picture in the top-right. I'm sure it's hard to find a free image, and WP:F doesn't seem to offer us much help. But an image would really help the page look better.
  2. "Michael Gomez known as "the Predator" (born…" Put a comma after Gomez, and another after the close-parentheses.
  3. "He now usually fights at lightweight however earlier in his career has also fought in the featherweight and super featherweight divisions." First off, avoid time-specific terms like "now". If he changes his weight class, the article will have to be modified. See if you can phrase it in a better way. Also, word it: "fights in the lightweight class; however, earlier…"
  4. "Gomez, who is compared to Johnny Tapia who also lived a turbulant life, is often…" Try: "Gomez, often compared to Johnny Tapia – who also lived a turbulent life, is often…"
  5. "…controversial and explosive fights with all of his last 15 fights have ended within the distance." Unclear. Say "…controversial and explosive fights. Each of his last 15 fights have [explain what "the distance" is]."
  6. The word turbulent is spelled in a variety of incorrect ways throughout the page.
  7. Explain why he was forced to change his name.
  8. Try to group your information in each paragraph along logical lines; if the first ¶ is about his family (as suggested by the first sentence), then the basic info about his family should be in that ¶, not the second.
  9. Firstly is frequently less useful than first (as in Background ¶ 2).
  10. If two items are in the same sentence ("After they moved to England, the eyesight of Gomez's father…") they really ought to have something to do with each other or at least be related in scope or concept. That sentence is very puzzling, despite the fact it conveys the information itself plainly enough. (As it's worded now, it seems to suggest that the two things have something to do with each other.)
  11. The bit about him being a truant and living in children's homes (add the s) should be sourced.
  12. "Gomez began training…" is a big run-on sentence. Break it up into two sentences.
  13. The info about his fighting style interrupts the flow of that first section. Maybe you could group Some of the paragraphs there into an "Early career" section. When discussing his style, it's best to explain what other people have said about it, rather than putting forth generalizations (even if they seem obvious to you – or indeed to every spectator in the world).
  14. In general, a number of the paragraphs and sentences are inserted seemingly at random. For example, the Background section has a ¶ about his style, and then immediately goes into an overview of his career itself. The next ¶ is about a murder charge. A biography page ought to move chronologically – start with info on his family (Background), then move to 'Early career'. (You could incorporate the "Debut as a professional" info into such a section.) Some of this is done already; the "Title fights" section is especially well-organized. But it seems to me that something as significant as a trial for murder deserves its own section.
  15. Is Alison the mother of his three children? If not, who is/are? What's Alison's last name? More info on how they met would be good.

Rather than go through and pinpoint every item which catches my eye, I'll end my review here. Good luck with the article and let me know if you have any questions. — Scartol · Talk 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Farr

Two of my fellow editors suggested nominating this article for peer review (it currently is rated 'B' class), and I would mostly like help in properly formatting and endnoting the references section, have an impartial observer locate any parts in need of citation or expansion, and point out any deficiencies that would keep it from being upgraded to a better class. Thanks! JMax555 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] Thanks, DrKiernan 10:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is almost perfect. I made some minor cosmetic changes, such as adding {{cite book}} for bibliography and references. It would be nice if we can get origyear for some of the books in the bibliography section. utcursch | talk 11:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your edits and comments! I seem to be having a problem with the actor's infobox: it's mysteriously "added" a field called "Resting place" to the box, but no such field is in the template. Since Farr was cremated and her ashes scattered, there is no "resting place" and I'd just like to make the blank field go away. How do I do this? JMax555 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

What a pleasure to read this article - I learned so much! I love all of the beautiful images, too. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

Lead:

  • The lead needs to be expanded so that is a standalone summary of the article. Ideally it should reference each part of the article (see WP:LEAD and WP:BETTER#Lead section for hints on writing leads.)
  • You might mention who all of the famous artists are you list in the lead, such as "author Oscar Wilde, poet Ezra Pound..." - not everyone knows who these people are, sadly. The same goes for all such famous people you mention (e.g. Florence Nightingale).
  • It seems a bit odd to list "divorcee" in the first sentence - from the article, I didn't gather that that piece of information was that important - is it worth listing in the first sentence?

Content:

  • But it was a disastrous marriage, and she chafed under the restrictions expected of a Victorian wife - Can you expand on this at all?
  • An early feminist, Farr was known for advocating equality for women in politics, employment, wages etc. amongst her intellectual circle of acquaintances. - This is a crucial section of your article - don't sell it short by using an "etc."! Spell out exactly what Farr thought and did. Teach us (me included - I'd never heard of her until I read this article!)
  • Within a year Farr became Shaw's mistress, who wished to mold her into his idealized vision of "The New Woman" and be the star of his plays. - Are there elements of My Fair Lady, just in a different register, here?

Small things:

  • I'm not a big fan of infoboxes, as they tend to intrude on articles and offer no additional information. If you decide to retain it, I would remove everything that is subjective, such as "Occupation".
  • The first time you mention a text in the article, it is a good idea to give its first publication date, so that the reader can place it historically.

Prose (if you go for FA, I would suggest a copy editor - someone who hasn't spent hours staring at the same sentences over and over again - it is very helpful to have a pair or two of fresh eyes):

  • EX: Her family sent her to school at Cheltenham Ladies College in 1873. - It is always good to start paragraphs with the specific noun rather than the pronoun - it is easier for readers to follow. (This happens a few other times in the article.)
  • EX: Farr, May Morris and other friends posed for Sir Edward Burne-Jones' Pre-Raphaelite painting, "The Golden Stairs" when she was 19 years old. - "she" doesn't match the "they" listed earlier in the sentence
  • EX: The painting is exhibited at the Tate Gallery in London. - I would put this in the caption for the image. I would also add a caption to the image of "The Golden Stairs" identifying it as such.
  • EX: In early 1890 Farr moved in with her sister, Henrietta, and brother-in-law, painter and stage designer Henry Marriott Paget, to Bedford Park, a bohemian London enclave of intellectuals, artists and writers. - awkward
  • EX: Shaw was in the audience to review the play, which he called "an hour's transparent Arcadian make-believe",[6] but was greatly impressed with Farr's performance, as well as her "starling beauty, large expressive eyes, crescent eyebrows, and luminous smile." - I don't quite follow the "but" - Shaw's quote sounds like it could be positive.
  • EX: dauntless in publicly championing unpopular causes such as campaigning for the welfare of prostitutes. - perhaps just "causes such as the welfare of prostitutes"? there seem to be extra words here...
  • EX: who's resonate voice was perfect for reciting his poetry - "whose"?
  • EX: Farr was also the first woman in England to perform in Ibsen's plays, in particular the role of "Rebecca West" in the first English production of Rosmersholm, at the Vaudeville Theatre in 1891, which gained her critical acclaim - just the teensiest bit awkward

MOS (if you go for FA, spend a day perusing the WP:MOS and making sure that the article meets every single standard - that way the FAC won't descend into long list of your MOS violations):

  • Sometimes you use single quotes and sometimes double - it is best to be consistent.
  • Might you add a little note at the beginning of the "List of works" telling the reader where you found the list and how complete it is?
  • All of the notes need page numbers so that readers can check your sources. (See WP:CITE and WP:FOOT for how to format footnotes.)
  • "University College of London, biographies collection, Reference code(s): GB 0096 MS 982" - Is this a manuscript? It seems to be missing an author, publisher, etc.

Again, this article was so enjoyable to read. If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 07:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions! It's exactly what I needed (you're already providing one of those "2nd pairs of eyes".) I'm going to implement as many as I can, and even get some "non-wiki" friends to read it and help too -- I know a few librarians... :) Again, thank you. JMax555 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Awadewit | talk 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yunus

He is Nobel Peace Prize winner for 2006. I would like to work to upgrade this article at least to a GA status. Please help me with your suggestions. Arman Aziz 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please standardize the reference format throughout.
Please clear the cite tags by adding a reference.
Please consider adding more wikilinks to the article. Thanks, DrKiernan 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn

  • To expand on one of the above comments, references should be standardised with [statement][punctuation][citation], with no space, even if there are two references. For instance-
The sun is a star.[1] Correct
The sun is a star[2]. Incorrect
The sun is a star. [3] Incorrect
The sun is a star.[4][5] Correct
The sun is a star.[6] [7] Incorrect
  • Section titles should only be capitalised if they are proper nouns. Not certain which are, but, for instances, 'Awards and Recognitions' should definitely be 'Awards and recognitions'.
  • We do not credit the author/owner of images in the image captions.
  • Are there really no public domain images, or images released to the press by the authority in charge of the Nobel prizes? They would be very much preferable to an image with obvious commercial value.
  • Are all the external links really needed? I think you could afford to lose a few.
  • A reference for each award would be rather useful.

Happy to give further advice, contact me on my talk page. J Milburn 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Oldham Kelsey

Looking for peer review to determine if the article is ready to submit for featured status. In particular I am soliciting comments on whether the article meets criteria 1(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details. --Trödel 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] Thanks, DrKiernan 06:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Saul

Request peer review for Andrew Saul. Would like to ensure NPOV, and elevate to GA and eventually A-class status. MrPrada 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Sorry, but I couldn't make myself read all this. So, only a few points:
  • The lead is way too long.
Heh, I will try to work on that. A few other GAs I've submitted were initially turned down for having leads that were too short--so now I tend to do them overkill. I was attempting to follow the guideline that the lead should be an article in and of itself suitable for inclusion on Wiki for Schools CD or Wiki 1.0 MrPrada 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more an article about the TSP and Saul's current campaign. Done
I figured this would be an issue (at least the part about the TSP). However I would like to point out that the TSP section is fundamentally different then the other actual TSP article, except for the section on the TSP funds. The reason that this information isn't on the other article is because it discusses Saul's direct involvement, which I think is more relevant to this article then the one on the plan. As for the "TSP Funds", which I think there smallest case to include, I put it in there because the article goes on to discuss all of these various types of funds and I think it helps the reader differentiate between them. Besides, I've taken it almost directly from the TSP website, because I am by no means a financial expert. MrPrada 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • It even links to Saul's campaign website in a most prominent spot. Is that compatible with our NPOV rules? Done
As far as I know, Yes. It is identical to every other politician infobox I've seen. If its wrong, please let me know so I can take it out of the templates (since I know I've added website links to a number of articles and probably won't be able to go back and remove all of them by hand) MrPrada 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lupo 10:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above review that the current article is a disorganized and overlong mess.

I'm not sure I agree that it is overly long, although I have reread it several times and will attempt to organize it better. It weighs in about the same size as other FA bios.

"millionaire businessman from Katonah, New York" should be removed, and his candidacy should be included in the first paragraph. "Andrew Saul is Chairman... and a Republican candidate for United States Congress."

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with referring to him as a millionaire? I'd have no problem taking it out, I just don't really see a problem with stating the obvious. His money surely has had an influence on his political appointments and congressional ambitions.

All but the first sentence about TSP should be removed from the lead. The paragraph about the TSP's finances and his political views re: the TSP should all be moved to the TSP section.

Removing all of that content would bring it under what WP:Lead calls for. It is a summary of everything that follows in the TSP section, there is no new information to merge. Also, are you differentiating between the FTRIB or the TSP?

Cache: "has served on the board" - is he currently on the board? Done

As far as I know, yes, according to the last SEC filings.

Has he been required to set aside his board memberships for the political campaign, or would he be required to set them aside if elected?

No, at least not for his role as Chairman of the FRTIB according to the referenced Senate testimony. He may have to leave the board if elected, however I don't want to violate WP:OR and look it up. Perhaps I can include some prior precedent from another CEO-congerssman?

Bridge and tunnel "some public outcry" should be defined. Were there demonstrations? Newspaper editorials? Specific concerns about transportation safety, or just a general concern that maintenance should be better funded? How did the MTA respond? Done

The article that is cited details the outcry, it was town hall style meetings. Perhaps I could rephrase somehow? It is so recent that the MTA hasn't had their monthly board meeting yet to respond.

The photo caption is completely unneeded. It should simply read, "Andrew Saul (left) at an MTA station." Done

I was trying to follow the summarization suggestions from the how-to-write-an-FA guide. I can remove it.

The "bungled computer project" and "economic weapon" paragraphs read like campaign speeches praising a candidate, not encyclopedia reports of historical events. "Designed the TSP around index funds as a way to stymie..." is opinion unless you have a valid source indicating that this was officially the intention of Congress. "investment consultant" is duplicated. The nature of the conflict with Congress is not specified in the article. Done

Bungled computer project can easily be rephrased. Not sure how you would rework "economic weapon", that is what the divesting is supposed to accomplish, is it not? Also, it is cited, so I am unsure what other valid source I should provide? It is not the opinion of ALL congressmembers, I will reread it to make sure I am not implying that in the text. The conflict wtih congress was over political manipulation of the TSP-funds. I included a section on authority, and REITs.

ALL the background material about the TSP should be moved to a new article about the TSP. The Andrew Saul article should consist ONLY of material that is specific to Mr. Saul's career, campaign, and personal history. Done

The background material on the TSP (specifically, the first paragraph of the TSP section, and the "Fund section") already exist in the TSP-article. They are inserted here to help the reader better understand the difference between the different types of funds, how they work, and what they are invested in, since nearly all of what follow discusses Saul and the funds.

The references section should only be used for citing references. The long quotes should be used within the body of the article itself.  Done

Perhaps I can move the quotes to a footnotes section? I did not want to make the article any longer then it already is in the main portion of it, so the full quotes were left down at the bottom.MrPrada 21:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VisitorTalk 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Johnson (American football)

How can I improve this article to (or at least nearer to) Featured Article status? It's been a Good Article since March 02, 2007. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, this is petty, but are that many references in the lead necessary? If those stats are mentioned elsewhere then 'd prefer they'd be cited there. There's a debate going on about that though, really thugh it looks good so far, I'll give it a more detailed run over later. Wizardman 17:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick suggestions: The year of his draft should be in the first sentence as it helps establish his notability and/or timeliness of the article. The lead should be further expanded (see WP:LEAD) just a little bit more. The use of "(see below)" is a bit silly - I think readers know that there's more to the article. That sentence seems a bit awkward anyway; I'm not sure his trip necessarily "exemplifies" his humility. Even if it did, that needs sourcing or it's original research to come to that conclusion. The information that it refers to is under the subheading "Academic activities," which doesn't seem to fit (in my opinion). Did he get course credit for this trip, then? Otherwise, it might just be community service. And who gave him these options? And what's a solar latrine? Is it solar-powered, or are these facilities on the sun? (lol) Oh, and that final sentence in that same mini section doesn't need the word "also." The article, in my opinion, has some WP:NPOV problems as it seems to be just non-stop praise. I'm also a huge fan of occasionally repeating the full name of the article's subject, so good work there. But, under the section "NFL draft," the first subsection starts with "Johnson," then the second sentence has "Calvin Johnson." It's more logical to give the full name first, then use just his last name. Also in that subsection, there is a single-sentence paragraph. Actually, a lot of your paragraphs are very short but, personally, as long as they are three sentences, I approve. Towards the end, I'm not familiar with the term "guaranteed money," and other readers might not be either. That's all I have for now. Hope that helps a bit, and good luck! --Midnightdreary 12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Articles archived - 2006, 2007

Template:WikiProject peer review

  1. ^ 1
  2. ^ 1
  3. ^ 1
  4. ^ 1
  5. ^ 2
  6. ^ 1
  7. ^ 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review&oldid=155892161"