Talk:PJ Haarsma

Name?

I'm trying to find out what his name is. I think he prefers PJ Haarsma but I don't think that is acceptable for an article title. Does anyone know what his full name is? Doktor Waterhouse 09:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is years later, but I have updated the article to include his full name. However, he still goes by (and writes under) PJ Haarsma.--Kethra ^(talk) 17:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Softwire

I really think that it deserves another page. What do you think? Michael Houang 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that The Softwire series, now that it has another book coming out next March, should get a separate article for novel series. --Kethra (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of writing a separate article for The Softwire series as a whole. Currently I have it on a subpage of my user page and will do the majority of the work there, until it's ready to move to the main namespace. I'm going to clean up PJ's article here to direct to the series page when it's ready and to simply list the works and awards here as they pertain to him as an author.--Kethra ^(talk) 19:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Update 1 January 18, 14:43 (UTC)

• The Softwire was created in main Article space by Kethra on 9 January 2009 at 03:49 (UTC) [1]. It then underwent its first major copyediting revision which was completed by Toby Ornott on 17 January 2009 at 6:17 (UTC) [2]. Immediately thereafter (that is, the very same day) it received the accolade of a Did you Know selection and was featured five hours later at 11:40 (UTC). Now I think all of that is worthy of mention. Anne Teedham (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

peer review

Generally, a peer reviewer looks for criteria specific to a B-Class classification. So I upgraded your article to START for a few days while you digest the various elements of C-Class and B-Class. (You will find them by clicking here [3] [a project's quality scale]) and here [4] (locate the more details section and click open). In my first read-through...I felt as though you would benefit from slight copyediting before you submit for peer reviews, since every writer could benefit from another's reading talents. A simple approach to this is to place a copyedit request at the top of the page as the editor of John Pitcairn, Jr. has done. Another thought that I had while reading was: Gee, I sure would like to know more about the plot outline surrounding the Universe—sort of like one knows the world of Dune. I will look again in a week. Anne Teedham (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and suggestions, Anne. I'll work on getting the article up to those standards. Thanks for the links. I've also requested a copy editor to take a look at the article. --Kethra ^(talk) 15:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, mate. I took a quick look at the opening paragraphs, and made a few minor copy-edit alterations. Of major concern (as I read along) was your overuse of the interruption of a sentence by the interjection of secondary material, often identified by your use of a phrase such as this: which has continued to the present, or which produced one movie, or though he went by John while growing up in Ontario. I stopped reading after "Biography" because I knew that this interjection of secondary phrasing was going to annoy me if it continued throughout. I'll give myself a day (or two) to mull over the alterations which I made to the first few paragraphs, then I will continue if you wish. Toby Ornott (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would continue. Thank you. Do you wish for me to work on culling out the majority of instances of the secondary phrasing interjections before you take a look again? I confess it has been some years since I've written anything that others can view, so I'm a bit out of practice.--Kethra ^(talk) 16:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A few problems, Kethra. I combined your "double noun" constructions in several places because of necessity to comprehend. For example, the sentence: After he moved to the United States in 1989, Haarsma worked as a fashion and commercial photographer in New York City and Miami.

A reader first reads: After he moved to the United States in 1989, Haarsma worked as a fashion and...

...and what? A reader is confused by this; he wants to know what a fashion is. Fashion-photographer is the answer obviously.

Thus, you may understand why I combined several of your "double noun" constructions throughout: book-series, school-visit, fashion- and commercial-photographer.

Another problem, the sentence: The Softwire was a story that Haarsma thought about since he was a child perhaps may be better understood by eliminating the expression "thought about" into something more explicit, imagined; however, I'd like to see that sentence completely rewritten to convey Haarsma's active imagination from an early age pondering The Softwire. I just do not see all that being expressed in the expression "thought about".

Another sentence: Each year is spent working on one ring.

How? The answer is in slavery, but I'd like to know more about the slavery; for instance, doing what? Just don't tell me, show me.

Or: When the children arrive, they discover that one of them, thirteen-year-old Johnny Turnbull (JT), is the first human "softwire'". This unusual ability allows him to enter any computer with just his mind. I would reconstruct these two sentences into one because a reader does not want to wait until the second sentence to find out what a softwire is: "When the children arrive, they discover that one of them, thirteen-year-old Johnny Turnbull (JT), is the first human softwire, i.e. a person who has the ability to enter a computer with just his mind." But now, you see, I am beginning to rewrite your sentences, rather than copy-edit; and I do not want to do that.

These are just a few examples of (a) a need for careful, sentence construction, and (b) a desire for more graphic imagery in explanations.

On the whole, I would like to see you look at your own writing from these two points of view while I copy-edit minor stuff in the background. It is a good article; very interesting. Oh...and what is a "corporate spot"? An advertising spot? An ad? A corporate spot is a bit obscure.  :) Toby Ornott (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Toby. I will take all your advice into consideration and review my style. The pointers are greatly appreciated!Kethra^{talk} 15:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

[This is just a comment because I noticed the "mention of comment" in the Project banner for the Children's Literature at the top of this page.]

If PJ Haarsma's books are written and intended for children, should the biography language be more elementary than collegiate? This is to say, is the vocabulary above the intended audience? Or is the intent of the biography to be more universal? I do not know one way or the other. I mention this only because PJ Haarsma's most inquisitive readers will be perhaps his fans, not their parents, and it may be appropriate for all editors to ponder what age-group will be reading this biography. Hag2 (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I tend to look at everything here at Wikipedia to be written at a collegiate level. Other authors of young-adult books have similar biographies, J. K. Rowling for instance. My intentions for expanding the article are to make it more universal. As long as everything is presented clearly, even the targeted audience will be able to appreciate and understand the article. Besides, not all of his fans are children/young-adults. --Kethra^{talk} 19:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

B class, Top importance

Kethra, here [5]. Nice work! Anne Teedham (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you, Anne! And thanks to all the great copy editors who have been helping on the article. I didn't expect to be able to jump up from Stub (when I started) to B class so fast. I'll take all of your points into consideration. Thank you for your guidance.--Kethra^{talk} 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I second Anne's opinion. Would it be possible to get a better artist rendering? The existing screenshot is dark and the figures are small. Maybe a closer "cropped" shot? Or more? Toby Ornott (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, I'll work on getting better renders, either of that shot or of various bits of alien art.--Kethra^{talk} 19:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done a wonderful job! But I have a reservation now about the graphics: I wonder if there may be too many???? I worked out a different design and could copy it into a sandbox so you could play with it if you want. It alters your use of Template:Quote box2 into Template:Cquote and Template:Rquote styles (which eliminate the colored background into "colorless" background w/o borders); it removes the Softwire 320px game image completely (I figure you could use that later in The Softwire Series); it repositions the Bibliography and Awards sections lower (where I think they really belong); and it shifts the other images around right and left. Toby Ornott (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the optional design you have come up with, Toby.--Kethra^{talk} 17:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I created a subpage in your userspace. [6] When you are finished, just use the speedy deletion process, and someone will delete it within 15 minutes to 1-day. Toby Ornott (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I took a peek, and agree with Toby that juggling the images around may be benefical. The current version with the blue quote boxes and the two game pics looks slightly less-encyclopedic than the modification. I especially like how the pull quotes appear without the borders and the backgrounds. I have a side-question: Is the "[on Earth]" necessary in Haarsma's quote? I think not. Hag2 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, thank you for the suggestions. I've updated the article as per the layout Toby Ornott proposed, and I do think it looks a lot better. Less cluttered! I really want to elaborate more on the game and the school visits (much like the KNTR section), but I probably won't have time until after the holidays. After those sections have been expanded just a little bit more, I think the article might have a good chance with the GA nomination process. Thanks everyone for all of your help. This has been a wonderful learning process for me!--Kethra^{talk} 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a happy holiday! Today, is the beginning of The Twelve Days. Yes. I like Toby's modification. And I am going to make a slight correction to the Haarsma quote: it is missing the quotation marks, and I think The Softwire should stand out within the quote; so I'm going to adjust that too. If no one likes what I do, then that's ok. Just revert. I am going to drop into the background (on PJ Haarsma) for now, and just watch it for vandalism. Hag2 (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good, mates, glad to be of assistance! I too am taking my leave. My partridge has eaten all the pears in his tree. Toby Ornott (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Article importance

I've changed this article from Top- to High-importance. WP:CHL's category of top-importance articles includes authors like Dr. Seuss, Robert Louis Stevenson, Hans Christian Andersen, and J. K. Rowling, and while I am in no way judging the quality of Haarsma's work, he is clearly not as notable as these authors and does not belong in this category. If other editors disagree with this change, please comment below; I'm open to discussion. (For comparison, here's a link to the high-importance category.) Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. PJ isn't as notable as those other authors at this point in his career. High is still a great setting.--Kethra^{talk} 12:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Kids Need to Read

I've elaborated a bit more on Kid Need to Read, as I think it illustrates the impact that the organization that Haarsma founded has had and is having. More detail can/will be provided in a separate article for the organization.--Kethra^{talk} 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the suggestions in the GA review, I've removed some of the detailed fundraising information about KNTR and added a bit about Haarsma's current position and responsibilities within the organization. I will be including the detailed information (and more) in KNTR's separate article.--Kethra^{talk} 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)