This
WikiProject Biography page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you may try using the main project discussion page. |
The article is useful to most readers and covers the subject sufficiently to become class GA. One problem is that there are very few secondary sources available. Biographies exist by people who have lived for long close to Meher Baba and references are given. I am asking for a peer review to help locate the elements of the article that can be refined, rephrased, or changed for the upgrading. It is hard for me to locate POV or original research due to lack of experience. Also please note that there have been almost no conflicts. One somewhat disputed section about Peter Townsend can become better integrated, to please both "insiders" and readers in general (and Wikipedia standards). Hoverfish 12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait to hear what the peer reviewer has to say before we 'brutally edit' any part of the article. It is very possible he or she will agree. But let's all calm down until we hear from someone impartial. Such views about Townshend are well expressed and I'm sure the reviewer will take them under consideration and give some feedback. If necessary we can take this issue up with arbitration, but in the meantime let's remain civil and consider consensus. Chris 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
.
I am trying to get this article upto GA status for now. Can you please provide me suggestions on improving it? -- Ineffable3000 08:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not there yet. It needs some work:
I'll be happy to review an improved version of the current article.-- Yannismarou 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! Vanished user talk 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be hycritical of me to ask for help, but not offer any in return so here are some thoughts on this article...
My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV. Balloonman 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source. In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference. I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." Nat91 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Has has an old peer review to which nobody ever responded. Neverending disputes between editors for which multiple RFCs, one mediation, and multiple request for arbcom verdicts, but with only one arbcom verdict helped only to some extent. Nevertheless, I think that peer review may help to improve at least some of the few uncontroversial aspects of this article. I will announce the peer review clearly on the talk page and will request warring contributors not to attack the reviewers. May be the very closely related article Prema Sai Baba can be included in the peer review too. See also the failed FA nomination in April 2004. Andries 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
1. You could expand a bit more the lead per
WP:LEAD.
2. Something is wrong with note 63.
3. "Sathya Sai Baba in popular culture" is too stubby. Expand it or just get rid of it.
4. Get rid of the "See also" section. Incorporate the only link there somewhere in the main article.
5. Is all this long further reading necessary?
6. Categories at the end of the article are not correctly alphabetized.
7. "Sathya Sai Baba (born Sathya Narayana Raju on November 23, 1926 — or later than 1927[1] — with the family name of "Ratnakaram" [2]) is a controversial[3] South Indian guru often described as a Godman[4][5] and a miracle worker.[6]" Many inline citations in the middle of the sentence. Try to cite at the end of the sentence. Cite in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary.
8. The number of Sathya Sai Baba adherents is estimated between 6 million to 100 million.[8][9][10] Stylistically, it is not nice to have more than 2 citations in a row. There are ways to combine them. Check, for instance, the
Tourette syndrome for ideas.
9. "It was said that instruments played on their own accord in his household when he was born [11]." Said by whom? Be more specific with such disputed assessments. And everybody believes that?! Aren't there any critics of this assertion.
10. Inline citation go straight after the punctuation markk, not before. Check
WP:MoS.
11. "Since he was born after the Sri Sathyanarayana puja, he was named after the deity." I don't think this is a nice sentence. Think about an overall copy-editing.
12. Is "History and origins" the whole biography section? If yes, it is short, undercited (there are
citation needed and a whole paragraph is uncited) and POV. We learn only what Baba and his biographer say. What about others? We need a more comprehensive presentation of his life and a more comprehensive analysis of the disputed elements of his life.
13. "Though the exact year on which he started his mission full-time is uncertain, it is a fact that in the 1940s he took the fakir's name." If it is a "fact" provide citation.
14. "The last paragraphs of the above section are a bit trivia and mixed. Personal information, something about an accident without coherence with the previous information.
15. What are ashrams and mandirs. Provide some information. The links are not enough.
16. Three paragraphs in "Ashrams and mandirs" are uncited.
17. "Daily, he is observed to allegedly manifest vibuthi (holy ash), food and small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches." Citation needed.
18. Are Baranowski's claims undisputed?
19. In general, since there is a main article for "Beliefs and practices", this section could be a bit more concise. Too many details, especially in "Miracles"!
20. The presentation with bullets of the primary teachings is a bit listy for me. Personally, I'd prefer prose.
21. "Organizations" is undercited and with some red links. Why don't you create stubs for these links, if they are important?
22. "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" is tagged for POV. I don't want to express an opinion for the disputed issues, but before an article goes for GAC or FAC such issues should br resolved.
23. "The Indian President Abdul Kalam and the former Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, as well as other Indian dignitaries, visit the ashram and pay their respects to Sathya Sai Baba." This paragraph is uncited and not well-incorporated in the prose of its section.
24. In general, the article has to be moe coherent; possibly the creation of sub-articles would help you to construct a better structure.--
Yannismarou
12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yannismarou, Andries is the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website attacking Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. He is wholly inflexible with other editors and thinks the article should read and look as he sees it. Kasturi was the official biographer for Sathya Sai Baba and Kasturi is often cited in reliable and reputable books that discuss SSB and his life. Although Andries is willing to selectively cite Kasturi, he refuses to allow other information from Kasturi in relation to Baba's biography. There are no non-devotee biographies on Sathya Sai Baba. So where are we supposed to get the information from? SSS108 talk- email 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"Poorly researched" is your POV. The fact remains that Kasturi has been cited by numerous reliable and reputable sources. I don't know how many times I am going to have to repeat myself to your redundant comments that is it okay to cite Kasturi in the Beliefs and Practices section when Kasturi's hagiography is not about beliefs and practices in the Sai Baba Movement. I have told you this numerous times before. Furthermore, on the main page, you selectively cite Kasturi's "poorly researched" hagiography when it suits your Anti-Sai agenda. You selectively choose what you want from Kasturi's books and then go around objecting and throwing your weight around saying Kasturi can't be cited on the main page because he has written a "poorly researched" hagiography, etc.
Regarding my webmaster comments, it is an indisputed fact that you were listed for years as the webmaster for the exbaba site. You changed your title only when it became an issue on Wikipedia. I even provided an evidence page regarding this issue for ArbCom. If you are saying the webmaster information is wrong, then one is left to wonder why you would put such blatant disinformation on your website to begin with? SSS108 talk- email 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not see the reason to omit material from a published biography, even if some editors consider it to be a hagiography. That is what attribution is for. There is no harm is saying "according to a biography written by XYZ, this and that happened". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, it is not just my opinion that Kasturi's biography is a hagiography. This opinion was also voiced by the journalist Mick Brown in the Telegraph. And if you read Kasturi's books then you will see yourself that it fits the literal definition of a hagiograpy. I do not understand why Kasturi's hagiography meets the very high standards for BLPs. Andries 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You are the one making the argument against Kasturi and then cite him according to your whims. The fact of the matter is that Kasturi is a reliable source and has been cited by numerous references in relation to Sathya Sai Baba. Therefore, citing him in relation to Sathya Sai Baba's early life would be entirely justified. SSS108 talk- email
I think this is a good article that needs a little work. I hope that this will eventually be FA caliber. I think the article is well written but maybe could be organized better, a longer lead and some sections expanded. What do others think? Jasper23 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm! One of the most intriguing political personalities around the globe! Definitely, an article about McCain in a challenge, especially for its editors but also for a reviewer (especially if the last one has watched carefully the political career of the senator as I have been doing during the last years!). These are my remarks:
A bit late, but if you're still interested, style concerns, mostly:
This may be controversial, but hopefully won't be boring!
A few months ago, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team came to WP:P* and asked what our key articles were. We listed a few, and this was one of the most important ones, being about probably the most famous currently active porn star in the world.
She is unique in that she has actually gotten a lot of coverage from impressive sources: New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Rolling Stone. Also she has written a best selling autobiography. So unlike the other, poorly sourced porn star articles that so many see as a blight on the Wikipedia, this article actually has a chance of getting somewhere. (I think I've cited it ... just a bit. :-) )
Eventually I'm aiming high, hopefully eventually Wikipedia:Featured articles - but not quite yet, especially as this would be my first WP:FAC. Can we start with a review? Even if it doesn't get to so such lofty heights, at least we can make it of a standard for other porn star articles to aim for, and maybe indirectly help clean up an area that needs a bit of that.
Thank you very much. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 48 foot, use 48 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 48 foot.
[1]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll get more feedback if I ask specific questions? The lead image on the article is all right, but it was taken at the same time as the one of Jameson and Jay Grdina, lower. This is obvious from her costume and background. Due to the efforts of User:Tabercil and User:Kamui99, and the kind donations of semi-professional photographers, we have other high resolution completely free (Creative Commons 2.5) images of Jenna Jameson, on commons. Would one of them be better, to avoid the repetition? Specifically, I'm thinking of this headshot (left), which had appeared on the article earlier, or this rather more dramatic three-quarters figure (right). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(breakdown into points by AnonEMouse, also moved picture comment up to that section.)
The article starts well and is well-cited
Good work on the article - it's looking much better. It should easily make Good Article and (I think) would have a shot at featured. Minor things that could be changed:
Nicely done! These are my remarks:
Thank you both! I did the quick things, others might take a bit longer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
So far I've only had a chance to look at the "Biography" section, but I've noticed a couple examples awkward writing that could stand to be edited.
In October 1990, while the family was living in a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was gang raped by four boys after a football game. Later she would be raped a second time, by her boyfriend's uncle. She would later provide graphic details in her autobiography. In the book she writes...
Immediately after the second rape, at age 16, Jenna left her home and moved in with her boyfriend, Jack, a tattoo artist, her first serious relationship. He gave her what would become her trademark tattoo, double hearts on her right buttock, which her brother, who would become a tattoo artist himself, later enscribed "HEART BREAKER".
Later in 1991, she chose the name "Jenna Jameson" from scrolling through the phone book for a last name that matched her first name, and finally deciding on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks.
While in high school, she began taking drugs, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines, again accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin.
In 1992 Jack left her, and a friend put her in a wheelchair, and sent her to her father, then living in California, to detox.
She has also avoided interracial intercourse.
Best of luck with the article. Hope that my suggestions will be of some use, even though they are rather nit-picky ones. MLilburne 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank all three of you very much for your excellent comments. I will try to implement them, but it could take a number of days to respond to them all - I do intend to repond to them all, and actually implement the suggestions in almost all, since they are very good, justified comments. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(copied here from User talk:AnonEMouse to keep in one place)
Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this artist bio off and on for a few months and have undoubtedly lost all ability to tell whether I'm being clear. I haven't put it through the GA process yet, but I'm interested in finding out what it will take to bring it all the way to FA.
I'm working on a short article about Gluck (that dashing young artist who inexplicably chose a name that sounds like a chicken noise) so the one remaining redlink will be gone soon. —Cel ithemis 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Great! And what an interesting personality! And that is exactly the succcess of a good article: to reveal the intriguing aspects of a personality. This is one of the cases I believe a reviewer is mainly redundant. Some minor and possibly trivia things:
In general, I think the article has a good chance in FAC. About the prose I'm not the best to comment, but it looked to me fine. And the research is definitely more than fine (25+ references when more FACs have not more than 5-6).-- Yannismarou 08:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Self-nomination - I have been doing a lot of work with this article and hopefully have improved, but am far too immersed in it now to be objective. My aim is to get it to GA status and then beyond. I would really value any comments. Greycap 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Cromwell is a historical figure who always intrigued me, especially for the way he imposed his will on the people and the way he treated the royal tradition of England. But, anyway, this is not our subject here. I don't think you'll have any problems with GA. My remarks have mostly to do with a future attempt for FA status. These are my remarks for this nice article:
I've been away from this article for a few weeks and would like some feedback to help me further improve it. I hope to make it an FAC soon... -- Rmrfstar 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well researched and comprehensive with respect to the Hippocratic Corpus. However, I came away from this article knowing much more about the Hippocratic Corpus than Hippocrates. I would recommend separating them into two different articles. The prose needs some major polishing before it meets FA's 1a criteria. I would suggest trying to find someone more familiar with this topic than me to give it a run through and extensive copy edit. Specific comments:
I've already reviewed this article, which is obviously good. I may sound repetitive, but some of my current remarks are exactly the same with the previous ones I had made:
Hoping this article may qualify for GA or A status. It has already been nominated (very shortly after its creation) by an admin ( User:GeeJo) for inclusion on the 4 November 2006 "Do You Know" section of the Main Page.. so maybe even FA status might be a possibility.. Bezapt 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice start. The article can be GA. These are my remarks:
I would like to see what needs to be done to get at least a B on this article. Please keep in mind that there are no known photo's of this person. I know that it would be helpful to have a photo of her but I can not provide one. T. White 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, you really, really need to clarify the copyright status of the text, because it looks like it was copied wholesale from that "Find a Grave" website. I have listed it on the page for possible copyright problems, and left a note on your talk page. When this has been cleared up, let me know, and I will be happy to come back with other suggestions. MLilburne 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I want to make clear that this is not yet the final form of the article. Regard it as an incomplete effort. But I request this peer-review, in order to receive feedback and proceed with the adequate improvements. My obvious goal is to submit this article in FAC. Please, any suggestion, contribution, idea is welcomed. I want to highlight my major concerns:
Thank you!-- Yannismarou 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I will definitely review this for you this weekend! -- plange 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's my thoughts:
Great job!! -- plange 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised you say this isn't in its final form -- it seems extremely thorough and well-organized. Mostly a matter of copyediting, I think.
Some miscellaneous notes:
Again, though, it looks really good. —Cel ithemis 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I should mention I made a printout to read earlier today, so if you already changed some of the things I mention here, don't mind me. I'll try to do a bit of copyediting based on the notes I scribbled, as well. —Cel ithemis 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
One more I noticed while copyediting:
This seems repetitive: "contemptible and ridiculous" is virtually the same thing as "ridiculous and worthy of scorn." Maybe consolidate the two sentences? Or even just say "also argued". —Cel ithemis 06:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, I should have copyedited BEFORE posting here. Just a few more things:
Thank for all your comments. I tried to address your concerns and I'll keep working on your detailed remarks. If you wish to do any further copy-edit, please feel free to proceed.-- Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know what are the weak points of this article, and how to improve it.-- Panarjedde 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice start! Some remarks:
I am requesting another Biography project peer review of this article and an assessment on whether this is an A-class article. It currently has GA status and has gone through a general peer review. Many improvements have been made since it reached GA. I have placed the old Biography project peer review comments in the archive below. I am not sure if this is the best way to archive old peer reviews. RelHistBuff 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is A-Class and can go even higher. It was already a very nice article when I first reviewed it and it is even better now. I don't have much to propose here. Some minor, mainly technical, remarks:
This is an article on a Spanish viceroy of Peru and later a high official in the governing junta in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars. My sources are mostly Spainish. I don't believe there is much available in English. There are some parts of his career I could not find much information on. I would be interested in suggestions about how to find more information. Of course I would also be interested in additional information if someone can add it. And any other suggestions as well. Thanks. — Rbraunwa 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is in its begining; so, I don't have much to say, until I see a more expanded version. Some guidance and general remarks:
Please note There is a disagreement over the need to have a peer review by the editors of this page. I suggest the editors come to a consensus about the peer review before wikipedians take the time to comment on this page. If suggestions are not wanted, we should turn to others pages where peer reviews have been requested.
Thanks to those that take the time to make meaningful contributions to wikipedia!--
71.232.179.222
20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
To more easily read the evaluator's original peer review, take a look at
at this version of this Mitt Romney peer review page, before comments were interspersed within the original evaluation.
Mitt Romney is a biographical article about the current governor of Massachusetts, who is visible as a likely contender as a Republican candidate for President of the U.S. in 2008. The article has yet to be rated for quality. I speculate that more than a hundred editors have touched this page since it started as a three sentence stub on 10 January 2004. It has had about 1,500 edits. Apparently over the summer of 2006, the article was expanded significantly by several editors, and sources with links were attached to most of the statements and claims in the article. There are about 10 footnotes and 150 embedded links to sources.
Key points and desires, for a review by outsiders:
A scan of the talk page's table of contents may (or may not) be informative:
Talk:Mitt_Romney.
Many thanks --
Yellowdesk
02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I gave a detailed review, because the request was also detailed. In general, it is a quite good an informative article. It needs formatting and content improvements; therefore I rated the article as B-class. As far as POV issues are concerned I give a more detailed analysis further down. In the intro I'll just say that I may not agree with the comment of another commentator that the article "was submitted by the Romney camp", but some slight POV issues exist. The article is not, as a whole, POV, but some phrasing (a phrase concerning the previous governer), the tone in some sections ("CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee" is a hymne for Romsey - in "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" we get the impression that some "vilains" tried to impede Romsey's plans), the over-analysis of Romsey's views and the underanalysis of the legislature's viewes (in "Health" and "Education"), and the lack of critical analysis (pro- and against-Romsey as well) throughout the article raise some partial POV issues.
You make some good suggestions, but others are off base. I think the article is informative and the tone is appropriate. Words like "villian" (which you suggest is in the drunk driving section) are wrong, however I cant find them in this article. Where is this reference? Does it exist? I cant find a place where somebody is called a "villian"? To suggested that this article stoops to name calling is really uncalled for.-- Michael16G 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The polls that Romney was a serious contender in 1994. His serious candidacy to topple an iconic US Senator gave him name recognition. These polls were not inacurate, they represented the mood in September. Elections are held in November.-- Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Citing unamed critics are against wikpedia policy. Take the line out.-- Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The section is for minor issues that dont warrent their own section. Minor rewording might be needed, but it should be left as it.-- Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If something needs a citation, go find it. Stop making work for others. Take some intitiative.-- Michael16G 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Isnt the Almanac of Politics the sources in the first one? I will add a citation for the second one.-- Waverider5 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that the article is n general POV, but there are some possible POV issues that should be resolved. There also some topics needing further analysis:
Its a fine length. Keep in mind this is Mitt Romney's page, not "the 2002 Massachusets Governor's Race Page." Start a separate page if you want to add more details. This page is undoubtably going to expand when Romney runs for president. We cant clutter it with minor details.-- Michael16G 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Somebody just added the "inept" phrase. I removed it. It is clearly POV. The sources do show that she was unpopular. Read the Associated Press article sourced. "her approval ratings had plummeted." Look at the poll. If you have questions about the scandal, read the article. It mentions ethics investigations.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is what you need to know. Romney is a Republican and the legislature is dominiated by Democrats. Democrats and Republicans disagree. The legislature has so many democrats that they can override his vetos as they choose. The sections are appropriate for Romey's page as is. If you want a page that deals with large scale philisophical discussion aboput policy, launch anopther page (as was done in the healthcare section). This page summarizes what Romney proposed, and what became of the proposal.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, lauch a new page. We are all aware that some people favor the death penalty and other dont due to philisopical differnces. We dont need to have that discussion in a short summary about Romney's legislation. This section defines his proposal and mentions that outcome. Lauch a "Death Penalty in Massachusetts page" that would talk about the history of capital punishment in the state and link it to the bottom (for more information) of Romney's death penalty section.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont think so. Read all of the sources. Romney proposed drunk driving legislation. The legislature weakened the law. There was a public outcry over the legislature's action, and the legislature eventually caved and restored most of the provision. It clearly looks like a victory for Romney and the view of the public. That dosent mean that it is POV.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This section adequatly chronicles Romney's changing abortion stances. It even menions why it changed. It is sucessful in conveying his attitue towards the subject. Criticisms of his view when he runs for president will go in the Presidential campaign section.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, for more details go to the cape wind page on wikipedia. The sources indicated bipartisan positions (Kenndy and Romney both oppose it for instance)-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Its "ROMNEY" not "ROMSEY". Please read and article a identify the topic before suggesting any type of changes. Please know what you are talking about--
Michael16G
17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment To Michael16G: Some of your remarks were really uncalled-for. There's no need to attack the reviewer who took the time to give an excellent review because you disagree on certain points. A peer review consists of suggestions and ideas for further improvement, you should know it's not the reviewer's job to do the work for others. As I said before, these are just suggestions, take them or leave them. You may know more about the subject than the reviewer but that doesn't make the tips less valuable. The readers could go through similar problems. Nat91 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think there are many changes to be made on the page based on the current suggestions. I think that Michael16G makes some valid points (although the editor's tone was a little harsh) about mantaining the current structure of the page. New pages should be created for in depth discussion on issues that go beyond the current page.-- Waverider5 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment To Michael16G: I'm puzzled as to why a peer review was requested if the editors think the article is fine as is? We're impartial/outside editors (and most are non-American, so clearly have no stake in an election. In fact, your reviewer Yannismarou is not American) that volunteer our time to review any article posted to the WikiProject Biography Peer Review page. Attacking them and saying they need to do the work that's suggested is not in the spirit of peer review requests. You asked our opinion and so we gave it. You can take it or leave it, but don't be so harsh on the reviewer. Thanks! -- plange 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment to plange by the editor requesting the review. The history of the request is that another editor submitted a nomination that the article undergo a Featured Article Review, without understanding that FAR was for already featured articles, nor understanding how far the article is from being a Featured Article Candidate. I withdrew the {FAR}} template, and suggested a peer review instead, and since there were no objections, submitted the peer review. As you can see by the comments above, some editors participating in editing the article are hostile to adjusting the tone or balance and content of the article, nor do they understand how much effort will be required to achieve even an A-Class article. - Yellowdesk 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The problem is that Michael16G does not understand how peer-reviews work and what is their purpose. So, I apologize for mispelling one letter of Romney's name and I express my confidence that there are definitely other users who are interested in improving the article. That is why I ask Plange and maybe Nat91 (if he intended to) or any other possible reviewer to launch their own independent reviews. It is unfair because of one extreme reaction editors who are interested in ameliorating the article not to get the right guidance. Thanks!-- Yannismarou 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment to Yannismarou. She, and yes, I intended to; but after seeing the reaction above, I second what Plange said. You bring up a good point though - it is unfair for others interested in improving the article. To be honest, I took a look at the article and I thought your review was excellent. I don't think I have anything to add, but I'll give it a second thought. Nat91 07:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thank you to Nat91 for still considering to comment. I agree that Yannismarou's review was comprehensive and very responsive to the outline of concerns. We have a great deal to consider. I believe the review will have the attention of at least three quarters of the 20-odd people who regularly edit the article. I have started converting the embedded links into footnotes what will show up in the references (a previously known problem); this will cause me to examine all of the sources and compare the article statements to the sources. Some of the specific wording noticed in the review has been attended to. There's a negotiation yet to come, among the article editors about point of view, and analysis of the Romney administration, and this will take some time and effort; as you can see, some editors treat the article as an effort for promoting Mr. Romney, and others, including me, indicate the article fails explain important aspects of Romney's milieu. In any case, I wish to express appreciation and high regard for the fact that the reviewers are willing to spend effort, time and energy reviewing articles that you collectively have no stake in, and especially I appreciate it is a voluntary effort on your part. Thank you. Yellowdesk 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yellowdesk: The conversion of the links to footnotes is a wonderful project. It improves the quality of the page and ensures that the provided sources supply the information referenced. Thank you for the effort. The article looks to be comprehensive and well written, but should still be reviewed for any innacuracies. I do however share Yannismarou's disagreement over your opinion that the page "was submitted by the Romney camp." It does have some minor issues, but does not read like a campaign document as you suggest. I absolutely agree that the Romney page should not be used to promote his campaign, but it does not do this in its current conditon. Lets continue this review and focus on the things that need to be addressed. Thanks!-- MN57798 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Reply to MN57798: Yannismarou was referring not to a statement made by me, (on the "Romney Camp" quote), but to an annonymous review located here: Talk:Mitt_Romney/Comments, where Yannismarou gave a one sentence summary during the peer review. I think that the article is on the whole comprehensive, but in sections merely descriptive of proposals by Romney without context. Yellowdesk 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has been rated Start class. I have added a lot more to it and would appreciate comments and possible re-rating. Dave 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I upgraded to B. I'm reluctant to rate it GA without having successfully gone through GAC. In general, a nice article. These is my review:
I'm another non-native English speaker, but I don't think Yannismarou is wrong. Those are odd sentences.
Same with the others, you could make 2 or 3 sentences out of 1. It'd be more clear and less tiring for the reader. Nat91 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I accept the comments regarding the sentences mentioned above - they did sound a little confusing and I was formulating ways to improve them, but for me the latest edit done by Jreferee doesn't improve the article at all. My personal preference is to keep the tone of an article slightly formal and authoritative, but in my opinion it now has a bit of a "movie script" feel. Also, what is the point of linking to all those dead ends? All those red links look terrible. Sorry, that's just my opinion. Dave 21:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I echo the above reviewers and would only have this to add, that you need to pick one spelling style. I saw a mixture of US and UK spelling and wasn't sure which to switch to, since he was born in the UK, but became a US citizen. You guys, as editors, can decide which makes most sense and correct the spelling to whicever you pick. As for the edits by jreferee, you do not have to keep them... -- plange 22:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be a conflict of interest if you are related to him (both of your last names are Coggins). But I didn't see any NPOV violations so it doesn't look bad right now. T REX speak 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
OK - I have attempted to address as many of the above comments as possible. I have
I haven't been able to find any useful critiques of Coggins's work yet, still looking.
Re US/UK spelling - I am not quite sure what is referred to here. I am Australian, so I am always confused which way to go, but as a rule I tend to the UK spelling. However, I am open to any corrections if necessary to US spelling, as Jack Coggins was American, and that was the way he wrote.
This is still a work in progress (does it ever end?) and I would appreciate further suggestions for improvements, and perhaps consideration for upgrading to the next class.
Dave 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the time to expand the requested research. My goal is get the page to at least a B rating or higher.
I'm looking for any suggestions on what else needs to be done. I've expanded the page considerably since it was rated a Start, but am looking for advice on what else needs to be done. See me let go 13:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with the living-person biography as I am with the dead-person biography, but I would start by saying that your sources seem a little sketchy. Are there not more reliable places to obtain this information from? Certainly USA Today would not be the best place to start. Also, the "Personal Life" section seems a little abbreviated; most historical biographies begin with where and when the person was born and then move into their career. Perhaps contemporary biographies are different? Finally, some of the language of the lead is repeated in the article; perhaps you could reword so that it is not identical? Awadewit 12:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice start, but it still needs some work. This is my review:
Is it ok to have two citations in a row? That's what the tourette's page has. See me let go 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The suggested changes have been made, and someone added extended information on Koechner's period at Saturday Night Live. What else needs to be done? It's not still a "Start" article, is it? See me let go 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Project has been significantly updated from its original incarnation. See me let go 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has been significantly improved indeed! But it's still a start article. It needs more information and improvements. Some suggestions:
On a side note, there's a "Frat Pack"? There is no originality anymore! Nat91 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice, in general. This is my review:
First of all, great job in your expansion!! I think you are now ready to go for GA. I did some minor copyedits for you... -- plange 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Parâkramabâhu I Review 1
The first phase of the peer review was completed, see archive above.
Look forward to phase II and your comments about structure, reorganization, lead, prose, etc., as suggested during the first phase by Sandy and Yannis. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Plange and Yannis will be more helpful at how to best organize a bio; I typically go to the bottoms and work my way up, looking at the referencing (I don't like to read an article until I'm certain the references are in order :-)
I'll look more closely at the prose next week - have pending travel. Sandy ( Talk) 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about rating the article A-Level? What is left to be done? -- dreadlady 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
In general a nice article. It is in GA level. I'm not still sure about A-Class. This is my review:
Just got assessed as A-class; would appreciate comments and criticisms. I think the article could use some pruning and editing, but would like to hear some feedback from other Wikipedians. Thanks! Schi 17:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Very detailed article. In my opinion, the article is too long. 126 KB is too much. It has too many stubby sections that could be edited into one, for example, "Early life." I know we're talking about a politician, but the article seems to have too many quotes. You could keep the essential ones and the others could be turned into prose. Nat91 04:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is my third biography and I think I included everything. I've taken the article as far as I can and need your guidance to improve the article and my writing. -- ( Jreferee 23:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)).
Nice start, but it needs more work. This is my review:
Trying to move this article towards FA-class, so all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Adam Cuerden talk 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice material, but you have some work to do here! Some suggestions:
Article deals with an important Indian musician/composer (see article lead). It is in fairly good order structure-wise and in terms of language. The referencing for this article is fairly rigorous (consisting of academic journal articles and book chapters). There is fairly substantial material here, and the narrative is tied together fairly well. Unsure about whether article needs to be longer if it is ever to aspire for FA status. Or if its layout is fine. Or if the lead section needs to be longer/shorter/contain more info that it currently does, etc. Please take a look and comment. Merci! AppleJuggler 06:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice article and well-citated. Some remarks:
Before starting work on rewriting this article it was a stub. I would like this article to be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments, advice, or notes. I would also like to request an assessment of the article, I think no major necessary improvements are possible, because not much info is available. ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Helping out in Yannismarou's "sole domain" :). You've done a great job researching everything! Congrats on fashioning this out of a stub! In general, the structure is good, and references are present. However, whole paragraphs and key sentences still need citations (see WP:CITE). In general, aim for at least one citation per paragraph. The prose needs some work too. Consider better, more descriptive words than "big", "huge", "very", etc. I would rate this B-Class for now. Specific comments: Lead
Biography
Thank you very much for the review Gzkn! I appreciate your patience and time my friend. I fixed every thing and worked on every comment. The article is completely cited. Perhaps you should consider the "References" too, some are full biographies and are reliable. I improved the prose and added better descriptive words. I also improved the lead paragraph. Is it worthy of a better assessment now? Thanks again! :) ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a nice effort, but it needs some more work. This is my review:
I confirm that I have completed the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. This article attained B-status in its quality assesment. I have expanded the lead section as per feedback received and am now submitting for peer review as suggested. Would like to attain GA status. Joe King 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice article. Some comments:
You should nominate it for GA, I think you won't have many problems. Nat91 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nicely done. Some remarks for further improvement:
I don't have anything to add to the above; I did some copyedits... I also think it's ready for GA! -- plange 00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Gunning for FA. Have also submitted to main peer review. Would appreciate some criticism. Dev920 ( Please vote here) 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi from "the sole domain of yannismarou"! By the way, I agree that a broader participation of reviewers would be much more effective here. To the point now. The article is obviously very good, well-referenced and, although I'm not the best judge of this the prose seems good as well. Some remarks:
Is there anything you dispute or would like to suggest, or shall I nominate for FA after I've done this list? Dev920 ( Please vote here) 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I confirm that I have completed the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. This article was granted GA status over a month ago; I have expanded it significantly since then.
Since I have written this article pretty much on my own, I would appreciate any comments from outside observers. In addition, I would appreciate advice on whether it's worth nominating as a FAC. It is certainly on the short side for an FA, but I would like to improve it as much as possible. MLilburne 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have finally nominated this as a FAC. Thank you again for all the help. MLilburne 11:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Great article! I think it is worth nominating as a FAC! But wait a bit in case there is any reviewer with any other suggestions. As far as I am concerned I can't find anything important to suggest! Well-written (I'm not a native English speaker, but I think the prose is "compelling"), well-citated, everything is fine! So, some minor and possibly trivia things:
As for the infoboxes, I think Infobox Biography would be suitable.
I agree with Yannismarou. "Family" is too stubby. I'd merge it with "Early life." "Early life and family" or "Personal life" sound good. Nat91 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I have now added the infobox and tried to improve the "Family"/"Personal Life" section. I intend to gloss some of the NASA terms within the next couple of days. MLilburne 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have spent several weeks working on this article, and I can't think of more ways to improve it. I would like it to receive GA status, but it probably needs help for that. One of the auto-generated suggestions was to expand it, as it wasn't long enough. The only way I can think of doing that is to discuss each book in depth. Could somebody read it and give me some helpful criticism? Thanks Jeffpw 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like it's well on its way to GA status. One minor way to improve the article might be to give it subheadings (such as "early life," "screenplays," "novels," "posthumous reputation" or something along those lines), which would help to structure it and would help the reader find his/her way around a little better. The lead paragraph could also be expanded somewhat, although I don't think that the article as a whole really needs to be longer. MLilburne 14:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw you easily achieved GA status. Congratulations! I suppose your next goal is FAC (or not?). In any case, these are some suggestions for further improvements:
Thank you, Yannismarou, for your great comments! They are a big help, and I am making improvements. And yes, FAC is my next goal, so your help is greatly appreciated.
Once again, thank you for all of the very constructive criticism. This is my first Wiki article, and I need all the help I can get! Jeffpw 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi; I'm sorry that I am posting here while this article is so incomplete but I need some guidance. I wasn't sure exactly how to model this if I wanted GA/FA status. Henry Moore is a similar topic but I don't think I should base this article on that if only because it doesn't seem to have been updated to meet current FA standards. My idea is something like:
Unfortunately all I have gotten myself to do is about half of the bio, and it probably is cruddy. Based on what is already there, what should I:
Thanks Rampart 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I see Henry Moore is a FA. You should model your article according to the information you have, but it's still a very good referent. Some suggestions:
Good luck with the article. Nat91 03:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Henry Moore is not a nice model. This article wouldn't pass today WP:FAC. Some advice:
Obviously, the article in incomlete. I'll give a full review, when I see its final form.-- Yannismarou 19:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Working on the page alone I am not able to fully see potential problems or minor criticisms that an outside point of view possesses and that a peer review can provide. The article has been extensively worked on and is aesthetic to the eyes and ears. There are many citations and there is only a small amount of POV in the article. Again though, I hope that this is the case for being deeply intertwined with the article provides me with an uneven point of view. Thank you and I will try my best to fix any problems that are brought to my attention. - Patman2648 08:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
In general, a nice and informative article. This is my review:
This article has been a GA for some time now. I'd like to take this article to FAC in the near future, so some feedback on what shortcomings remain would be very helpful. jaco♫ plane 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
A nice informative article. It is a GA (I agree with that), but I don't agree with the A-Class rating for the Biography Project. It has some serious layout, stylistic and content flaws. I have also some POV concerns, I'll make clear later. For FAC it need much more work. These are my suggestions:
This passed GA and am hoping to get feedback to see what it needs to FA, thanks! -- plange 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
A very nice article (as usual!). I think it can go through FA proceedure. Some minor remarks which are not definitely right:
In general, the article is informative and well-citated. 4 sources is not magnificent, but also not terrible. So I think it can be a FA.-- Yannismarou 20:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
-- plange 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This article, part of a series on the life of Jan Smuts, has recently been up for FA nomination. It failed (3 for - 2 against). The problem is that there were no clear reasons for failure - neither editor identified common features that they objected to (one thought that the prose wasn't up to scratch and there were too few references, the other had stylistic objections to the lead). The eventual intention is to raise Jan Smuts and its detailed sub-articles to FA status, but before I consider putting this up again, I'd appreciate any input that you could provide. Are there any real problems or is it just that the article didn't raise enough interest with reviewers?
Xdamr talk 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
—Cel ithemis 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've kind of been working on this article a bit. Does this page have enough citations and references, as needed, or does it need more? I attempted to fix the image rationales and licensing, is it OK? Also how would you assess this article? Thank you. Pink moon 1287 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Beautiful girl! She should have won only for this reason! Now, seriously. I assess this article as a start article. It needs more information and further improvements. These are some suggestions:
New article written by myself, could do with much expansion. Suggestions anyone? — Wackymacs 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Electrawn 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article obviously needs expansion, photos and more information. And sources. The last is the most important, but I donot think I can help. Check the internet, Google Book etc. I see you've already nominated FAs, so you obviously know what a good research demands! Good luck!-- Yannismarou 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Expanded significantly the article over the past week. I'm hoping to get this article to FA status, and just wanted to find out the project critique and suggestions. My only concern are the chart information for the singles, which I'm having a hard time finding. I guess thats it, thank you in advance. - Tutmosis 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Very nice indeed! Your osmosis with FAC reviews has obviously significantly helped you! The article is comprehensive and well-written. I also liked the prose. I'm not a native English speaker, but I think the article has a nice article flow. Some minor remarks, which may be subjective and, therefore, not correct by default:
Anyway Thank you very much for your nice comments and good pointers Yannismarou! - Tutmosis 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty good article, and want some tips before re-nomination for Good Article consideration. ~ Gromreaper 10:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
My first attempt at a full rewrite of a biography. Detailed and extensively sourced now, but since no one else has been doing significant edits recently, additional sets of eyeballs on this article would be very helpful and much appreciated. I'd like to get it to GA if possible. —Cel ithemis 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Very nice! I think it will pass GAC. "Literary portraits" seemed a bit listy too me-I think pure prose would be better-and "Novel" is a bit stubby-merge or expand. Some further remarks based on my personal taste-this means they are not necessarily correct:
Good luck with GAC! I believe you'll be fine!-- Yannismarou 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Electrawn 18:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is possibly a minor character, but none the less deserves a good article. I would appreciate any comment on it.-- BlaiseMuhaddib 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Best I can do is to research sources for you to get you from start to B Class. This person is a hard find, but historians seem to always differentiate from Theodoric the Great by Thoedoric, Son of Triarus. Electrawn 09:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is a good article! As a matter of fact, a very good article! Comprehensive, well-citated, with well-captioned photos. Neat and nice! Why don't you nominate it for GA? I think it will pass. And then you'll see if there's any chance for FA. Minor remarks:
I think this is a well-sourced article that provides a NPOV about a colourful member of the Assembly who recently lost one of the most memorable local races in decades. MrPrada 00:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Overall: This is a start class article with a low priority. The inclusion of elected US state political figures does meet Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. Most people editors don't understand NPOV and how language implies POV.
Needs significant work. Hopefully this makes an eye opening and excellent study concerning language use as POV. :) Electrawn 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I see this article is rates as A-Class. This is obviously wrong. These are my remarks:
I recently created this article and would like to see if anything needs to be improved. There is still more information about him but I would like to fix it as is for right now. Hoping to get it to GA status. T REX speak 00:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Overall, the article sits somewhere between start class and B class, leaning toward start but current B class assessment can stay. I may insert a framework and copyedit to help you along. On the priority scale, this person is low priority. Electrawn 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice start, but my first comment is that the article is incomplete. This is my review:
Hello, Tammy Duckworth is running for the Illinois 6th district of congress. This race has now be come heated. I have submited this article for peer review because I feel article is substandard, bias and non-encylopeidic. I feel it needs work to bring it up to the wikipdeia standards for Biography for Living Persons WP:BLP as well as Neutral Point of View. WP:NPOV For this to happen, there needs more editors, to help and improve the standard of this article. Thanks Chitownflyer 08:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure this start class article is ready for a full peer review. A WP:RFC may be a better idea. That said, I'll made my comments brief and general. Electrawn 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Electrawn has pointed out the main problems of the article. I don't think this is a bad article, but it needs work and a more thorough research:
Wanting to get it to GA so welcome any suggestions! -- plange 03:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to you, Plange, I've learned all Virginian politicians of the last century (kidding!)! The article is good and well-placed for GAC. My major concern is its length. it is a bit short. But I suppose FACs are most exhaustingly examined for covering all details. GAs can be short. Minor remarks:
I have made some changes to the article recently, the article doesn't have much traffic and I would like some feedback and a peer review to further improve the article. Thank you. Dual Freq 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Good article overall. Have you thought of nominating it for GA? A few remarks:
Greetings. This Peer Review has been created for the Peter Roskam article.
Currently, The Peter Roskamis running for the Illinois 6th district for congress. This race as proved to be very contentious race with the democratic Nominee, Tammy Duckworth running for the open congressional seat this November 2006.
I have requested this review, due to the edit wars and NPOV disputes, and bias editing that now plagues this article. The Editors would appear to have a political agenda. This article needs to be right, conforming to the standards of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Since it is a hotly contested race, there needs to be a better cross section of Wikieditors and/Administrators reviewing and correcting, this article, so that, it may conform to Wikipedia policy for Biography for Living Persons as will as Neutral Point of View.
Thanks Chitownflyer 14:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
At the time of my reading it, it seemed NPOV to me. I made some minor fixes, but here's some things I'd recommend:
-- plange 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Plange got most of the problems. As far as the POV issues are concerned, I think the article has no major NPOV issues, although I'm not familiar with the American political life. I saw the last debate has to do with a link. This is definitely a versus-Roskam link, but this is not a problem, if pro-Roskan sites or his official site with his own views contradicting the accusations are also mentioned. A few more remarks:
This is a recent GA and I'd like to know what it needs to reach FAC. Since the previous peer review, the article went through a massive rewrite and copy-editing. The GA reviewer said it's pushing FA status. All comments welcome. Thanks! Nat91 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned I have nothing else to propose. From the first moment I believed that GAC was redundant and this article should go straight away to FAC! That is why I rated as A-Class! In terms of content and material, I think the article is there. In terms of prose, I'm not a specialist, but I also think it is Ok. Of course, any additional "polishing" would be welcomed just in case some reviewers in FAC find any detail you've missed.
Something that could cause some problems is the fact that all your photos are fair-used tagged. You may be criticized and asked to delete some of them. But I donot know how this problem could be solved. GO, find him and take a photo! I assume not easy!-- Yannismarou 07:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
All the original Peer review issues have, I think, been dealt with. What now? What needs done for FA? All comments welcome. Vanished user talk 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I suggest serious work on improving the citations, as well networking to find new editors for a fresh look at copyediting, followed by a new peer review before approaching FAC: there is still much work to be done on the article, but an excellent foundation is in place. Sandy 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Right then! The multiple-form cites are fairly easy to fix, as is spinning off the list. I'll do that ASAP. Vanished user talk 18:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Much improved. Most remaining problems have already been mentioned. I'll just point out once again the lack of citations. And I agree that the list of works is very big as it is now. Such lists are not esteemed in WP:FAC. A seperate sub-article with a summary of it here is a nice idea. Some further minor remarks:
While I am not a fan of the person, the article and editors to the article have been able to hold NPOV. Further, the article is well sourced without giving undue weight to minority views. I think it is a great encyclopedia article, and reluctantly nominate it for a peer review and possible "A Class" assessment. Electrawn 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting article! And really NPOV! These is my review:
I've completed another copy-edit of the article. I know some more tweaks are still necessary before going for FA (the article is already GA), but I thought it was high time I had some suggestions and thoughts from peer-reviewers.-- Yannismarou 13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Great article, I just made some minor tweaks. Only things I found were:
-- plange 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Expanded this from a little stub and would love outside viewpoints, especially anyone familiar with this period in US history (Clay, Calhoun and Jackson era). Would like to nominate it for GA soon, so all comments welcome! Also, I have not even tapped his diary yet and am wondering if I should... -- plange 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that GA is not going to be a major problem. Thereby, I'll be a bit more "stringent" and I'll comment on the article based on FA criteria:
As this article is continually shaped, there is an ongoing NPOV war raging on the history and comments page. Need to have a few more unattached persons dropping by and helping to form it into a better, balanced whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodyw1 ( talk • contribs)
"Corrigan's performing career has featured a diverse variety of sexual activity, including semen swallowing rimming and Cobra Video's first-ever double anal penetration" Ouaou!!! What can I say? Only one thing: Ouaou!!! These are my comments:
I'm the one who made the move for more eyes on the BC article. I was accused of being too "pro" Corrigan, and rather than continue to debate the point, felt that the more people involved, the less a chance of whatever non, NPOV bias I have would creep into the article. I've tried to be fair, but, there you go.
Anyway, I don't really think the semen/cum eating/double penetration stuff belongs in the article. It's nothing that other performers haven't done. There's no source I've seen that makes Corrigan "notable" for those practices and it personally smacks of someone saying "Hah-hah, look what he's done!!" The only way I can see that it matters is by mentioning those activities with BC's comments about how much he hated doing those scenes. I've read interviews where he's discussed this. Considering though I'm a bit biased, I've stayed out of this debate.
As for the biographical information about his parents, reasons for his move, etc. I agree that it's all necessary. I've read the biography policies for Wiki and it all seemed appropriate. But my continuing to put the information in, and my reasons for keeping it in, were causing a revert war. We all were cautioned with being banned because of said war. If you'd like to add your view, then please do.
I'd love to improve the article. I'd love to move the stubly bits together. As usual though, that whole "revert war" starts to rear its head. If people like you are there to mediate and makes sure it's done properly and fairly, then my request for help was worth it.
I'll work on redoing the lead paragraph if you and whomever else will keep an eye out to make sure it doesn't just become an endless series of reverts and threats of reverts.
Jodyw1 20:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been improving this article for about six months. I'm sure all the information is correct, but I'm not sure if it can be called a 'good' article yet. I would appreciate some feedback on whether it conforms to the high standard required of biography articles. Thanks, - GilbertoSilvaFan 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw the article failed GA. I'm not sure I agree with that. I liked it. Anyway, these are my suggestions for further improvement:
I have just drastically expanded and illustrated and reorganized this article. I need to be reviewed! Esp: Should I remove the stub indicator? Johnzw 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you can remove the stub indicator. I've rated as a "start article". These are some things you can do:
I am having great difficulty uncovering information about "Moneyworld"; in fact I can find no indication that this publication even existed. Johnzw 02:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Such an important figure deserves a good biography. I would like to improve it, but I need some suggestions. BlaiseMuhaddib 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article has very good material. These are my concerns:
I am working to a complete rewrite of the article. It is visible at User:BlaiseMuhaddib/Sandbox.-- BlaiseMuhaddib 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Boas is one of the founders of modern anthropology and responsible for the place "culture" and "cultural relativism" have in our society today, and is largely responsible for the scientific critique of racism. I put a lot of work into this article, but know that everything can be improved. Boas deserves a superb article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is very informative and it is obvious by a person willing to do a great job. But it needs a lot of work if it s to go for GA or FA:
I've just completed a major revision of this article, drawing upon the 20th century biographies. I'm knowledgeable about the history of Boone's time and place, so I'm certain there are no significant errors of fact or interpretation. Major points of disagreement between historians have been noted in the text or footnotes, especially regarding the issue of history versus folklore, a central concern in Boone historiography. All comments are welcome. • Kevin (complaints?) 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Very well done! I actually don't have any suggestions-- the things I found were very minor and I just changed them myself...I'm going to nominate it for GA as I think it's ready... -- plange 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has good information -almost all the available about this person-. I'd like to know some opinions from the team. Thanks in advance. -- Julián Ortega - drop me a message 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
An option is to further improve your article and go for GA. But it needs work. A few tips:
This sentence didn't make sense: "where she also manages its health segments, previously in charge by Claudia Palacios, who is currently working at CNN en Español." Do you mean "previously headed by Claudia Palacios..." also "currently working" needs to have a year associated with it, as it won't make sense in the year 2020, i.e. "who, as of 2006, works at..." -- plange 02:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel I have exhausted all of my avenues of information for this article (to include Scott Air Force Base resources). Anything else I might pursue to input into the article would inevitably be WP:OR. I'm not experienced whatsoever in writing biographical articles and request peer review to get input from those who have the experience I lack. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Intrigued by other avenues for sources you mention. Primary sources are allowed as long as they meet WP:V -- plange 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I just finshed the rewriting of the article (so, I'm sorry for any typos or other deficiencies). I think the article has the potential to become GA or FA. I would like to have the opinions of the members of the group.-- Yannismarou 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-- plange 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The editors would like comments from the group on areas that need improvments. Note subject can be controversial on his political beliefs.-- Oldwildbill 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice article, but for FA it needs work:
Besides the comments above, I would add that you should try and expand the lead to 3 paragraphs and it should be a summary of the article. For instance, there's currently no mention in the lead of his controversial ideas. -- plange 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The editors would like for the group to make comments on areas that need improvement and any ideals for expansion.-- Oldwildbill 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The prose looks to me fine, but, since I'm not a native English speaker, I'll let such judgements to other users. My remarks have to do with the structural problems the article has:
The only comment I would make is that the Awards section should be removed from the body since it is already in the infobox. -- plange 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I just want an honest opinion on the writing and all on this article because I would like to bring it to the Good Article Status sometime. ( Samir contributed more than me on this article although. -- Deenoe 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is well-written and well-citated. The problem is that it does not constitute a thorough biography, but focuses on two particular incidents: the whistleblowing and the racial discrimination. But I'll treat this article like all the other biographies:
In any case, I believe that the article is not far away from the GA status.-- Yannismarou 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is another biographycal article I would submit for review. Please, let me know how it can be improved.-- BlaiseMuhaddib 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Here are my immediate comments following a quick look.
Good luck with the progress. RelHistBuff 13:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I corrected some grammar, but I was puzzled by this: "because he was of reddish complexion or deceiving him" -- on the deceiving part, it seems incomplete, unless you mean "because he was of reddish complexion or they were teasing him" -- plange 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This article was submitted for peer review ( Wikipedia:Peer review/Basiliscus/archive1), and greatly improved thanks to the collaboration of the reviewers. It has been suggested by them to submit this article for review also here.-- BlaiseMuhaddib 13:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Much much better! As you can see the article is now rated as A-Class by the Wikiproject Biogaphy. I have nothing more to suggest. Let's see what the other reviewers are going to say. I just wanted to laud the good work done.-- Yannismarou 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Good article... Just a few things:
plange 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Article has already generated some controversy. Please see Talk:Melissa Farley and an "NPOV" box has also been placed on the article. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 23:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I donot know if the WikiProject Biography/Peer review is the right place to discuss POV problems. Of course, this is a biased article, but I think that such assessments are not out purpose here. A few more remarks:
Article has been worked over over several months and has been put forward for GA status. It would be good to know what else could be done to make it any better than we have already done, possibly for an FA nom in the future. Dev920 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As you have put this forward for GA status, I would like to make some quick comments from my experience with the GA process in order to expedite getting the article to be passed.
Those are my comments based on this first scan. I hope this helps and good luck on getting GA status. RelHistBuff 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice article. But I'm not sure it'll get the GA status. A few remarks:
Good article! Just found a couple of things:
Hope this helps! plange 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting another Biography project peer review of this article and an assessment on whether this is an A-class article. It currently has GA status and has gone through a general peer review. Many improvements have been made since it reached GA. I have placed the old Biography project peer review comments in the archive below. I am not sure if this is the best way to archive old peer reviews. RelHistBuff 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is A-Class and can go even higher. It was already a very nice article when I first reviewed it and it is even better now. I don't have much to propose here. Some minor, mainly technical, remarks:
This just failed a GA nomination and so I've worked on it some more, but honestly I think I'm too involved now to look on it objectively. Any feedback or criticisms welcome! plange 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... You are a Trigg as well! Interesting! Very nice and well-sourced article. But I think you already know that. I'm not experienced in peer-review suggestions, but I'll try to make a few comments:
I cannot find anything else!-- Yannismarou 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to give some comments concerning the quotes in the quotation templates. I do not know about the rules on their usage, so I am making an assumption to give some opinions. Please excuse me and ignore my comments if there are existing rules!
I hope this helps! RelHistBuff 12:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
How does this bio look, so far? I've not got into the main bulk of Joan's career, and I've only been working from one interview with her (albeit about four hours long), but it's a pretty good start, I hope. I'd like advice on what to do with references, as it is indeed so mono-sourced. -- Zanimum 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not think I can help you much about the references. But I'm sure that in Internet you'll find material and other links to books, interviews etc. Reading the article, it is clear to me that more sources are necessary. This will also improve the prose and the coherence of the article. Some minor remarks, mainly on style:
That's for a start. I hope that I was helpful and that we'll soon have a more consummated image of the article with the information you want to add.-- Yannismarou 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Demosthenes has already been peer-reviewed by fellow-Wikipedians. But I would like to have the opinions and the contributions of the project. I think this article I've rewritten has a good potential.-- Yannismarou 11:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Enjoyed this! I think my only critique is that it seemed to assume the reader already knows that period of history really well. Here's the things that stood out to me:
plange 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
A general Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/archive2 is still under way, but the response was not the adequate. That is why I asked for a special Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Pericles as well as for this peer-review. The article re-written by me is an A-class article and a failed FA and GA nominee. Since these failures huge improvements have been made by me and two fellow users (Druworos and Konstable). I think this article is too close to be FA, but I need your support!-- Yannismarou 08:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Very well done! Just some minor notes:
plange 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Would love to have this article upgraded. Any comments will be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting article! I know next to nothing on this subject, so there were many things that looked like it was just assumed were common knowledge so I marked them as needing citations, especially when opinions were being given, as you want to make sure you cite a secondary source that gives that opinion and not that it's yours.
I noticed too other potential WEASEL and PEACOCK terms, but I'm new at this so perhaps you should have more experienced editor take a look too. plange 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Copying statements from the article talk page: I saw this article has been listed as a GA for a while without a review. This is close to a good article but not quite there yet. Some things you could do:
Just a few ideas. This is certainly an important historical figure and he deserves a good article with the reference material at your disposal. Gimmetrow 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Was a teeny stub which I expanded. Want to see what I need to do to get it to a level for a GA nom plange 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The list of names in the "family" section is confusing. It seems like the list overlaps with the body text. Do you need both? If you're going to keep the list, it needs at least a direct introduction. Maurreen 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Maurreen for peer reviewing and for your edits! I've revised it to hopefully clarify the 2 items you mention above. Let me know if it needs to be re-worded better. Thanks! plange 23:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Important actor GA, need ideas as to how to reach FA. ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Good work! I just made some minor tweaks and changed out a word that you were using alot. In the War section, I'm now curious to know what the change was? Do we know? I know there's no explanation for why the change except for what he said but would be good to know what the change was... more quiet, more reserved, grumpy?
This
WikiProject Biography page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you may try using the main project discussion page. |
The article is useful to most readers and covers the subject sufficiently to become class GA. One problem is that there are very few secondary sources available. Biographies exist by people who have lived for long close to Meher Baba and references are given. I am asking for a peer review to help locate the elements of the article that can be refined, rephrased, or changed for the upgrading. It is hard for me to locate POV or original research due to lack of experience. Also please note that there have been almost no conflicts. One somewhat disputed section about Peter Townsend can become better integrated, to please both "insiders" and readers in general (and Wikipedia standards). Hoverfish 12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait to hear what the peer reviewer has to say before we 'brutally edit' any part of the article. It is very possible he or she will agree. But let's all calm down until we hear from someone impartial. Such views about Townshend are well expressed and I'm sure the reviewer will take them under consideration and give some feedback. If necessary we can take this issue up with arbitration, but in the meantime let's remain civil and consider consensus. Chris 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
.
I am trying to get this article upto GA status for now. Can you please provide me suggestions on improving it? -- Ineffable3000 08:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not there yet. It needs some work:
I'll be happy to review an improved version of the current article.-- Yannismarou 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! Vanished user talk 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be hycritical of me to ask for help, but not offer any in return so here are some thoughts on this article...
My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV. Balloonman 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source. In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference. I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." Nat91 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Has has an old peer review to which nobody ever responded. Neverending disputes between editors for which multiple RFCs, one mediation, and multiple request for arbcom verdicts, but with only one arbcom verdict helped only to some extent. Nevertheless, I think that peer review may help to improve at least some of the few uncontroversial aspects of this article. I will announce the peer review clearly on the talk page and will request warring contributors not to attack the reviewers. May be the very closely related article Prema Sai Baba can be included in the peer review too. See also the failed FA nomination in April 2004. Andries 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
1. You could expand a bit more the lead per
WP:LEAD.
2. Something is wrong with note 63.
3. "Sathya Sai Baba in popular culture" is too stubby. Expand it or just get rid of it.
4. Get rid of the "See also" section. Incorporate the only link there somewhere in the main article.
5. Is all this long further reading necessary?
6. Categories at the end of the article are not correctly alphabetized.
7. "Sathya Sai Baba (born Sathya Narayana Raju on November 23, 1926 — or later than 1927[1] — with the family name of "Ratnakaram" [2]) is a controversial[3] South Indian guru often described as a Godman[4][5] and a miracle worker.[6]" Many inline citations in the middle of the sentence. Try to cite at the end of the sentence. Cite in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary.
8. The number of Sathya Sai Baba adherents is estimated between 6 million to 100 million.[8][9][10] Stylistically, it is not nice to have more than 2 citations in a row. There are ways to combine them. Check, for instance, the
Tourette syndrome for ideas.
9. "It was said that instruments played on their own accord in his household when he was born [11]." Said by whom? Be more specific with such disputed assessments. And everybody believes that?! Aren't there any critics of this assertion.
10. Inline citation go straight after the punctuation markk, not before. Check
WP:MoS.
11. "Since he was born after the Sri Sathyanarayana puja, he was named after the deity." I don't think this is a nice sentence. Think about an overall copy-editing.
12. Is "History and origins" the whole biography section? If yes, it is short, undercited (there are
citation needed and a whole paragraph is uncited) and POV. We learn only what Baba and his biographer say. What about others? We need a more comprehensive presentation of his life and a more comprehensive analysis of the disputed elements of his life.
13. "Though the exact year on which he started his mission full-time is uncertain, it is a fact that in the 1940s he took the fakir's name." If it is a "fact" provide citation.
14. "The last paragraphs of the above section are a bit trivia and mixed. Personal information, something about an accident without coherence with the previous information.
15. What are ashrams and mandirs. Provide some information. The links are not enough.
16. Three paragraphs in "Ashrams and mandirs" are uncited.
17. "Daily, he is observed to allegedly manifest vibuthi (holy ash), food and small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches." Citation needed.
18. Are Baranowski's claims undisputed?
19. In general, since there is a main article for "Beliefs and practices", this section could be a bit more concise. Too many details, especially in "Miracles"!
20. The presentation with bullets of the primary teachings is a bit listy for me. Personally, I'd prefer prose.
21. "Organizations" is undercited and with some red links. Why don't you create stubs for these links, if they are important?
22. "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" is tagged for POV. I don't want to express an opinion for the disputed issues, but before an article goes for GAC or FAC such issues should br resolved.
23. "The Indian President Abdul Kalam and the former Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, as well as other Indian dignitaries, visit the ashram and pay their respects to Sathya Sai Baba." This paragraph is uncited and not well-incorporated in the prose of its section.
24. In general, the article has to be moe coherent; possibly the creation of sub-articles would help you to construct a better structure.--
Yannismarou
12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yannismarou, Andries is the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website attacking Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. He is wholly inflexible with other editors and thinks the article should read and look as he sees it. Kasturi was the official biographer for Sathya Sai Baba and Kasturi is often cited in reliable and reputable books that discuss SSB and his life. Although Andries is willing to selectively cite Kasturi, he refuses to allow other information from Kasturi in relation to Baba's biography. There are no non-devotee biographies on Sathya Sai Baba. So where are we supposed to get the information from? SSS108 talk- email 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"Poorly researched" is your POV. The fact remains that Kasturi has been cited by numerous reliable and reputable sources. I don't know how many times I am going to have to repeat myself to your redundant comments that is it okay to cite Kasturi in the Beliefs and Practices section when Kasturi's hagiography is not about beliefs and practices in the Sai Baba Movement. I have told you this numerous times before. Furthermore, on the main page, you selectively cite Kasturi's "poorly researched" hagiography when it suits your Anti-Sai agenda. You selectively choose what you want from Kasturi's books and then go around objecting and throwing your weight around saying Kasturi can't be cited on the main page because he has written a "poorly researched" hagiography, etc.
Regarding my webmaster comments, it is an indisputed fact that you were listed for years as the webmaster for the exbaba site. You changed your title only when it became an issue on Wikipedia. I even provided an evidence page regarding this issue for ArbCom. If you are saying the webmaster information is wrong, then one is left to wonder why you would put such blatant disinformation on your website to begin with? SSS108 talk- email 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not see the reason to omit material from a published biography, even if some editors consider it to be a hagiography. That is what attribution is for. There is no harm is saying "according to a biography written by XYZ, this and that happened". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, it is not just my opinion that Kasturi's biography is a hagiography. This opinion was also voiced by the journalist Mick Brown in the Telegraph. And if you read Kasturi's books then you will see yourself that it fits the literal definition of a hagiograpy. I do not understand why Kasturi's hagiography meets the very high standards for BLPs. Andries 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You are the one making the argument against Kasturi and then cite him according to your whims. The fact of the matter is that Kasturi is a reliable source and has been cited by numerous references in relation to Sathya Sai Baba. Therefore, citing him in relation to Sathya Sai Baba's early life would be entirely justified. SSS108 talk- email
I think this is a good article that needs a little work. I hope that this will eventually be FA caliber. I think the article is well written but maybe could be organized better, a longer lead and some sections expanded. What do others think? Jasper23 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm! One of the most intriguing political personalities around the globe! Definitely, an article about McCain in a challenge, especially for its editors but also for a reviewer (especially if the last one has watched carefully the political career of the senator as I have been doing during the last years!). These are my remarks:
A bit late, but if you're still interested, style concerns, mostly:
This may be controversial, but hopefully won't be boring!
A few months ago, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team came to WP:P* and asked what our key articles were. We listed a few, and this was one of the most important ones, being about probably the most famous currently active porn star in the world.
She is unique in that she has actually gotten a lot of coverage from impressive sources: New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Rolling Stone. Also she has written a best selling autobiography. So unlike the other, poorly sourced porn star articles that so many see as a blight on the Wikipedia, this article actually has a chance of getting somewhere. (I think I've cited it ... just a bit. :-) )
Eventually I'm aiming high, hopefully eventually Wikipedia:Featured articles - but not quite yet, especially as this would be my first WP:FAC. Can we start with a review? Even if it doesn't get to so such lofty heights, at least we can make it of a standard for other porn star articles to aim for, and maybe indirectly help clean up an area that needs a bit of that.
Thank you very much. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 48 foot, use 48 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 48 foot.
[1]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll get more feedback if I ask specific questions? The lead image on the article is all right, but it was taken at the same time as the one of Jameson and Jay Grdina, lower. This is obvious from her costume and background. Due to the efforts of User:Tabercil and User:Kamui99, and the kind donations of semi-professional photographers, we have other high resolution completely free (Creative Commons 2.5) images of Jenna Jameson, on commons. Would one of them be better, to avoid the repetition? Specifically, I'm thinking of this headshot (left), which had appeared on the article earlier, or this rather more dramatic three-quarters figure (right). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(breakdown into points by AnonEMouse, also moved picture comment up to that section.)
The article starts well and is well-cited
Good work on the article - it's looking much better. It should easily make Good Article and (I think) would have a shot at featured. Minor things that could be changed:
Nicely done! These are my remarks:
Thank you both! I did the quick things, others might take a bit longer. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
So far I've only had a chance to look at the "Biography" section, but I've noticed a couple examples awkward writing that could stand to be edited.
In October 1990, while the family was living in a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was gang raped by four boys after a football game. Later she would be raped a second time, by her boyfriend's uncle. She would later provide graphic details in her autobiography. In the book she writes...
Immediately after the second rape, at age 16, Jenna left her home and moved in with her boyfriend, Jack, a tattoo artist, her first serious relationship. He gave her what would become her trademark tattoo, double hearts on her right buttock, which her brother, who would become a tattoo artist himself, later enscribed "HEART BREAKER".
Later in 1991, she chose the name "Jenna Jameson" from scrolling through the phone book for a last name that matched her first name, and finally deciding on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks.
While in high school, she began taking drugs, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines, again accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin.
In 1992 Jack left her, and a friend put her in a wheelchair, and sent her to her father, then living in California, to detox.
She has also avoided interracial intercourse.
Best of luck with the article. Hope that my suggestions will be of some use, even though they are rather nit-picky ones. MLilburne 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank all three of you very much for your excellent comments. I will try to implement them, but it could take a number of days to respond to them all - I do intend to repond to them all, and actually implement the suggestions in almost all, since they are very good, justified comments. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(copied here from User talk:AnonEMouse to keep in one place)
Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on this artist bio off and on for a few months and have undoubtedly lost all ability to tell whether I'm being clear. I haven't put it through the GA process yet, but I'm interested in finding out what it will take to bring it all the way to FA.
I'm working on a short article about Gluck (that dashing young artist who inexplicably chose a name that sounds like a chicken noise) so the one remaining redlink will be gone soon. —Cel ithemis 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Great! And what an interesting personality! And that is exactly the succcess of a good article: to reveal the intriguing aspects of a personality. This is one of the cases I believe a reviewer is mainly redundant. Some minor and possibly trivia things:
In general, I think the article has a good chance in FAC. About the prose I'm not the best to comment, but it looked to me fine. And the research is definitely more than fine (25+ references when more FACs have not more than 5-6).-- Yannismarou 08:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Self-nomination - I have been doing a lot of work with this article and hopefully have improved, but am far too immersed in it now to be objective. My aim is to get it to GA status and then beyond. I would really value any comments. Greycap 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Cromwell is a historical figure who always intrigued me, especially for the way he imposed his will on the people and the way he treated the royal tradition of England. But, anyway, this is not our subject here. I don't think you'll have any problems with GA. My remarks have mostly to do with a future attempt for FA status. These are my remarks for this nice article:
I've been away from this article for a few weeks and would like some feedback to help me further improve it. I hope to make it an FAC soon... -- Rmrfstar 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well researched and comprehensive with respect to the Hippocratic Corpus. However, I came away from this article knowing much more about the Hippocratic Corpus than Hippocrates. I would recommend separating them into two different articles. The prose needs some major polishing before it meets FA's 1a criteria. I would suggest trying to find someone more familiar with this topic than me to give it a run through and extensive copy edit. Specific comments:
I've already reviewed this article, which is obviously good. I may sound repetitive, but some of my current remarks are exactly the same with the previous ones I had made:
Hoping this article may qualify for GA or A status. It has already been nominated (very shortly after its creation) by an admin ( User:GeeJo) for inclusion on the 4 November 2006 "Do You Know" section of the Main Page.. so maybe even FA status might be a possibility.. Bezapt 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice start. The article can be GA. These are my remarks:
I would like to see what needs to be done to get at least a B on this article. Please keep in mind that there are no known photo's of this person. I know that it would be helpful to have a photo of her but I can not provide one. T. White 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, you really, really need to clarify the copyright status of the text, because it looks like it was copied wholesale from that "Find a Grave" website. I have listed it on the page for possible copyright problems, and left a note on your talk page. When this has been cleared up, let me know, and I will be happy to come back with other suggestions. MLilburne 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I want to make clear that this is not yet the final form of the article. Regard it as an incomplete effort. But I request this peer-review, in order to receive feedback and proceed with the adequate improvements. My obvious goal is to submit this article in FAC. Please, any suggestion, contribution, idea is welcomed. I want to highlight my major concerns:
Thank you!-- Yannismarou 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I will definitely review this for you this weekend! -- plange 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's my thoughts:
Great job!! -- plange 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised you say this isn't in its final form -- it seems extremely thorough and well-organized. Mostly a matter of copyediting, I think.
Some miscellaneous notes:
Again, though, it looks really good. —Cel ithemis 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I should mention I made a printout to read earlier today, so if you already changed some of the things I mention here, don't mind me. I'll try to do a bit of copyediting based on the notes I scribbled, as well. —Cel ithemis 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
One more I noticed while copyediting:
This seems repetitive: "contemptible and ridiculous" is virtually the same thing as "ridiculous and worthy of scorn." Maybe consolidate the two sentences? Or even just say "also argued". —Cel ithemis 06:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, I should have copyedited BEFORE posting here. Just a few more things:
Thank for all your comments. I tried to address your concerns and I'll keep working on your detailed remarks. If you wish to do any further copy-edit, please feel free to proceed.-- Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know what are the weak points of this article, and how to improve it.-- Panarjedde 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice start! Some remarks:
I am requesting another Biography project peer review of this article and an assessment on whether this is an A-class article. It currently has GA status and has gone through a general peer review. Many improvements have been made since it reached GA. I have placed the old Biography project peer review comments in the archive below. I am not sure if this is the best way to archive old peer reviews. RelHistBuff 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is A-Class and can go even higher. It was already a very nice article when I first reviewed it and it is even better now. I don't have much to propose here. Some minor, mainly technical, remarks:
This is an article on a Spanish viceroy of Peru and later a high official in the governing junta in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars. My sources are mostly Spainish. I don't believe there is much available in English. There are some parts of his career I could not find much information on. I would be interested in suggestions about how to find more information. Of course I would also be interested in additional information if someone can add it. And any other suggestions as well. Thanks. — Rbraunwa 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is in its begining; so, I don't have much to say, until I see a more expanded version. Some guidance and general remarks:
Please note There is a disagreement over the need to have a peer review by the editors of this page. I suggest the editors come to a consensus about the peer review before wikipedians take the time to comment on this page. If suggestions are not wanted, we should turn to others pages where peer reviews have been requested.
Thanks to those that take the time to make meaningful contributions to wikipedia!--
71.232.179.222
20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
To more easily read the evaluator's original peer review, take a look at
at this version of this Mitt Romney peer review page, before comments were interspersed within the original evaluation.
Mitt Romney is a biographical article about the current governor of Massachusetts, who is visible as a likely contender as a Republican candidate for President of the U.S. in 2008. The article has yet to be rated for quality. I speculate that more than a hundred editors have touched this page since it started as a three sentence stub on 10 January 2004. It has had about 1,500 edits. Apparently over the summer of 2006, the article was expanded significantly by several editors, and sources with links were attached to most of the statements and claims in the article. There are about 10 footnotes and 150 embedded links to sources.
Key points and desires, for a review by outsiders:
A scan of the talk page's table of contents may (or may not) be informative:
Talk:Mitt_Romney.
Many thanks --
Yellowdesk
02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I gave a detailed review, because the request was also detailed. In general, it is a quite good an informative article. It needs formatting and content improvements; therefore I rated the article as B-class. As far as POV issues are concerned I give a more detailed analysis further down. In the intro I'll just say that I may not agree with the comment of another commentator that the article "was submitted by the Romney camp", but some slight POV issues exist. The article is not, as a whole, POV, but some phrasing (a phrase concerning the previous governer), the tone in some sections ("CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee" is a hymne for Romsey - in "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" we get the impression that some "vilains" tried to impede Romsey's plans), the over-analysis of Romsey's views and the underanalysis of the legislature's viewes (in "Health" and "Education"), and the lack of critical analysis (pro- and against-Romsey as well) throughout the article raise some partial POV issues.
You make some good suggestions, but others are off base. I think the article is informative and the tone is appropriate. Words like "villian" (which you suggest is in the drunk driving section) are wrong, however I cant find them in this article. Where is this reference? Does it exist? I cant find a place where somebody is called a "villian"? To suggested that this article stoops to name calling is really uncalled for.-- Michael16G 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The polls that Romney was a serious contender in 1994. His serious candidacy to topple an iconic US Senator gave him name recognition. These polls were not inacurate, they represented the mood in September. Elections are held in November.-- Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Citing unamed critics are against wikpedia policy. Take the line out.-- Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The section is for minor issues that dont warrent their own section. Minor rewording might be needed, but it should be left as it.-- Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If something needs a citation, go find it. Stop making work for others. Take some intitiative.-- Michael16G 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Isnt the Almanac of Politics the sources in the first one? I will add a citation for the second one.-- Waverider5 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that the article is n general POV, but there are some possible POV issues that should be resolved. There also some topics needing further analysis:
Its a fine length. Keep in mind this is Mitt Romney's page, not "the 2002 Massachusets Governor's Race Page." Start a separate page if you want to add more details. This page is undoubtably going to expand when Romney runs for president. We cant clutter it with minor details.-- Michael16G 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Somebody just added the "inept" phrase. I removed it. It is clearly POV. The sources do show that she was unpopular. Read the Associated Press article sourced. "her approval ratings had plummeted." Look at the poll. If you have questions about the scandal, read the article. It mentions ethics investigations.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is what you need to know. Romney is a Republican and the legislature is dominiated by Democrats. Democrats and Republicans disagree. The legislature has so many democrats that they can override his vetos as they choose. The sections are appropriate for Romey's page as is. If you want a page that deals with large scale philisophical discussion aboput policy, launch anopther page (as was done in the healthcare section). This page summarizes what Romney proposed, and what became of the proposal.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, lauch a new page. We are all aware that some people favor the death penalty and other dont due to philisopical differnces. We dont need to have that discussion in a short summary about Romney's legislation. This section defines his proposal and mentions that outcome. Lauch a "Death Penalty in Massachusetts page" that would talk about the history of capital punishment in the state and link it to the bottom (for more information) of Romney's death penalty section.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont think so. Read all of the sources. Romney proposed drunk driving legislation. The legislature weakened the law. There was a public outcry over the legislature's action, and the legislature eventually caved and restored most of the provision. It clearly looks like a victory for Romney and the view of the public. That dosent mean that it is POV.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This section adequatly chronicles Romney's changing abortion stances. It even menions why it changed. It is sucessful in conveying his attitue towards the subject. Criticisms of his view when he runs for president will go in the Presidential campaign section.-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, for more details go to the cape wind page on wikipedia. The sources indicated bipartisan positions (Kenndy and Romney both oppose it for instance)-- Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Its "ROMNEY" not "ROMSEY". Please read and article a identify the topic before suggesting any type of changes. Please know what you are talking about--
Michael16G
17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment To Michael16G: Some of your remarks were really uncalled-for. There's no need to attack the reviewer who took the time to give an excellent review because you disagree on certain points. A peer review consists of suggestions and ideas for further improvement, you should know it's not the reviewer's job to do the work for others. As I said before, these are just suggestions, take them or leave them. You may know more about the subject than the reviewer but that doesn't make the tips less valuable. The readers could go through similar problems. Nat91 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think there are many changes to be made on the page based on the current suggestions. I think that Michael16G makes some valid points (although the editor's tone was a little harsh) about mantaining the current structure of the page. New pages should be created for in depth discussion on issues that go beyond the current page.-- Waverider5 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment To Michael16G: I'm puzzled as to why a peer review was requested if the editors think the article is fine as is? We're impartial/outside editors (and most are non-American, so clearly have no stake in an election. In fact, your reviewer Yannismarou is not American) that volunteer our time to review any article posted to the WikiProject Biography Peer Review page. Attacking them and saying they need to do the work that's suggested is not in the spirit of peer review requests. You asked our opinion and so we gave it. You can take it or leave it, but don't be so harsh on the reviewer. Thanks! -- plange 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment to plange by the editor requesting the review. The history of the request is that another editor submitted a nomination that the article undergo a Featured Article Review, without understanding that FAR was for already featured articles, nor understanding how far the article is from being a Featured Article Candidate. I withdrew the {FAR}} template, and suggested a peer review instead, and since there were no objections, submitted the peer review. As you can see by the comments above, some editors participating in editing the article are hostile to adjusting the tone or balance and content of the article, nor do they understand how much effort will be required to achieve even an A-Class article. - Yellowdesk 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The problem is that Michael16G does not understand how peer-reviews work and what is their purpose. So, I apologize for mispelling one letter of Romney's name and I express my confidence that there are definitely other users who are interested in improving the article. That is why I ask Plange and maybe Nat91 (if he intended to) or any other possible reviewer to launch their own independent reviews. It is unfair because of one extreme reaction editors who are interested in ameliorating the article not to get the right guidance. Thanks!-- Yannismarou 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment to Yannismarou. She, and yes, I intended to; but after seeing the reaction above, I second what Plange said. You bring up a good point though - it is unfair for others interested in improving the article. To be honest, I took a look at the article and I thought your review was excellent. I don't think I have anything to add, but I'll give it a second thought. Nat91 07:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thank you to Nat91 for still considering to comment. I agree that Yannismarou's review was comprehensive and very responsive to the outline of concerns. We have a great deal to consider. I believe the review will have the attention of at least three quarters of the 20-odd people who regularly edit the article. I have started converting the embedded links into footnotes what will show up in the references (a previously known problem); this will cause me to examine all of the sources and compare the article statements to the sources. Some of the specific wording noticed in the review has been attended to. There's a negotiation yet to come, among the article editors about point of view, and analysis of the Romney administration, and this will take some time and effort; as you can see, some editors treat the article as an effort for promoting Mr. Romney, and others, including me, indicate the article fails explain important aspects of Romney's milieu. In any case, I wish to express appreciation and high regard for the fact that the reviewers are willing to spend effort, time and energy reviewing articles that you collectively have no stake in, and especially I appreciate it is a voluntary effort on your part. Thank you. Yellowdesk 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yellowdesk: The conversion of the links to footnotes is a wonderful project. It improves the quality of the page and ensures that the provided sources supply the information referenced. Thank you for the effort. The article looks to be comprehensive and well written, but should still be reviewed for any innacuracies. I do however share Yannismarou's disagreement over your opinion that the page "was submitted by the Romney camp." It does have some minor issues, but does not read like a campaign document as you suggest. I absolutely agree that the Romney page should not be used to promote his campaign, but it does not do this in its current conditon. Lets continue this review and focus on the things that need to be addressed. Thanks!-- MN57798 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Reply to MN57798: Yannismarou was referring not to a statement made by me, (on the "Romney Camp" quote), but to an annonymous review located here: Talk:Mitt_Romney/Comments, where Yannismarou gave a one sentence summary during the peer review. I think that the article is on the whole comprehensive, but in sections merely descriptive of proposals by Romney without context. Yellowdesk 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has been rated Start class. I have added a lot more to it and would appreciate comments and possible re-rating. Dave 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I upgraded to B. I'm reluctant to rate it GA without having successfully gone through GAC. In general, a nice article. These is my review:
I'm another non-native English speaker, but I don't think Yannismarou is wrong. Those are odd sentences.
Same with the others, you could make 2 or 3 sentences out of 1. It'd be more clear and less tiring for the reader. Nat91 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I accept the comments regarding the sentences mentioned above - they did sound a little confusing and I was formulating ways to improve them, but for me the latest edit done by Jreferee doesn't improve the article at all. My personal preference is to keep the tone of an article slightly formal and authoritative, but in my opinion it now has a bit of a "movie script" feel. Also, what is the point of linking to all those dead ends? All those red links look terrible. Sorry, that's just my opinion. Dave 21:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I echo the above reviewers and would only have this to add, that you need to pick one spelling style. I saw a mixture of US and UK spelling and wasn't sure which to switch to, since he was born in the UK, but became a US citizen. You guys, as editors, can decide which makes most sense and correct the spelling to whicever you pick. As for the edits by jreferee, you do not have to keep them... -- plange 22:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be a conflict of interest if you are related to him (both of your last names are Coggins). But I didn't see any NPOV violations so it doesn't look bad right now. T REX speak 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
OK - I have attempted to address as many of the above comments as possible. I have
I haven't been able to find any useful critiques of Coggins's work yet, still looking.
Re US/UK spelling - I am not quite sure what is referred to here. I am Australian, so I am always confused which way to go, but as a rule I tend to the UK spelling. However, I am open to any corrections if necessary to US spelling, as Jack Coggins was American, and that was the way he wrote.
This is still a work in progress (does it ever end?) and I would appreciate further suggestions for improvements, and perhaps consideration for upgrading to the next class.
Dave 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the time to expand the requested research. My goal is get the page to at least a B rating or higher.
I'm looking for any suggestions on what else needs to be done. I've expanded the page considerably since it was rated a Start, but am looking for advice on what else needs to be done. See me let go 13:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with the living-person biography as I am with the dead-person biography, but I would start by saying that your sources seem a little sketchy. Are there not more reliable places to obtain this information from? Certainly USA Today would not be the best place to start. Also, the "Personal Life" section seems a little abbreviated; most historical biographies begin with where and when the person was born and then move into their career. Perhaps contemporary biographies are different? Finally, some of the language of the lead is repeated in the article; perhaps you could reword so that it is not identical? Awadewit 12:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice start, but it still needs some work. This is my review:
Is it ok to have two citations in a row? That's what the tourette's page has. See me let go 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The suggested changes have been made, and someone added extended information on Koechner's period at Saturday Night Live. What else needs to be done? It's not still a "Start" article, is it? See me let go 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Project has been significantly updated from its original incarnation. See me let go 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has been significantly improved indeed! But it's still a start article. It needs more information and improvements. Some suggestions:
On a side note, there's a "Frat Pack"? There is no originality anymore! Nat91 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice, in general. This is my review:
First of all, great job in your expansion!! I think you are now ready to go for GA. I did some minor copyedits for you... -- plange 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Parâkramabâhu I Review 1
The first phase of the peer review was completed, see archive above.
Look forward to phase II and your comments about structure, reorganization, lead, prose, etc., as suggested during the first phase by Sandy and Yannis. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Plange and Yannis will be more helpful at how to best organize a bio; I typically go to the bottoms and work my way up, looking at the referencing (I don't like to read an article until I'm certain the references are in order :-)
I'll look more closely at the prose next week - have pending travel. Sandy ( Talk) 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about rating the article A-Level? What is left to be done? -- dreadlady 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
In general a nice article. It is in GA level. I'm not still sure about A-Class. This is my review:
Just got assessed as A-class; would appreciate comments and criticisms. I think the article could use some pruning and editing, but would like to hear some feedback from other Wikipedians. Thanks! Schi 17:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Very detailed article. In my opinion, the article is too long. 126 KB is too much. It has too many stubby sections that could be edited into one, for example, "Early life." I know we're talking about a politician, but the article seems to have too many quotes. You could keep the essential ones and the others could be turned into prose. Nat91 04:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is my third biography and I think I included everything. I've taken the article as far as I can and need your guidance to improve the article and my writing. -- ( Jreferee 23:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)).
Nice start, but it needs more work. This is my review:
Trying to move this article towards FA-class, so all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Adam Cuerden talk 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice material, but you have some work to do here! Some suggestions:
Article deals with an important Indian musician/composer (see article lead). It is in fairly good order structure-wise and in terms of language. The referencing for this article is fairly rigorous (consisting of academic journal articles and book chapters). There is fairly substantial material here, and the narrative is tied together fairly well. Unsure about whether article needs to be longer if it is ever to aspire for FA status. Or if its layout is fine. Or if the lead section needs to be longer/shorter/contain more info that it currently does, etc. Please take a look and comment. Merci! AppleJuggler 06:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice article and well-citated. Some remarks:
Before starting work on rewriting this article it was a stub. I would like this article to be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments, advice, or notes. I would also like to request an assessment of the article, I think no major necessary improvements are possible, because not much info is available. ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Helping out in Yannismarou's "sole domain" :). You've done a great job researching everything! Congrats on fashioning this out of a stub! In general, the structure is good, and references are present. However, whole paragraphs and key sentences still need citations (see WP:CITE). In general, aim for at least one citation per paragraph. The prose needs some work too. Consider better, more descriptive words than "big", "huge", "very", etc. I would rate this B-Class for now. Specific comments: Lead
Biography
Thank you very much for the review Gzkn! I appreciate your patience and time my friend. I fixed every thing and worked on every comment. The article is completely cited. Perhaps you should consider the "References" too, some are full biographies and are reliable. I improved the prose and added better descriptive words. I also improved the lead paragraph. Is it worthy of a better assessment now? Thanks again! :) ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a nice effort, but it needs some more work. This is my review:
I confirm that I have completed the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. This article attained B-status in its quality assesment. I have expanded the lead section as per feedback received and am now submitting for peer review as suggested. Would like to attain GA status. Joe King 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice article. Some comments:
You should nominate it for GA, I think you won't have many problems. Nat91 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nicely done. Some remarks for further improvement:
I don't have anything to add to the above; I did some copyedits... I also think it's ready for GA! -- plange 00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Gunning for FA. Have also submitted to main peer review. Would appreciate some criticism. Dev920 ( Please vote here) 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi from "the sole domain of yannismarou"! By the way, I agree that a broader participation of reviewers would be much more effective here. To the point now. The article is obviously very good, well-referenced and, although I'm not the best judge of this the prose seems good as well. Some remarks:
Is there anything you dispute or would like to suggest, or shall I nominate for FA after I've done this list? Dev920 ( Please vote here) 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I confirm that I have completed the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. This article was granted GA status over a month ago; I have expanded it significantly since then.
Since I have written this article pretty much on my own, I would appreciate any comments from outside observers. In addition, I would appreciate advice on whether it's worth nominating as a FAC. It is certainly on the short side for an FA, but I would like to improve it as much as possible. MLilburne 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have finally nominated this as a FAC. Thank you again for all the help. MLilburne 11:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Great article! I think it is worth nominating as a FAC! But wait a bit in case there is any reviewer with any other suggestions. As far as I am concerned I can't find anything important to suggest! Well-written (I'm not a native English speaker, but I think the prose is "compelling"), well-citated, everything is fine! So, some minor and possibly trivia things:
As for the infoboxes, I think Infobox Biography would be suitable.
I agree with Yannismarou. "Family" is too stubby. I'd merge it with "Early life." "Early life and family" or "Personal life" sound good. Nat91 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I have now added the infobox and tried to improve the "Family"/"Personal Life" section. I intend to gloss some of the NASA terms within the next couple of days. MLilburne 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have spent several weeks working on this article, and I can't think of more ways to improve it. I would like it to receive GA status, but it probably needs help for that. One of the auto-generated suggestions was to expand it, as it wasn't long enough. The only way I can think of doing that is to discuss each book in depth. Could somebody read it and give me some helpful criticism? Thanks Jeffpw 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like it's well on its way to GA status. One minor way to improve the article might be to give it subheadings (such as "early life," "screenplays," "novels," "posthumous reputation" or something along those lines), which would help to structure it and would help the reader find his/her way around a little better. The lead paragraph could also be expanded somewhat, although I don't think that the article as a whole really needs to be longer. MLilburne 14:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw you easily achieved GA status. Congratulations! I suppose your next goal is FAC (or not?). In any case, these are some suggestions for further improvements:
Thank you, Yannismarou, for your great comments! They are a big help, and I am making improvements. And yes, FAC is my next goal, so your help is greatly appreciated.
Once again, thank you for all of the very constructive criticism. This is my first Wiki article, and I need all the help I can get! Jeffpw 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi; I'm sorry that I am posting here while this article is so incomplete but I need some guidance. I wasn't sure exactly how to model this if I wanted GA/FA status. Henry Moore is a similar topic but I don't think I should base this article on that if only because it doesn't seem to have been updated to meet current FA standards. My idea is something like:
Unfortunately all I have gotten myself to do is about half of the bio, and it probably is cruddy. Based on what is already there, what should I:
Thanks Rampart 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I see Henry Moore is a FA. You should model your article according to the information you have, but it's still a very good referent. Some suggestions:
Good luck with the article. Nat91 03:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Henry Moore is not a nice model. This article wouldn't pass today WP:FAC. Some advice:
Obviously, the article in incomlete. I'll give a full review, when I see its final form.-- Yannismarou 19:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Working on the page alone I am not able to fully see potential problems or minor criticisms that an outside point of view possesses and that a peer review can provide. The article has been extensively worked on and is aesthetic to the eyes and ears. There are many citations and there is only a small amount of POV in the article. Again though, I hope that this is the case for being deeply intertwined with the article provides me with an uneven point of view. Thank you and I will try my best to fix any problems that are brought to my attention. - Patman2648 08:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
In general, a nice and informative article. This is my review:
This article has been a GA for some time now. I'd like to take this article to FAC in the near future, so some feedback on what shortcomings remain would be very helpful. jaco♫ plane 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
A nice informative article. It is a GA (I agree with that), but I don't agree with the A-Class rating for the Biography Project. It has some serious layout, stylistic and content flaws. I have also some POV concerns, I'll make clear later. For FAC it need much more work. These are my suggestions:
This passed GA and am hoping to get feedback to see what it needs to FA, thanks! -- plange 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
A very nice article (as usual!). I think it can go through FA proceedure. Some minor remarks which are not definitely right:
In general, the article is informative and well-citated. 4 sources is not magnificent, but also not terrible. So I think it can be a FA.-- Yannismarou 20:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
-- plange 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This article, part of a series on the life of Jan Smuts, has recently been up for FA nomination. It failed (3 for - 2 against). The problem is that there were no clear reasons for failure - neither editor identified common features that they objected to (one thought that the prose wasn't up to scratch and there were too few references, the other had stylistic objections to the lead). The eventual intention is to raise Jan Smuts and its detailed sub-articles to FA status, but before I consider putting this up again, I'd appreciate any input that you could provide. Are there any real problems or is it just that the article didn't raise enough interest with reviewers?
Xdamr talk 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
—Cel ithemis 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've kind of been working on this article a bit. Does this page have enough citations and references, as needed, or does it need more? I attempted to fix the image rationales and licensing, is it OK? Also how would you assess this article? Thank you. Pink moon 1287 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Beautiful girl! She should have won only for this reason! Now, seriously. I assess this article as a start article. It needs more information and further improvements. These are some suggestions:
New article written by myself, could do with much expansion. Suggestions anyone? — Wackymacs 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Electrawn 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article obviously needs expansion, photos and more information. And sources. The last is the most important, but I donot think I can help. Check the internet, Google Book etc. I see you've already nominated FAs, so you obviously know what a good research demands! Good luck!-- Yannismarou 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Expanded significantly the article over the past week. I'm hoping to get this article to FA status, and just wanted to find out the project critique and suggestions. My only concern are the chart information for the singles, which I'm having a hard time finding. I guess thats it, thank you in advance. - Tutmosis 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Very nice indeed! Your osmosis with FAC reviews has obviously significantly helped you! The article is comprehensive and well-written. I also liked the prose. I'm not a native English speaker, but I think the article has a nice article flow. Some minor remarks, which may be subjective and, therefore, not correct by default:
Anyway Thank you very much for your nice comments and good pointers Yannismarou! - Tutmosis 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty good article, and want some tips before re-nomination for Good Article consideration. ~ Gromreaper 10:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
My first attempt at a full rewrite of a biography. Detailed and extensively sourced now, but since no one else has been doing significant edits recently, additional sets of eyeballs on this article would be very helpful and much appreciated. I'd like to get it to GA if possible. —Cel ithemis 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Very nice! I think it will pass GAC. "Literary portraits" seemed a bit listy too me-I think pure prose would be better-and "Novel" is a bit stubby-merge or expand. Some further remarks based on my personal taste-this means they are not necessarily correct:
Good luck with GAC! I believe you'll be fine!-- Yannismarou 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Electrawn 18:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is possibly a minor character, but none the less deserves a good article. I would appreciate any comment on it.-- BlaiseMuhaddib 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Best I can do is to research sources for you to get you from start to B Class. This person is a hard find, but historians seem to always differentiate from Theodoric the Great by Thoedoric, Son of Triarus. Electrawn 09:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is a good article! As a matter of fact, a very good article! Comprehensive, well-citated, with well-captioned photos. Neat and nice! Why don't you nominate it for GA? I think it will pass. And then you'll see if there's any chance for FA. Minor remarks:
I think this is a well-sourced article that provides a NPOV about a colourful member of the Assembly who recently lost one of the most memorable local races in decades. MrPrada 00:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Overall: This is a start class article with a low priority. The inclusion of elected US state political figures does meet Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. Most people editors don't understand NPOV and how language implies POV.
Needs significant work. Hopefully this makes an eye opening and excellent study concerning language use as POV. :) Electrawn 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I see this article is rates as A-Class. This is obviously wrong. These are my remarks:
I recently created this article and would like to see if anything needs to be improved. There is still more information about him but I would like to fix it as is for right now. Hoping to get it to GA status. T REX speak 00:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Overall, the article sits somewhere between start class and B class, leaning toward start but current B class assessment can stay. I may insert a framework and copyedit to help you along. On the priority scale, this person is low priority. Electrawn 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice start, but my first comment is that the article is incomplete. This is my review:
Hello, Tammy Duckworth is running for the Illinois 6th district of congress. This race has now be come heated. I have submited this article for peer review because I feel article is substandard, bias and non-encylopeidic. I feel it needs work to bring it up to the wikipdeia standards for Biography for Living Persons WP:BLP as well as Neutral Point of View. WP:NPOV For this to happen, there needs more editors, to help and improve the standard of this article. Thanks Chitownflyer 08:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure this start class article is ready for a full peer review. A WP:RFC may be a better idea. That said, I'll made my comments brief and general. Electrawn 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Electrawn has pointed out the main problems of the article. I don't think this is a bad article, but it needs work and a more thorough research:
Wanting to get it to GA so welcome any suggestions! -- plange 03:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to you, Plange, I've learned all Virginian politicians of the last century (kidding!)! The article is good and well-placed for GAC. My major concern is its length. it is a bit short. But I suppose FACs are most exhaustingly examined for covering all details. GAs can be short. Minor remarks:
I have made some changes to the article recently, the article doesn't have much traffic and I would like some feedback and a peer review to further improve the article. Thank you. Dual Freq 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Good article overall. Have you thought of nominating it for GA? A few remarks:
Greetings. This Peer Review has been created for the Peter Roskam article.
Currently, The Peter Roskamis running for the Illinois 6th district for congress. This race as proved to be very contentious race with the democratic Nominee, Tammy Duckworth running for the open congressional seat this November 2006.
I have requested this review, due to the edit wars and NPOV disputes, and bias editing that now plagues this article. The Editors would appear to have a political agenda. This article needs to be right, conforming to the standards of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Since it is a hotly contested race, there needs to be a better cross section of Wikieditors and/Administrators reviewing and correcting, this article, so that, it may conform to Wikipedia policy for Biography for Living Persons as will as Neutral Point of View.
Thanks Chitownflyer 14:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
At the time of my reading it, it seemed NPOV to me. I made some minor fixes, but here's some things I'd recommend:
-- plange 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Plange got most of the problems. As far as the POV issues are concerned, I think the article has no major NPOV issues, although I'm not familiar with the American political life. I saw the last debate has to do with a link. This is definitely a versus-Roskam link, but this is not a problem, if pro-Roskan sites or his official site with his own views contradicting the accusations are also mentioned. A few more remarks:
This is a recent GA and I'd like to know what it needs to reach FAC. Since the previous peer review, the article went through a massive rewrite and copy-editing. The GA reviewer said it's pushing FA status. All comments welcome. Thanks! Nat91 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned I have nothing else to propose. From the first moment I believed that GAC was redundant and this article should go straight away to FAC! That is why I rated as A-Class! In terms of content and material, I think the article is there. In terms of prose, I'm not a specialist, but I also think it is Ok. Of course, any additional "polishing" would be welcomed just in case some reviewers in FAC find any detail you've missed.
Something that could cause some problems is the fact that all your photos are fair-used tagged. You may be criticized and asked to delete some of them. But I donot know how this problem could be solved. GO, find him and take a photo! I assume not easy!-- Yannismarou 07:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
All the original Peer review issues have, I think, been dealt with. What now? What needs done for FA? All comments welcome. Vanished user talk 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I suggest serious work on improving the citations, as well networking to find new editors for a fresh look at copyediting, followed by a new peer review before approaching FAC: there is still much work to be done on the article, but an excellent foundation is in place. Sandy 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Right then! The multiple-form cites are fairly easy to fix, as is spinning off the list. I'll do that ASAP. Vanished user talk 18:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Much improved. Most remaining problems have already been mentioned. I'll just point out once again the lack of citations. And I agree that the list of works is very big as it is now. Such lists are not esteemed in WP:FAC. A seperate sub-article with a summary of it here is a nice idea. Some further minor remarks:
While I am not a fan of the person, the article and editors to the article have been able to hold NPOV. Further, the article is well sourced without giving undue weight to minority views. I think it is a great encyclopedia article, and reluctantly nominate it for a peer review and possible "A Class" assessment. Electrawn 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting article! And really NPOV! These is my review:
I've completed another copy-edit of the article. I know some more tweaks are still necessary before going for FA (the article is already GA), but I thought it was high time I had some suggestions and thoughts from peer-reviewers.-- Yannismarou 13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Great article, I just made some minor tweaks. Only things I found were:
-- plange 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Expanded this from a little stub and would love outside viewpoints, especially anyone familiar with this period in US history (Clay, Calhoun and Jackson era). Would like to nominate it for GA soon, so all comments welcome! Also, I have not even tapped his diary yet and am wondering if I should... -- plange 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that GA is not going to be a major problem. Thereby, I'll be a bit more "stringent" and I'll comment on the article based on FA criteria:
As this article is continually shaped, there is an ongoing NPOV war raging on the history and comments page. Need to have a few more unattached persons dropping by and helping to form it into a better, balanced whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodyw1 ( talk • contribs)
"Corrigan's performing career has featured a diverse variety of sexual activity, including semen swallowing rimming and Cobra Video's first-ever double anal penetration" Ouaou!!! What can I say? Only one thing: Ouaou!!! These are my comments:
I'm the one who made the move for more eyes on the BC article. I was accused of being too "pro" Corrigan, and rather than continue to debate the point, felt that the more people involved, the less a chance of whatever non, NPOV bias I have would creep into the article. I've tried to be fair, but, there you go.
Anyway, I don't really think the semen/cum eating/double penetration stuff belongs in the article. It's nothing that other performers haven't done. There's no source I've seen that makes Corrigan "notable" for those practices and it personally smacks of someone saying "Hah-hah, look what he's done!!" The only way I can see that it matters is by mentioning those activities with BC's comments about how much he hated doing those scenes. I've read interviews where he's discussed this. Considering though I'm a bit biased, I've stayed out of this debate.
As for the biographical information about his parents, reasons for his move, etc. I agree that it's all necessary. I've read the biography policies for Wiki and it all seemed appropriate. But my continuing to put the information in, and my reasons for keeping it in, were causing a revert war. We all were cautioned with being banned because of said war. If you'd like to add your view, then please do.
I'd love to improve the article. I'd love to move the stubly bits together. As usual though, that whole "revert war" starts to rear its head. If people like you are there to mediate and makes sure it's done properly and fairly, then my request for help was worth it.
I'll work on redoing the lead paragraph if you and whomever else will keep an eye out to make sure it doesn't just become an endless series of reverts and threats of reverts.
Jodyw1 20:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been improving this article for about six months. I'm sure all the information is correct, but I'm not sure if it can be called a 'good' article yet. I would appreciate some feedback on whether it conforms to the high standard required of biography articles. Thanks, - GilbertoSilvaFan 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw the article failed GA. I'm not sure I agree with that. I liked it. Anyway, these are my suggestions for further improvement:
I have just drastically expanded and illustrated and reorganized this article. I need to be reviewed! Esp: Should I remove the stub indicator? Johnzw 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you can remove the stub indicator. I've rated as a "start article". These are some things you can do:
I am having great difficulty uncovering information about "Moneyworld"; in fact I can find no indication that this publication even existed. Johnzw 02:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Such an important figure deserves a good biography. I would like to improve it, but I need some suggestions. BlaiseMuhaddib 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article has very good material. These are my concerns:
I am working to a complete rewrite of the article. It is visible at User:BlaiseMuhaddib/Sandbox.-- BlaiseMuhaddib 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Boas is one of the founders of modern anthropology and responsible for the place "culture" and "cultural relativism" have in our society today, and is largely responsible for the scientific critique of racism. I put a lot of work into this article, but know that everything can be improved. Boas deserves a superb article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is very informative and it is obvious by a person willing to do a great job. But it needs a lot of work if it s to go for GA or FA:
I've just completed a major revision of this article, drawing upon the 20th century biographies. I'm knowledgeable about the history of Boone's time and place, so I'm certain there are no significant errors of fact or interpretation. Major points of disagreement between historians have been noted in the text or footnotes, especially regarding the issue of history versus folklore, a central concern in Boone historiography. All comments are welcome. • Kevin (complaints?) 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Very well done! I actually don't have any suggestions-- the things I found were very minor and I just changed them myself...I'm going to nominate it for GA as I think it's ready... -- plange 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has good information -almost all the available about this person-. I'd like to know some opinions from the team. Thanks in advance. -- Julián Ortega - drop me a message 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
An option is to further improve your article and go for GA. But it needs work. A few tips:
This sentence didn't make sense: "where she also manages its health segments, previously in charge by Claudia Palacios, who is currently working at CNN en Español." Do you mean "previously headed by Claudia Palacios..." also "currently working" needs to have a year associated with it, as it won't make sense in the year 2020, i.e. "who, as of 2006, works at..." -- plange 02:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel I have exhausted all of my avenues of information for this article (to include Scott Air Force Base resources). Anything else I might pursue to input into the article would inevitably be WP:OR. I'm not experienced whatsoever in writing biographical articles and request peer review to get input from those who have the experience I lack. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Intrigued by other avenues for sources you mention. Primary sources are allowed as long as they meet WP:V -- plange 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I just finshed the rewriting of the article (so, I'm sorry for any typos or other deficiencies). I think the article has the potential to become GA or FA. I would like to have the opinions of the members of the group.-- Yannismarou 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-- plange 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The editors would like comments from the group on areas that need improvments. Note subject can be controversial on his political beliefs.-- Oldwildbill 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice article, but for FA it needs work:
Besides the comments above, I would add that you should try and expand the lead to 3 paragraphs and it should be a summary of the article. For instance, there's currently no mention in the lead of his controversial ideas. -- plange 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The editors would like for the group to make comments on areas that need improvement and any ideals for expansion.-- Oldwildbill 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The prose looks to me fine, but, since I'm not a native English speaker, I'll let such judgements to other users. My remarks have to do with the structural problems the article has:
The only comment I would make is that the Awards section should be removed from the body since it is already in the infobox. -- plange 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I just want an honest opinion on the writing and all on this article because I would like to bring it to the Good Article Status sometime. ( Samir contributed more than me on this article although. -- Deenoe 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is well-written and well-citated. The problem is that it does not constitute a thorough biography, but focuses on two particular incidents: the whistleblowing and the racial discrimination. But I'll treat this article like all the other biographies:
In any case, I believe that the article is not far away from the GA status.-- Yannismarou 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is another biographycal article I would submit for review. Please, let me know how it can be improved.-- BlaiseMuhaddib 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Here are my immediate comments following a quick look.
Good luck with the progress. RelHistBuff 13:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I corrected some grammar, but I was puzzled by this: "because he was of reddish complexion or deceiving him" -- on the deceiving part, it seems incomplete, unless you mean "because he was of reddish complexion or they were teasing him" -- plange 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This article was submitted for peer review ( Wikipedia:Peer review/Basiliscus/archive1), and greatly improved thanks to the collaboration of the reviewers. It has been suggested by them to submit this article for review also here.-- BlaiseMuhaddib 13:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Much much better! As you can see the article is now rated as A-Class by the Wikiproject Biogaphy. I have nothing more to suggest. Let's see what the other reviewers are going to say. I just wanted to laud the good work done.-- Yannismarou 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Good article... Just a few things:
plange 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Article has already generated some controversy. Please see Talk:Melissa Farley and an "NPOV" box has also been placed on the article. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 23:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I donot know if the WikiProject Biography/Peer review is the right place to discuss POV problems. Of course, this is a biased article, but I think that such assessments are not out purpose here. A few more remarks:
Article has been worked over over several months and has been put forward for GA status. It would be good to know what else could be done to make it any better than we have already done, possibly for an FA nom in the future. Dev920 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As you have put this forward for GA status, I would like to make some quick comments from my experience with the GA process in order to expedite getting the article to be passed.
Those are my comments based on this first scan. I hope this helps and good luck on getting GA status. RelHistBuff 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice article. But I'm not sure it'll get the GA status. A few remarks:
Good article! Just found a couple of things:
Hope this helps! plange 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting another Biography project peer review of this article and an assessment on whether this is an A-class article. It currently has GA status and has gone through a general peer review. Many improvements have been made since it reached GA. I have placed the old Biography project peer review comments in the archive below. I am not sure if this is the best way to archive old peer reviews. RelHistBuff 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is A-Class and can go even higher. It was already a very nice article when I first reviewed it and it is even better now. I don't have much to propose here. Some minor, mainly technical, remarks:
This just failed a GA nomination and so I've worked on it some more, but honestly I think I'm too involved now to look on it objectively. Any feedback or criticisms welcome! plange 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... You are a Trigg as well! Interesting! Very nice and well-sourced article. But I think you already know that. I'm not experienced in peer-review suggestions, but I'll try to make a few comments:
I cannot find anything else!-- Yannismarou 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to give some comments concerning the quotes in the quotation templates. I do not know about the rules on their usage, so I am making an assumption to give some opinions. Please excuse me and ignore my comments if there are existing rules!
I hope this helps! RelHistBuff 12:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
How does this bio look, so far? I've not got into the main bulk of Joan's career, and I've only been working from one interview with her (albeit about four hours long), but it's a pretty good start, I hope. I'd like advice on what to do with references, as it is indeed so mono-sourced. -- Zanimum 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not think I can help you much about the references. But I'm sure that in Internet you'll find material and other links to books, interviews etc. Reading the article, it is clear to me that more sources are necessary. This will also improve the prose and the coherence of the article. Some minor remarks, mainly on style:
That's for a start. I hope that I was helpful and that we'll soon have a more consummated image of the article with the information you want to add.-- Yannismarou 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Demosthenes has already been peer-reviewed by fellow-Wikipedians. But I would like to have the opinions and the contributions of the project. I think this article I've rewritten has a good potential.-- Yannismarou 11:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Enjoyed this! I think my only critique is that it seemed to assume the reader already knows that period of history really well. Here's the things that stood out to me:
plange 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
A general Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/archive2 is still under way, but the response was not the adequate. That is why I asked for a special Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Pericles as well as for this peer-review. The article re-written by me is an A-class article and a failed FA and GA nominee. Since these failures huge improvements have been made by me and two fellow users (Druworos and Konstable). I think this article is too close to be FA, but I need your support!-- Yannismarou 08:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Very well done! Just some minor notes:
plange 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Would love to have this article upgraded. Any comments will be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting article! I know next to nothing on this subject, so there were many things that looked like it was just assumed were common knowledge so I marked them as needing citations, especially when opinions were being given, as you want to make sure you cite a secondary source that gives that opinion and not that it's yours.
I noticed too other potential WEASEL and PEACOCK terms, but I'm new at this so perhaps you should have more experienced editor take a look too. plange 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Copying statements from the article talk page: I saw this article has been listed as a GA for a while without a review. This is close to a good article but not quite there yet. Some things you could do:
Just a few ideas. This is certainly an important historical figure and he deserves a good article with the reference material at your disposal. Gimmetrow 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Was a teeny stub which I expanded. Want to see what I need to do to get it to a level for a GA nom plange 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The list of names in the "family" section is confusing. It seems like the list overlaps with the body text. Do you need both? If you're going to keep the list, it needs at least a direct introduction. Maurreen 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Maurreen for peer reviewing and for your edits! I've revised it to hopefully clarify the 2 items you mention above. Let me know if it needs to be re-worded better. Thanks! plange 23:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Important actor GA, need ideas as to how to reach FA. ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Good work! I just made some minor tweaks and changed out a word that you were using alot. In the War section, I'm now curious to know what the change was? Do we know? I know there's no explanation for why the change except for what he said but would be good to know what the change was... more quiet, more reserved, grumpy?