The review department of the Chicago WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope.
This department provides a convenient collection of Chicago content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:
Several other discussion types use transclusion friendly discussion. Below you will also find external discussion for
WikiProject peer reviews
A
Wikipedia Peer Review can be a useful way to improve articles associated with this WikiProject.
You can keep track of new reviews by watching this page; do that by clicking here. If your project has article alerts enabled, reviews will display on that list too.
To list your review below:
[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - June 2024
at the top of the list of requests below (where N is the archive number).When the review is finished:
[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - MONTH - YEAR
from the list of active reviews to the list of old reviews.To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FA. This article has already had a peer review and recently passed GA. I would appreciate suggestions on how to make it more comprehensive and how to improve the prose.
Thanks, Benny the mascot ( talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry this is taking me so long - will review in the next 24 hours. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for being so understanding - this looks pretty good to me, so here are some mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I will try to point out language that needs work here, as well as any other issues that I notice
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Featured article candidates are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate an article for featured article status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured article candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is promoted:
Featured article reviews are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured article removal candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is demoted:
Featured lists are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured list candidacy, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured list candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Name of candidate list}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is promoted:
Featured list removals are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured list removal candidacy, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured list removal candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Name of candidate list}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is demoted:
Non-article featured content candidates are controlled by one of several external processes, depending on the type of content; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate something for featured status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the appropriate official instructions:
To transclude the non-article featured content candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name of candidate picture}}, {{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Name of candidate portal}}, {{Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Name of candidate topic}}, or {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Name of candidate sound}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is promoted:
Good article reassessments are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the good article reassessment candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is demoted:
Articles for deletion discussions are controlled by external processes; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for article for deletion review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the articles for deletion discussions, add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is deleted:
I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond basic coverage either from the clubs, his college, or transfer notes. It appears as though he never actually played a professional match, which might be a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only thing of basic substance I found was this, which is local and behind a paywall. Anwegmann ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Article is technically ineligible for a G5, because it got hit by two different UPE socks editing in violation of their respective blocks, and technically ineligible for PROD due to being deleted by PROD before (and, before that, speedied twice).
Subject themselves does not appear significant- out all all the sources, [2] is an interview(by which I mean it's a scan or a print-out she filled in in blue ballpoint), [3] is a site selling her art, [4] is an interview, [5] is from a gallery displaying her art(she was their 'Artist in Resident' at the time of publication), [6] mentions her once in a list, [7] is a link to two interviews, [8] is an interview, [9] is the same as 2 (and still selling her art), [10] is an interview, [11] is her own site, [12] is a video interview, [13] is an interview, [14] is about her art installation, not her, [15] is about her art show, not her, [16] and [17] are the same interviews earlier, this time individually linked, [18] is about a different artist's exhibit that she painted fireworks for(not sigcov worthy fireworks), [19] actually has a paragraph on her (again, not rising to sigcov), [20] has a whole two paragraphs (best source so far), [21] is an announcement of a talk she will give, [22] mentions her work for about two sentences (but is mostly about other artists- but also the second best source), [23] is about an art exhibit, not her, and the Facebook events link is a link on Facebook for an event she planned. I have looked around for additional sources, and haven't found any that would help the subject meet the WP:GNG. And, given that there were two users blocked for likely UPE and socking looking very hard to find such sources, I don't see myself finding any they've missed.
She doesn't appear to meet WP:NARTIST, because the three pieces about her work don't show that she's widely cited or influential, gotten known for originating a new concept, theory, or technique, that she has a major work (or body of works). Her work also hasn't been incorporated into any significant monuments, significant exhibitions, been in a permanent collection or garnered much critical reception. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 08:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP as there is a lack of independent significant coverage. Let'srun ( talk) 01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Borderline notable magician possibly but complete dearth of any remotely reliably sourced biographical and career info. as far as I can tell. I don't think this link cuts it. Tkaras1 ( talk) 20:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is one proposal, but it is so early in the process that this article is not warranted. Angryapathy ( talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Please make the merge if you have the time, LilianaUwU. Malinaccier ( talk) 14:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E. Could easily be merged into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Biography of a politician, not
properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to
primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this.
Bearcat (
talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The review department of the Chicago WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope.
This department provides a convenient collection of Chicago content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:
Several other discussion types use transclusion friendly discussion. Below you will also find external discussion for
WikiProject peer reviews
A
Wikipedia Peer Review can be a useful way to improve articles associated with this WikiProject.
You can keep track of new reviews by watching this page; do that by clicking here. If your project has article alerts enabled, reviews will display on that list too.
To list your review below:
[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - June 2024
at the top of the list of requests below (where N is the archive number).When the review is finished:
[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - MONTH - YEAR
from the list of active reviews to the list of old reviews.To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FA. This article has already had a peer review and recently passed GA. I would appreciate suggestions on how to make it more comprehensive and how to improve the prose.
Thanks, Benny the mascot ( talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry this is taking me so long - will review in the next 24 hours. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for being so understanding - this looks pretty good to me, so here are some mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I will try to point out language that needs work here, as well as any other issues that I notice
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Featured article candidates are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate an article for featured article status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured article candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is promoted:
Featured article reviews are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured article removal candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is demoted:
Featured lists are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured list candidacy, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured list candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Name of candidate list}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is promoted:
Featured list removals are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured list removal candidacy, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the featured list removal candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Name of candidate list}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is demoted:
Non-article featured content candidates are controlled by one of several external processes, depending on the type of content; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate something for featured status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the appropriate official instructions:
To transclude the non-article featured content candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name of candidate picture}}, {{Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Name of candidate portal}}, {{Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Name of candidate topic}}, or {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Name of candidate sound}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is promoted:
Good article reassessments are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the good article reassessment candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is demoted:
Articles for deletion discussions are controlled by external processes; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for article for deletion review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.
To transclude the articles for deletion discussions, add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of candidate article}}
to the top of the list.
If the article is deleted:
I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond basic coverage either from the clubs, his college, or transfer notes. It appears as though he never actually played a professional match, which might be a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only thing of basic substance I found was this, which is local and behind a paywall. Anwegmann ( talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Article is technically ineligible for a G5, because it got hit by two different UPE socks editing in violation of their respective blocks, and technically ineligible for PROD due to being deleted by PROD before (and, before that, speedied twice).
Subject themselves does not appear significant- out all all the sources, [2] is an interview(by which I mean it's a scan or a print-out she filled in in blue ballpoint), [3] is a site selling her art, [4] is an interview, [5] is from a gallery displaying her art(she was their 'Artist in Resident' at the time of publication), [6] mentions her once in a list, [7] is a link to two interviews, [8] is an interview, [9] is the same as 2 (and still selling her art), [10] is an interview, [11] is her own site, [12] is a video interview, [13] is an interview, [14] is about her art installation, not her, [15] is about her art show, not her, [16] and [17] are the same interviews earlier, this time individually linked, [18] is about a different artist's exhibit that she painted fireworks for(not sigcov worthy fireworks), [19] actually has a paragraph on her (again, not rising to sigcov), [20] has a whole two paragraphs (best source so far), [21] is an announcement of a talk she will give, [22] mentions her work for about two sentences (but is mostly about other artists- but also the second best source), [23] is about an art exhibit, not her, and the Facebook events link is a link on Facebook for an event she planned. I have looked around for additional sources, and haven't found any that would help the subject meet the WP:GNG. And, given that there were two users blocked for likely UPE and socking looking very hard to find such sources, I don't see myself finding any they've missed.
She doesn't appear to meet WP:NARTIST, because the three pieces about her work don't show that she's widely cited or influential, gotten known for originating a new concept, theory, or technique, that she has a major work (or body of works). Her work also hasn't been incorporated into any significant monuments, significant exhibitions, been in a permanent collection or garnered much critical reception. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 08:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP as there is a lack of independent significant coverage. Let'srun ( talk) 01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Borderline notable magician possibly but complete dearth of any remotely reliably sourced biographical and career info. as far as I can tell. I don't think this link cuts it. Tkaras1 ( talk) 20:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is one proposal, but it is so early in the process that this article is not warranted. Angryapathy ( talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was merge to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Please make the merge if you have the time, LilianaUwU. Malinaccier ( talk) 14:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E. Could easily be merged into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Biography of a politician, not
properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to
primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this.
Bearcat (
talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Star
Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)