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. |
This is a relatively short subject, as the subject is most famous for his legacy rather than the length of his life. I'd like to see if we could bring it to A-level fairly quickly. Not sure a subject this short could ever become a featured article, but I want it to be the best it could be. -- Leifern ( talk) 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 06:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This was recently promoted to GA status and I am interested in improving it further. Areas in particular need of improvement are the introduction and the childhood/education paragraph. I would also appreciate feedback on readability, NPOV issues, reliability of sources, and anything else I may have missed. Thanks. Wronkiew ( talk) 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
See also:
First of all, let me say that as far as I read your article was very well-written, documented, and researched. Unfortunately, I stopped reading as soon as I determined that your citation-style would make it next to impossible for me to continue. I will explain—
As soon as a reader decides to click footnote [6], for example, he encounters a lengthy alphabetic line which leads to an author's name. So, then, a curious researcher clicks the author's name and he is quickly transported to the appropriate parameters of title, publisher, etc.. Unfortunately, herein is where the problem lies.
After a researcher has decided to return to his original query point, i.e. [6], there is no quick and precise manner in which that reader may return. Rather, the reader needs to scroll backwards to your article and needs to hope that he can recall exactly where he was before he began his quest for further knowledge.
If a reader is a short-way into your article, I suppose a fact that there are only six or eight [6]s to choose from may not be a problem. But what is a reader of half your article to do? Try to remember if he was at e, f, g? Or scroll up and down, from one minute to the next, pondering where he was before he began? (Thank Technology for center-scrollwheels, eh!)
I stopped instantly, and decided to explain: Although your citation-style is new, is unique, and is very well-organized, it is inoperable to a researcher who needs to move quickly back and forth from research note to manuscript. I would prefer that you abandoned your style, or made it more researcher-friendly.
I will come back some, other day and will tell you my reaction to the overall content—because the article is interesting—but I will do that only when I decide to ignore your references completely and just read the main-body. Anne Teedham ( talk) 14:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
MORE
As a faculty member of Princeton University, he invented the particle storage ring and the mass driver.[1] (second sentence LEAD)
I understand how wikilinks work; however I believe it is sometimes necessary for a writer to provide a short phrase for the lazy reader who does not wish to spend his precious time wikilinking through Wikipedia. Thus, the reference to the "mass driver" in the very beginning of your article needs a quick phrase because the mass driver—more than any other O'Neill invention—is vital to an understanding of Gerard O'Neill's contribution to future space manufacturing and space colonization. I doubt that a lazy reader will be happy to wait until paragraph 19 for an appropriate explanation.
Citations
The subsection Birth, education, and family life is jammed with one reference after another; however in other places footnoting is sparse e.g. He even explored the possibilities of flying gliders inside a space colony, finding that the enormous volume could support atmospheric thermals. He calculated that humanity could expand on this man-made frontier to 20,000 times its population. The initial colonies would be built at the Earth-Moon L4 and L5 Lagrange points.
Or: In 1956, his second year of teaching, his two-page letter titled “Storage-Ring Synchrotron: Device for High-Energy Physics Research” was published in Physical Review.
I am certainly NOT suggesting that either procedure is better than the other; my concern is: How do you decide what is important to footnote and what is not?
I believe that once you decide the importance of one criteria over the other, then you will find a happy medium for your referencing. At present, I believe your referencing in places is excessive, specailly in subsection Birth, education, and family life.
Sometimes your prose gets excessively wordy e.g. This would increase the amount of energy involved in particle collisions over the method used at the time, which was to direct the particle beam at a fixed target.[2]
I believe that it is just quicker to say: This would increase the amount of energy involved in particle collisions over the method used at the time to direct the particle beam at a fixed target.[2]
Consequently, I think that your article would benefit from the introduction of an unbiased, unimformed good copyeditor, one with whom you would feel comfortable.
This brings me to structure. I am not certain that I found your constant repetition of material pleasing. For example, you refer to O'Neill's freshman physics class at Princeton a great number of times in a great number of different subsections. Perhaps if your biography were more linear in its approach i.e. 1927 to 1992 highlighting the various aspects of O'Neill's endeavors in depth, it would be less repetitive. Yet, on the whole, I found myself becoming bored and wondering when will this thing come to an end.
There is a lot here. And my final evaluation is not fair. I am sorry. I feel though that your article needs to be re-tuned for the lazy reader (like me) who is less scholarly than you and more interested in the simple facts.
Lastly, I would like to return to our discussion on your style for footnoting. I follow your reasoning for the use of the Back Button. Yet answer me this—
In the sentences: O’Neill was diagnosed with leukemia in 1985.[58] He died on April 27, 1992, from complications of the disease at the Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City, California.[6][7]
After I have read that, and have decided to click [6], I am taken to footnote 6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Daniels 1992. I click Daniels 1992, and receive Daniels, Lee A. (April 29, 1992). Gerard K. O’Neill, Professor, 69; Led Studies on Physics and Space, New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. I then decide to return. So I click my Back Button. This takes me back to footnote 6 (good). I then click my Back Button again. This takes me back to a screen which begins: On November 18, 1991, O’Neill filed a patent application for a high-speed train system. He called the system VSE, for velocity, silence, and efficiency.[2] The trains, instead of running on tracks, would be propelled by electromagnetic forces through tunnels. He estimated that the trains could reach...
But I thought that I was reading something about leukemia? But where? (darned IE ver 6.0, Win 98 SE...dump this archaic software on the Chinese, eh???)
Do you understand what I am saying now. The use of your Back Button produces a return to the previous PAGE, not the previous CITATION.
I doubt that this is a real big deal for anyone other than a nitpicking fool. My only reason for bringing it up is to suggest that your style is less satisfying than existing examples that I have seen elsewhere.
In closing, I find it necessary to say that I have been unnecessarily harsh only because I believe that your article would benefit by closely evaluating my silly remarks, and by deciding do you want lazy readers such as nitpicking Anne Teedham to read completely through your article without struggling with minor technicalities.
It is a good article. But I think that it can be better. Anne Teedham ( talk) 16:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This review is closed. Many thanks to Anne Teedham for her helpful comments. Wronkiew ( talk) 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I requested this peer review because I rewrote this article a month or so ago. Although it was well-written prior to my endeavors, it contained in-line citations such as this:
Danny Casolaro was a [[freelance writer]] who committed [[suicide]] one day (Ridgeway and Vaughan p. 37) in [[Room]] 517 (Corn p. 517) at the [[Sheraton Inn]] (C.D. Seltzer ppg. 511-12) in [[Martinsburg]],[[West Virginia]].
Because the article looked like a Christmas tree of "overlinking" and in-line citations, I determined that it needed my input. The result now is ready for a peer review.
I would like the article to be reviewed by reviewers who will show an interest in moving the article along a path towards becoming a Featured Article. This, of course, will mean following ALL REFERENCE MATERIALS, evaluating ALL crosslinking throughout Wikipedia without passing subjective opinion on whether or not "the conspiracy" is, or isn't.
The fact of the matter is: The Story of Danny Casolaro and Inslaw and Michael Riconosciuto from 1980 to 2001 engulfed a great deal of historical, U.S. events. There is even suggestion that this story involves 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden. Consequently, due to these elements of history, I believe that it is essential that an article on Danny Casolaro reads well, is referenced well, and presents whatever facts are facts.
There is a comment on the talkpage that the section "Remaining questions and allegations" is silly.
I do not agree with the writer; that kind of review is NOT what I look for.
I look for the kind of review that realizes that those remaining questions and allegations are factual, open-ended details of Casolaro's life which remain troubling, and are therefore an intregal part of a Danny Casolaro article.
My major concern is whether or not this article is an encyclopedic article. In my opinion, it may be little more than mainstream background detailing the final days of Danny Casolaro's life.
Thanks for reading me this far.
Incidentally, if you check the History on this article, it has seen very little interest since its beginning. I stumbled upon it myself. I am glad that I did. The complete story (Danny et al) is fascinating when someone weeds through the details separating facts from repetitive speculation . Hag2 ( talk) 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Update This article has been sitting here too long without comment. Surely someone could read a bit, and then say "This article stinks." At least, that's a review. *smile* Hag2 ( talk) 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program, which highlights minor issues of style.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on this article for the past two months, with the ultimate goal of certifying it as a Featured Article. I feel that the research and structure are solid, and I welcome all comments about what can be improved. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Scartol • Tok 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yet another fascinating biography of a radical! :) Here are my comments:
Prose and whatnot:
Lead:
Images:
Like always, this was a pleasure! Awadewit ( talk) 13:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Embarrassingly, I have very little to nitpick about this article. It's well written and entirely engaging, so forgive my briefness.
Overall very good work; I was worried that areas may be too lengthy and/or descriptive, but I was glad to find it to be a rather engrossing read. A biography and a history lesson, all in one! It's a shame there aren't more images of her available, but I understand the difficulty in hunting such things down. Thanks for inviting me to read this in full, it made my lunch break a lot more interesting. :) María ( habla con migo) 17:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for ways to improve the article further as it proceeds along in quality status. No rush, but interested in input from some fresh eyes. Thanks,
Cirt (
talk) 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The scientology story is very interesting, but the article needs work both in prose and analysis.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope to get a peer reivew and make this a good article It is me i think ( talk) 13:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs a lot of work.
After the article gets improved, a new peer-review will be needed.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting a peer review to make this a better article and with some more work eventually make it a GA. I will be the first to admit I will never earn a living as a writer, so any suggestions on phrasing, style, grammar, etc. would especially be appreciated. 09er ( talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The greatest problem of the article is the prose. It needs great improvements. Read MoS instructions and Tony's essays and exercises. ANd try to cooperate with a good copy-editor.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like a formal peer-review of the above article to gather shortcomings for it to become at least a GA article. Please comment on anything, from the grammar in the article to the referencing. I would surely work with you guys on this.
Thanks, Arun Reginald ( talk · contribs) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping that this article be reviewed by another editor mainly so that I can get feedback as to my job [as I was the main editor of this article] at writing Mr. Flynn's biography. I dont believe the artlce would ever be fetured, but I hope it can become a good article. This biography is a work in progress. I wrote the his biography at first, but did not include sources for his noteability. It has been rewritten and many more indipendent cites added. I desided to remove the noteability tag, hopefully not prematurely. Now that i've reworked it, i'm hoping I can get some advice as how to smooth it out. This is my first biography. The noteability issues brought up in the first draft of the biography is the reason for this peer review. Cindy Flynn ( talk) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What mainly needs this article is less editing by Flynn himself! What you need in order to upgrade it is uninvolved editors to work on it, and verifiably sources to back Flynn's own edits, because, otherwise, the article suffers from OR. So, I'm more concerned about the CoI issues, and the quality of the sources, and less for the notability issue. Some of the web sites used look to me as not the best sources one could cite.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/John Degnan
A tremendous amount of research and writing effort has been expounded to make this article as comprehensive yet balanced and user-friendly as possible. The goal in this effort has been to bring the article to A-class or Featured Article status. Hopefully a peer review by WikiProject Biography would constructively facilitate this to happen, or at the very least allow a greater improvement of the artifcle from where it stands now. As it currently stands, the article has grown well beyond the B-class status it currently enjoys. Jonyungk ( talk) 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but towards the end of the article I lost my concentration. After all, after the article is copy-edited and further improved, maybe an additional review would be useful. I must laud the scholarly research, and I would also like to point out that, although I liked the instances of "poetic prose", I am not sure if this is something the FAC reviewers would also like! But this is the task of a good copy-editor basically!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
So, the main weak point of the article might be that it primarily comes from one book—as mentioned in the article, Masuda's been glossed over in English language Japanese film scholarship and criticism—but I think it manages okay. Also, haven't found a reference for the Kinema Junpo readers choice award yet. Anyway, I'm looking for any glaring errors or omissions and maybe some opinions on whether this has GA or FA potential. Thanks very much,
Doctor Sunshine
talk 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a peer review because I am hoping to get this article to at least B status.
Dovcamp ( talk) 05:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments on this article will be appreciated to get rating and maybe GA status. Regards— G716 < T· C> 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well-written, try to enrich it with more material not necessarily focused on the abortions (any other interesting aspects of her activity), and make it less one-sided; I'm afraid that POV is the article's main problem right now.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 11:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is currently rated as Stub-class. I have made substantial edits to the article, including adding sub-headings and many references. I feel it could at least be upgraded to Start-class. I would also like to receive feedback from other editors on what could be improved and find other editors interested in working on the article. Tstreet ( talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
DrKiernan (
talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)I plan on adding additional references for this soon, but Bob Staake is already well referenced on the interenet because of his long involvement with major publishing houses which print his books for adults and children. I hope that this is suitable but would appreciate review as I am still very new to this. Rezimmerman ( talk) 19:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am seeking a peer review of this article because I invested a lot of time in the research and writing of it, and would like to make it as good as possible. Bowie60 ( talk) 00:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at
WP:FAC mostly for lack of having generated commentary. Thus, feedback is needed. I intend to incorporate information from several books that I have checked out from the
Chicago Public Library, but the current article may have some problems that are causing people not to want to take an interest. I think maybe there may be some organizational issues that are keeping readers from getting into the article. Advice welcome.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks for all comments, DrKiernan ( talk) 08:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Generally quite well done article, assume this will be going to GAN (already seems to be GA level) or FAC soon. Here are my comments, mostly nit picks:
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed at WP:GAC for the third time this year. Although many of the most recent reviewer arguments were for reasons not in keeping with policy (e.g., the reviewer knowledgeable on size policy and thought the article exceeded policy limitation), some arguments were of varying degrees of merit. With respect to size, the article is currently only half the length that is against policy at WP:FAC. Currently, according to this tool, the article is 30.2 KB of readable prose and 5350 words and WP:SIZE says articles much more than 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose is a problem. Generally, much longer than 30 of 50 KB is perceived as over 60KB. So this article could be nearly twice as long and be a WP:FA. It certainly is far short of the length of Harry S. Truman or either of the Roosevelts for example. In truth, given my experience with WP:GAC, which is about as broad and deep as any on WP, I was quite surprised given the lack of merit of some of the arguments against this article that it was not given a hold at GAC. I am somewhat convince that the common dislike of Bonds may have spilled over into the evaluation of the quality of the article. However, I concede that that as the most active editor of the article, I may be too close to see very deep problems with the article. In short, I need more outside eyes on this article that I think of as very close to WP:WIAGA to help me see points of improvement.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This article got little notice during the last peer review, and has since failed featured article candidacy, after much work from the Psychopathic Records WikiProject. What further needs to be done in order to get this article up to FA standards, quality and status? ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC))
Tell me when done or when extra commentary would be useful. -- Kakofonous ( talk) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is my second contribution to Wikipedia, and it is very complex. I would appreciate any help with formatting or any other issues that veterans here may be able to help me with. Rezimmerman ( talk) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Similar to the Tim O'Brien (illustrator)'s article remarks. Nice lists (which when getting long can become a separate article), but not so much of content. The formatting is nice, and this is not my problem right now. Right now I would first like to see this biography enriched with material so as to go further the stub-class status.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 09:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the formatting is fine too, but I did remove some HTML syntax. If you want to include tables, they should be written in Help:Table wiki-markup. The way you've done the columns is fine.
Again, I would agree with Yannis: try to expand on the biographical text. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is my first contribution to Wikipedia. I have attempted to follow all of the guidelines for creating useful and informative content, although I am certain to have made some mistakes and would appreciate any guidance offered.
My particular area of interest is contemporary American illustrators and I would like to continue to contribute informative biographies on that subject. Thanks for any suggestions and tips to creating successful content.
Rezimmerman (
talk) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Your references are well-formatted, but the problem is the lack of content! The article includes a lead, and then just a list of honors and awards, and an "Influence" section with no analysis; almost no prose; just a small sentence. Expand your article, add material, create a well-written biography, and then a peer-review will be more helpful. I think that at your stage you should try first follow these nice tips about how to create a biography.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 09:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
My comments have been generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
Similar to what Yannis has said above:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
DrKiernan (
talk) 14:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Would like a fresh set of eyes to check this article as I wish to progress it to GA status.
Thanks DISEman ( talk) 02:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is close to GA, but needs work for A-Class or FA status.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please check the spelling: the article uses a mixture of British and American spellings. I would prefer fewer external links; currently looks like a link farm. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I edited this article to better conform to Wikipedia standards and would like some other editors to take a look at it to make sure I'm not missing anything obvious. Also, I really don't know about the section titles in the article. They don't sound very good to me, but I couldn't think of a better way to divide them at the time. The names and section-break placement are open for discussion.
I'd like to get this article up to GA standards if we can. —
OranL (
talk) 08:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Too short to be judged. The citation-tags need fixing, the article should be expanded to go further the stub status, and the last stubby section is a "Personal Life" or "Family" section; note what its heading declares.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I created this article and wrote it to WP:GA. I need a new set of eyes to help this article achieve WP:FA status. It hopefully will be my first:) PG Pirate 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Even though I'm a college football fan, my main concern is that there isn't enough about his life outside of football. I'm afraid that when you bring it up for FAC, that's going to be the main point of contention. I'm also not a big fan of tables that don't have accompanying prose. If there's anything that can be written about his experience coaching in a bowl game or about his overall coaching record, I'd love to see that in the accompanying section. Barring that, I'd suggest trying to somehow incorporate those tables into the main body of the article, somehow. I've never seen a FA with standalone tables, but that could just be because I haven't been looking for them. Judging from the Jack Kemp FAC and its trials and tribulations, you're going to be in for a long haul getting it through FAC no matter how much prep work you do. Just keep at it, keep making changes, and eventually you'll get this to FA status. Best of luck. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 08:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This article has undergone a large amount of reconstruction since it was initially rated a start-class article. I believe that the article could be a B-class article. I would also appreciate any advice that others could give on how the article could be improved, especially from those that may not be familiar with the band. Thank you to everyone who takes the time to review this page. -- Ars Sycro ( talk) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's an article about a controversial person (political and health writer and documentary film producer, president of activist organizations) and dealing with controversial and popular topics, such as the Federal Reserve System, cancer cures, or the discovery of Noah's ark. Since the article's resurrection after a hot AfD discussion and its survival of a second, a handful of friendly editors have steadily improved the article, especially in terms of content, neutrality, quality of sources and balance. Now the article appears to be more or less stable. We'd like to see the quality assessment catch up with those improvements, and would warmly welcome any constructive criticism for further improvement. FeelFreeToBe ( talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is well-referenced and well-written, but it needs further development and probably restructuring.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope to get this article up to FA class standard. I would like help to address all prose issues here, as I think that is all that is left to be done. Tenacious D Fan ( talk) 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of content, the article is fine. Some more critical approaches and not just what the band's members say of themselves would be fine. The overciting, as I mentioned above, gets a bit tiring sometimes, and the prose is obviously improved with still some flaws (in FAC you may face Tony's harsh criticism!). However, I think it deserves the star!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article replacing an older (Jordanus Nemorarius) article based on an early-twentieth-century encyclopedia article. For the last 100 years a great deal has been learned about the work of Jordanus, as now summarized in the article, and all biographical rumours about him have been refuted. We simply know nothing certain about this man, only that his works start appearing in the first half of the 13th century.
It is not a stub. I have worked on Jordanus all my life, and no one is going to get anything more of substance. All that is left to do is to critically edit one of his texts, although that will be unlikely to change the content summary in the article.
If the reviewer(s) think that more informtion of a certain type is desired, I would be happy to either add it, or show why such information is never going to be available (e.g., birth, death, education, nationality information).
It should probably be a GA article, but I could try to turn it into an A with some comments.
Ron B. Thomson ( talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the help of a semi-automatic javascript program.
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
New article on a South African statesman of of Dutch descent of the mid-19th century. This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. Looking for Start-status, if possible on the basis of quality B-status. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about a well known Italian singer, it initially was a small article when I first began working on it, I expanded it as much as I could by whatever knowledge I had about the artist and then I did thorough research in order to include information about his early life and details about his 20 years of career. I have included sources for the article, unfortunately, not every single one could be found in English language, some of them are in German. At the moment the article has a Start rating, I'm hoping to get at least a "B" and perhaps it may even qualify for GA rating.-- Harout72 ( talk) 02:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's already attained "good article" status, and I think it potentially could become a featured article. It receives a great deal of visitors, and will probably receive much more attention from the public in the coming year.
I think the text of the article is in pretty good shape, but a general review of the whole article would be appreciated. One particular issue that I would like to see addressed is the black-on-black image at the top of the article (and to the right). At my request, the Wikipedia Graphics Lab yesterday created an alternative image (at right) by changing the background color to a lighter color. [1] I believe that the Graphics Lab Image is a big improvement, at least until a better image is obtained. If the current black-on-black image is retained, will that affect our chances of getting the article featured?
Thanks, Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been a while since the last time I had a peer review done on an article, but I did some major work on this article and want some feedback in order to find out what needs to be done to get this article up to FA status.
Thanks,
Ibaranoff24 (
talk) 12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reconstructed this article (about the most important woman mathematician of all time, according to Einstein and others) with the goal of making it an FA. The math and physics stuff is still trickling in (though I think we're nearly where we need to be), but the biography is pretty complete. (I have no skill in math or science, so while I welcome comments/questions on those matters, other folks may have to respond.) Thanks in advance to everyone who takes a look. – Scartol • Tok 14:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Karanacs
I'm totally impressed with the quality of the writing. Good job :) There are a few things I had questions about:
Karanacs ( talk) 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your review! – Scartol • Tok 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's so well done (and subsequently so over-my-head-technical) that I'm afraid I can be of little help. (You're too good for me!) Some scattered thoughts nonetheless.
These are all minor nitpicks, none of which would prevent supporting at FAC. I can't really vouch for the math and would want to hear from someone who could. What an interesting person... how'd you get turned onto this topic, Scartol? -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Another thought: did Emmy herself ever reflect at all upon being the only woman in her field for much of her life? -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed its second
WP:FAC. The article is very thorough and well-cited. However, this guy is a Reaganite and
Ronald Reagan took 6
WP:FACs and 2
WP:PRs (not to mention 2
WP:GACs to achieve
WP:FA. I am not a political scholar, but I imagine some people bring thier own persuasion into the promotion process for political figures. I have felt that at the conclusion of each
WP:FAC process, I have substantially addressed the concerns raised, but the reviewers failed to reconsider their opinions in time for the FA promotion. I am not entirely convinced that much needs to be done to the article when I compare its quality to my other 5 successful
WP:FAs, but I bring it here on the advice of
User:SandyGeorgia.
Thanks, TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review in preparation for FAC. Any comments, suggestions, or criticisms are welcome.
RelHistBuff (
talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. This is a new article about a nineteenth-century State Secretary and Acting State President of the Orange Free State. As created, it is more than a stub and I am looking for at least a class=Start in both listed Projects. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 09:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program:
You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
DrKiernan (
talk) 09:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
With the improvements and expansion I want to suggest that the article may qualify for B-status. Your opinions and action please. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has been further improved. Although it is a short article, it is my feeling that the quality is as good as it can get, and that therefore it could qualify for GA-status in its current form. Apart from the peer review and B-status handled here I have therefore also lodged a review request for GA-status. Who will assist? Michel Doortmont ( talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is a new submission in a series of Orange Free State biographies of historical political persons. Originally presented a stub, with just name info, the article now contains a full biography, info box, images (rare!) and references. We are therefore looking for a B-rating in both WikiProjects the article is in. Also we are looking for reviewer's comments and assistance to bring the article to GA-level (and eventually A- and FA-level). Michel Doortmont ( talk) 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
box.
Michel Doortmont (
talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
DrKiernan (
talk) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Re-request for classification as class-B article. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have written a few biography articles lately, but can't seem to get any above B-Class. I am hoping to find out what I need to do to this one to move it from B-Class to Good. Thanks for any advice you can give me. EraserGirl ( talk) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 11:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I made a stub and then flushed it out in a day, and I think it has potential to go to GA or higher. It has been through a copy edit and proofreading by the League of Copyeditors, now I would like to get feedback and collaboration on what needs to be done to further improve this to FA (aside from getting it from 20k to 50k). MrPrada ( talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) All in all I think this is a really good article. There are a few things which need to be changed though (most of them are very very minor). I've listed them below in the order that they appear in the article. Hope it helps and good luck!
This article is about a prominent South African politician and statesman. It is in need of additions and references. We are looking for a B-classification and are in need of assistance. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]The main thing is that this article is clearly too short for a Prime Minister of a major country, and needs to be expanded. [?] Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 11:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This article about an important South African politician and Boer leader is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. Looking for assistance to bring it up to B-level and possibly GA-level. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
New article on colourful South African Afrikaner statesman of the late 19th century. This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. Looking for B-status at least. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 11:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. Have another look in a couple of days, when I have dealt with the references. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article about a Japanese singer had a lot of speculation/personal opinion and almost no references when I started editing it. Since then, I've provided about 90% of the references, removed unconfirmable statements and personal opinion, and added necessary sections. I'm hoping to eventually turn it into a featured article. I'm especially hoping for constructive criticism concerning the lead section and flow of the article, but any feedback is appreciated. Thanatous ( talk) 04:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is comprehensive, well-written and well-cited. Well-done! (Your username is "thanatous"; do you know that in Greek "thanatos" [without the "u"!] means death?!)-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to submit this article for peer review, as I feel that it has undergone profound improvement recently. My hope is that it will achieve Featured Article status. I feel that it is excellently sourced, nicely laid out, and well written. It was recently nominated for FA status, but turned down due to some referencing issues (inconsistency of format being the main one). However, I think that these issues have been solved, and would like to get some outside opinion before re-submitting it as an FA candidate.-- AC+79 3888 ( talk) 10:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There were only two very minor points generated by the program. It looks like a very strong article to me.
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 06:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the biography of the leading Chad rebel commander. I want to ask a review of this article so to see how far it is from a potential A-class category, and what is most necessary to be done. The great lack, as all may notice, is the lack of images; there's little I can do, unfortunately, as free images of prominent Chadians are in general extremely rare (there's only one in wikipedia, and it's that of the current President of the country).-- Aldux ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite nice, overall. A few minor suggestions:
Keep up the good work! Kirill 12:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 13:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This biography on a South African Boer politician from the nineteenth century has been completely rewritten, as part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. We are looking for a class=Start in both Projects listed, with a view to class=B. Review comments are heartily invited. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 14:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
box.
Michel Doortmont (
talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
DrKiernan (
talk) 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In view of above edits I re-request B-status for this article. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. This is a new article about the first nineteenth-century State Secretary of the Orange Free State. As created, it is more than a stub and I am looking for at least a class=Start in both listed Projects. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 23:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
DrKiernan (
talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It is my feeling that the article now qualifies for B-status. If you agree, make it happen! Michel Doortmont ( talk) 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. This biography on a South African Boer politician from the nineteenth century has been completely rewritten. However, information from published sources is scarce. Therefore, we are looking for a class=Start in both Projects listed, with a view to class=B. Review comments are heartily invited. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic
javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
added.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This article on a South African politician was a stub with hardly any info in it. It is now completely rewritten, with references and sources, portrait and infobox links to WikiSource etc. Currently a B-status is looked for, with GA-status or above hoped for, when the remaining section of Reitz as cultural figure is completed, and some more editing has further improved the article. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
B-status has been issued by an independent reviewer. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
inserted.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
All of the above comments have been worked on rigourously and subsequenly the article was put up for Good Article (GA) status. Please assist in making this happen! Michel Doortmont ( talk) 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This was my first article. I am hoping to see what others think and for suggestions on how it could be improved. Forhist100 ( talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if you could further expand the article with more information.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 14:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Am hoping for comments and feedback on what to improve in this article in order for it be classified as a Good Article. The article last had a peer review in 2005 - and significant changes and expansions have taken place since then. I'd also like some feedback on the percieved weaknesses of the article. I've been putting some work into the article and I'd like to know if there any significant problems with it. Thanks. -- Cazo3788 ( talk) 17:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Several changes were made to this article since the last peer review, based on peer review recommendations. Requesting a second peer review to help move this article along to WP:GA status. SqlPac ( talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In general, the article looks comprehensive, informative and the prose seems to be fine.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
From a peer review, I'm looking for feedback on how to improve this article to a B-class quality article. I thought it was at least B-class when I submitted it for reassessment just yesterday, but apparently it is not. What do I need to do in order to improve it to a B-class article? -- Mr. Brown ( talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've worked this article up to B-class status, but apart from a little feedback while it was on the front page, I've gotten very little feedback. I'm aiming to push it to Good Article status at the moment, with maybe an eye towards FA after that's done, if I can. Any feedback would be appreciated, but especially layout, flow and appropriate depth. Mr Lemon ( talk) 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Article was recently promoted to GA. I would like a review to ensure promotion when nominated for FA. Also, during GAN the review suggested the Legacy and Personal Life sections be independent from the Biography section, but I thought it looks better when those sections were sub categories of the Biography. I'd like a second opinion. Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's all from me for now. Let me know if you want a follow-up, re-review or have any comments or questions that need addressing. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that Personal life should be a part of the biography section, but I'm not sure about Legacy.
This turned into a lengthier article than I expected on one of the more... interesting... characters in contemporary Colorado politics. I hope to pull this article up to GA and then FA status after a bit of polishing, but, at the moment, I'm mainly interested in how well the more colorful aspects of Douglas Bruce's career are covered. -- Sethant ( talk) 05:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an excellent, informative article. I'm glad to see an article on a state politician go beyond stub status! In terms of content, I'd like to read more about his younger years and personal life, but I understand that that information may just not exist in published sources. Here are my suggestions:
Please leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions or comments. Good luck. Psych less 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Myself and Fabrictramp (collectively operating as " TC&FCNSCFIBBA") are making an effort to bring this article to GA/FA status. We want a neutral third party to evaluate how far we've come and what needs to be done prior to submitting it as a GAC/FAC. Caknuck ( talk) 02:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
DrKiernan (
talk) 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)I would like to submit this article in the hope that I could gradually upgrade its rating to that of a Featured Article. Bill King is the oldest surviving submarine commander of the Second World War, an author, and a solo cirumnavigator.
DocDee ( talk) 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A very promising piece that would benefit from extensive revision to its structure. Here are some initial thoughts.
If you decide to restructure it, it will need a close look afterwards. I'm happy to do this if you like. If you have any questions, just ask. Keep up the good work, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article—see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]Current GA article looking for comments to help it improve towards FA. Subject is the president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, which promotes motor vehicles worldwide and is the international governing body for motorsport. The man himself has been a barrister, racing driver, team owner and sporting administrator. His father was Oswald Mosley (pre-war leader of the British Union of Fascists), and Max had some early political involvement with his father. Likely problems are neutrality and explanation of racing terminology for those new to it. Thanks in advance. 4u1e ( talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I am new to this and need feedback. At the moment it is tagged with Cleanup from November 2007 and All pages needing cleanup and has a Start-Class rating on the quality scale. I want to know where to go from here to improve the article. -- Okeeffe.christopher ( talk) 06:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I think you've done a good job of adding references, but I do have some comments:
The article wasn't fleshed out before I re-wrote it. I added most of the references and built upon the existing text to create a more detailed biography of Fulton. I hope to find out what people think could be added to the article and what parts need improved. I hope to add a lot more references from Fulton's autobiography, to try and mix the types of references found. -- My Name Is URL ( talk) 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the fair-use rationales on the two non-free use images: they may be too weak. The licensing on the other image is highly suspect. If the image ( Image:Francie&josie.jpg) is free use, then the fair use rationales don't apply because there is a free use image with which they can be replaced. Maybe you can get around that by saying "no free use equivalent depicting him out of character" or something of the sort on the fair use items. If the image is not free use (as I strongly suspect) it's been uploaded with the wrong licensing tag, and it needs to be corrected or deleted. This is a complex issue (see Wikipedia:Image use policy and related pages). The rule of thumb is avoid any images that you think are suspicious and only use free-use ones if possible. Make any fair-use rationales as tight as possible including any and all arguments for the image's use. For example, you can only include cover art (like the autobiography) if the article contains critical commentary on the item, but you only really mention the book in passing, and the picture on the front cover is the same as the picture in the top-right corner of the article, indicating that one or other of them could replace the other. If you insert extra citations from the autobiography which adds considerably to the article or discuss how his version of events in his book differs from other sources then I feel this requirement would be satisfied.
Minor points: Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?] Can you say for what he received his OBE? Was it for "services to entertainment", or did he do charity work? If the latter, include it in the article.
I would lose the external link: IMDB is already in the references and its use is controversial anyway (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). Personally, I don't consider it a reliable source as, like wikipedia, anyone can contribute to it and references are hardly ever given. DrKiernan ( talk) 13:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for feedback on this article about the gay rights activist from Philadelphia. I plan to submit for GA and would be interested to know if a FA may be possible for her. She rocks. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Douglas, the proverbial little old lady who wears a big hat, pearls, and tells you to go to hell. The simultaneous Grandmother of the Everglades and Anti-Christ, depending on who is doing the describing, is a fascinating writer and environmental activist. I'm looking for input from other editors on how to improve the article. I nominated it for GA on the same day, but sometimes that process takes a while, so I'm hoping you fine folks can give me some suggestions to make that smoother. I appreciate the effort you put in reading the article. It was most fun to research and write. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 pounds, use 100 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 pounds.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
One more in the series of Colorado legislators, a former mayor and Iraq veteran with quite an extensive private record before being elected to the state house. It was improved significantly after being featured recently in DYK, and will likely be sent up for good article review after completing peer review. -- Sethant ( talk) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?] The dates in the references are date first, but the dates in the article are month first. I would standardise so they are all month first. Good article.
DrKiernan (
talk) 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)This peer review discussion is closed. |
I noticed this stub about a fairly notable and colorful State Legislator and had serious concerns about NPOV and UNDUE regarding the controversy section. In researching him, I found a great deal of information and I've tried to include as much as is notable and covered by two or more publications. I would like to get the article to a point where it can be featured as a GA. Obviously it must be vetted for accuracy, POV, and to some extent, the prose. I look forward to hearing your comments and implementing them. MrPrada ( talk) 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done so far. A few comments:
Hopefully these comments are helpful. Carom ( talk) 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hope that is helpful. Rockfall ( talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to submit this for FA, but wanted someone else to review it first to help make sure it's ready to go. Coemgenus 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review before taking the article to
WP:FAC. OK, reading a long article on a sixteenth century theologian might sound pretty dull. But then maybe this article might convince you otherwise. If not, then at least tell me why!
Thanks, RelHistBuff ( talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In general, a very nice article.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Very promising article. Well done, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 07:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it up to FA status, so any comments against the FA criteria will be useful. :) Thanks,
PeterSymonds |
talk 14:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I have responded to your request on my talk page. My points below are ordered in the same way as what they refer to is in the article.
Specifics
General points
That's all I can find at the moment, it is an excellent article, you cover everything I can think of and write well, lots of images. Don't feel that it's a problematic article just because I haven't mentioned what's good about it. Everything above is minor. Hope this helps, SGGH speak! 15:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've already corrected the few minor things that I found issue with. You shouldn't have any major problems at FAC (assuming no major part of her life was omitted). Great article. -- mav ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added bio details from a new source. Wondering whether this one would still be considered a stub or not. I'll see what anyone says before removing that designation.
Tom Wood ( talk) 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{reflist}}
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Reviewers!
Shortly after joining Wikipedia a few months ago, I began to look for a stub article that I could work on and improve. I did not have much luck at first, but I stumbled upon the Annie Russell article, which hadn't had a sizable edit for quite a while.
So, as this is/was my first attempt at improving upon an article on Wiki. (Yes, I realize my IP address is the one that did the two huge edits, but that's an entirely different story). In any event, I want to get this article up to GA status, and hopefully learn a thing or two about the whole grooming/editing process in addition to learning more about Wikipedia for future edits. Thank you for taking the time to read and assess!! Galaxy250 ( talk) 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]Good work. I think you should expand the lead per WP:LEAD so that it includes mention of her most notable performances and summarizes the whole of her life, rather than used as a prelude to give details of her childhood. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 08:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have extensively re-written this article and I think it is shaping up rather nicely. Perhaps, GA status.
Can other contributors find additional sources and/or suitable images?
Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for a while now and I would like to make this a Featured Article. I think it's close to being a FA candidate, but I'd like to get someone else's point of view on how to make it better. Thanks Alot,-- Cal ( talk) 08:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:Please add
DrKiernan (
talk) 08:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
I would welcome any suggestions that would help me take this article to Featured Article status. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice article and well-researched!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to ensure that this article is in neutral point of view. I also want to suggest on what parts of the article are in need of improvements and in need of revisions. I also want this to be listed as a Good Article and hopefully as a Featured Article.
Thanks,
Kevin Ray ( talk) 04:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"History" section in biography is small. -- The Watusi ( talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
JS 08:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading the article. Maybe some further expansion with more assessments of her music and style throughout the article would help.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Recently, I rewrote the Dirk Nowitzki article from scratch, centering around the biography of this NBA basketball player. Chensiyuan helped me with his copyedits. I want to make it a FA in the future, and hope to find a fertile source of constructive criticism here. — Onomatopoeia ( talk) 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. — Onomatopoeia ( talk) 10:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Very nice article, and I liked a lot the prose (although I got a bit tired and bored in "Mark Cuban and the "Big Three" (1999–2004)" reading about one play-off game after the other!), which is something I don't often say about athletes' bios!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This article just passed at WP:GA. I want to take it to WP:FAC ASAP. Please prvoide feedback here to help toward that end. TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Another in my series of Colorado legislators. This one turned out a bit longer than most because there was quite a bit of excellent coverage about her from local news outlets. After going through peer review (and acquiring a free image), I plan on sending it up for good article review. -- Sethant ( talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for a while now and my eventual goal is to get it up to Featured Article status. I think it's getting close to being a potential FA candidate, but I'd like any input on how to make it better. Thanks, K. Lásztocska talk 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The article, Bernie Ward, is a good candidate for good article status. When I first began editing the article after it was mentioned at WP:WQA, the article was in a pretty sorry condition. There were numerous BLP errors, lapses in citations, POV-pushing, and many other deficiencies. These have been corrected through much work and discussion.
The primary concern at the moment is if enough weight has been placed on Bernie Ward's history outside of the recent criminal allegations. For this to be promoted to GA status, the weight needs to be distributed equally, and I would like confirmation on that, or if there is an error, please provide a method of correction.
Thanks, Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've worked a lot on this article and i would really like to make it a FA, therefore, feedback is most cordially requested.
Yamanbaiia( free hugs!) 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is an important one. Am initially hoping to get it rated B or GA and ultimately featured. Suggestions on how to progress the article will be useful to all involved in WP:UNIONISM - Traditional unionist ( talk) 17:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?] DoneYou may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 11:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is around good article level, and wondered if anyone had comments before I nominate. I started editing the article because I had followed Britain's Got Talent, then started referencing it to adhere to WP:BLP concerns that were raised. I then realised I had started it, so I may as well 'finish' it, and so wrote it up to the current standard. I have no specific concerns, but any comments anyone has are extremely welcome. Thanks, J Milburn ( talk) 15:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never reviewed anything before so I'm not sure if I missed anything important, but, the only thing I can see that should be fixed is: "show singing The Wizard of Oz's "Somewhere Over The Rainbow".[3]", the link to "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" is a redirect, maby put this in place: "[[Over the Rainbow|Somewhere Over the Rainbow]]". I'm not sure if redirects are bad, but I personally like the original link, and the T in "The" shouldn't by capitalised. I hope I can help a little, I've never reviewed before this, but it is an interesting article and looks good.
Thank you,
Burningclean [
Speak the truth! 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You should of left me a message on my talk page ;p M3tal H3ad ( talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
What I hope to achieve with this peer review.
Navy.enthusiast ( talk) 11:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm not the main editor, the article has in fact been written mostly by one person, a neophyte editor: Slp512. My role has just been formatting and generally tidy-up duties.
Personally I think it has the makings of a GA article at the very least, as such I'd be grateful for suggestions from the experts :) -- WebHamster 15:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Rewritten in the past 2 days by myself, would like helpful comments to fix any errors for GA status. M3tal H3ad ( talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
These problems are just from a quick scan of the article. You need to start proof reading your work, so that basic mistakes are spotted. Also, you really need to find a copyeditor to collaborate with. Such articles of this quality may pass the more lenient GA, but the writing wouldn't be embraced at FAC. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 14:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Two editors have made extensive edits to improve this article. The writing style is improved, the content is more extensive and thorough with a more neutral perspective, some incorrect biographical information was corrected, and copious in-text citations have been added where appropriate. Also, several new sections have been added. The list of references has been expanded. Overall, the article seems to be a much better representation of Wiki standards.
I would like to see the tags at the top of the article (that there are no in-text citations, and that the tone might not be appropriate for wikipedia) deleted and also to see the rating of the article go up. Currently it is start class but that was in reference to a prior version. I would also like to hear suggestions on how the rating can increase if any reviewers still think the article needs improvement.
Thank you! Unscathed310 ( talk) 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Unscathed310
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
These are just some examples of the many problems this article faces. It still needs much more work in order to become a proper encyclopedic biographical article. I'm not even sure it fulfils B-Class criteria.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know if this article can become FA, and if not, what does it need? I'd also like to know what are the positive and negative things of the article. Armando.O talk · Ev · 3K 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Other than that it looks pretty good, good work M3tal H3ad ( talk) 05:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO it is a GA but not yet up to FA status. To achive that it will need more profound analysis.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't have to be a good article to be nominated for featured status, which I have done. This article was and should have remained a good article; I believe the only reason it did not was because of its instability at the time. Here's to Evanescence FA status. /\\//\|_()|\| ( talk) 09:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Dan Gibbs, on a newly-minted state senator, is the latest in my attempts towards building good articles on Colorado legislators. I'm still working on obtaining images, but I'd appreciate more feedback than the single automated response I got for my peer review request of John Kefalas last month. -- Sethant ( talk) 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
From this peer review I am hoping to get this article up to the level of FA. It is already a GA and I want to know what needs to be improved and added/expanded upon to improve it. Andrew D White ( talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Just some trivia:
Very nice indeed! I think this article is on the track to be FA! And I do not see any serious copyright problems with the pictures. Good chance in FAC!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 14:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
After revamping the article, I have gone through 2 failed FACs. I would like to know what I need to get this up to FA quality. Thanks! TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Old Peer Review
|
---|
===
Killswitch Engage ===
Completely re-written the past 2-3 days, would like helpful comments to get it to GA. Thanks. M3tal H3ad ( talk) 07:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC) LuciferMorganComments There are too many long sentences, ones that would stop this progressing beyond GA status. They need cutting into two sentences. For example;
These are just examples, indicative of a wider problem. Ceoil is busy right now at FAR, and then will be copyediting Undisputed Attitude. Following that, I think you should request a thorough copyedit from him. Despite making the odd typo, his copyediting skills are quite good.
Needs work if you wish to take this to FAC. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 09:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
J MilburnI see LM has already given a rather comprehensive review, but I'll have a read through.
I realise that is a rather short review for me, but I don't really see anything else that needs fixing. Conversely, it doesn't seem to be featured, and I can't quite put my finger on the problem. This makes a great good article, but isn't quite at featured, and I am not honestly sure what could be done. In any case, another article which has benefited immensely from your attention- well done. J Milburn ( talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
|
I am submitting this article for peer review. I hope to achieve GA status. In the event that this article has achieved this standard, I would like some feedback as to how to bring the article up to the next level (FA status).
Thank you.
Brinabina ( talk) 08:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 13:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
*The lead is ok, but why do you have to link "book"? I don't think it is necessary.
Done I have removed the link. I think the idea here was to link to the wikipedia bibliography of his works, but I was unsure of how to do this. I have the same problem later on in the article. It would be nice. I have searched for the info on how to link to a subsection of an article (even the same one) but I seem to be wading through a lot of other information and I just can't find it... help?
*"The methodology described in the book described ways of affecting immediate and positive life changes by reprogramming speech, movement and thought patterns.". You see the prose problem here?
Done Oh, yes, I seem to have missed that one. My bad. It reads much better, now. If you have further suggestions for improvement on this or any other sentence please let me know.
*You have a separate subject "Education", while you also speak about his education in "Biography". Overlapping?
Not done I think of the biography as a general overview that includes the subsequent topics, but does not go into any one of them at length. I understand this to be Wikipedia's style. Perhaps I can further generalize the earlier reference, or further specify the latter. Alternately, I can eliminate any reference to his education in the biography, altogether. What do you suggest?
*"The skepticism stems, in part, from the fact that NLP is largely based on cognitive linguistics which emerged from later work on generative semantics--the "losing" side of the heavily debated "Linguistics Wars" in academic circles of the 1960s and 1970s. Furthermore, this credibility debate is compounded by the previous lack of empirical research supporting NLP's effectiveness." I would cite that.
Not done Ah, yes, I believe this is another one of those places where I wanted to link within Wikipedia (to a subsection) and couldn't, for the life of me, figure out how.
*"Linguistics Wars" is also undercited.
Not done Same.
*“If you want academic credibility, if you want respect from the established entities, whether they are psychological or medical or whatever, well, you have to play their game. If game sounds too flippant, then you have to meet their values. Have to meet their standards of evidence.” Citation?
Done Yes, this one slipped by me and I neglected to cite it. I actually have the source somewhere and can't quite find it at the moment. If I can't place it, then I'll just delete it from the article. It's a pity, as it's a good quote.
*In "References" we put the material we used in notes. Otherwise it is "further reading". I don't think it is clear what is exactly your "References" section. And why Koppel is in "Further reading", although he is referred in "Notes"?! Some fixing is needed in these sections.
Duly noted. I will review these sections and make changes, as needed.
*I am not a specialist on the issue, so I will not elaborate on the ideas of Faulkner and how they are presented in the article. I will just point out the necessity to follow the POV policy. I express some scepticism about the source (note 9) used in the first paragraph of "achievements". It is a site where no author is sigining Faulkner's short biography. I am not quite sure if such a source is " reliable", but I hope I am wrong.
I tried to be especially careful to maintain a NPOV. I feel that any biography used as a source for this article can be considered reliable because they can be cross-referenced with reliable sites (such as Faulkner's own and those belonging to established Societies or organizations who are accountable for the information they present to the public). However, I will reread your posted link and review the citation extra carefully to be sure that I am correctly following Wikipedia's guidelines.
In terms of structure, IMO the "Achievements" section is not exactly an "achievements" sections! It includes the whole career, ideas, works of Faulkner being something broader than mere "achievements". Maybe it should be renamed or divided in two sections. Again this may just be a personal preference.
Done I agree that the title is too narrow. I am looking into some alternate choices... leaning towards splitting the section into two and coming up with narrower titles. Thanks for the suggestions.
In general the article is good IMO and goold well go through GA. For FAC I am not yet sure ...
-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your thorough and honest feedback. :)
Brinabina ( talk) 18:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
In April 2007, the Ferry article was reviewed, and it kept its B-status because "No linline citations, several sections marked as stubs, and a short lead keep this B class.". Since then, lots of references were added, sections rewritten, information added.
I believe Bryan Ferry's article could become an A-class article. Because there is no (copyright-free) image of Bryan Ferry available, and some other things still remain unsolved (what did his father exactly do? how many albums did ferry sell?), it is currently not A-status. But the article has improved a lot since the last review. I would like to have a new peer review for the Bryan Ferry article, to see how far the article is from an A-article (or Good Article).-- Pie.er 13:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
DrKiernan 09:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an article on the Welsh comedian/performer Max Boyce. I've virtually written the whole article from scratch (or from a very poor stub at least) - I did all this a few months ago, but never bothered to get it reviewed till now. Whilst I'd dream of having it featured, the dearth of sources on his life (his 'biographies', factually speaking, are useless...) probably means that looking towards Good Article status is more realistic in the short term. I'm hoping for reviewers to point out any mistakes/oversights/POV, etc. and any suggestions about how to expand or re-work the article if possible. Many thanks! Rob Lindsey ( talk) 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In general I liked the article! I am not a specialist on the issue, but I think that it is well-written.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like this article to have a higher rating, from B to A and eventually to FA status. There has already been a general assessment of it, but I feel that it needs more input. It's an important topic, since as the article states, The Wiggles is the highest-grossing entertainers in Australia, and have influenced countless children and their families worldwide. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"Using his connections with the Cockroaches, Field arranged with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to distribute their album in Australia. Their manager suggested that they tour.[3][8] Their public debut was at a pre-school in Randwick." Some choppy prose.
References look fine to me. With some more tweaks I think the article could get GA status and then FA.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Article on the biggest/most influential/successful heavy/thrash metal band ever. Over the past week i have completely re-written the article, which previously looked like this. I hope to take it to FAC in a week or two and hope you will be able to provide useful feedback. It just needs a copyedit by some "fresh eyes", and any information you could think of to be added to the Legacy section would be appreciated. Thanks.
Irritated, as I just lost everything I typed over about three quarters of an hour thanks to my college's dependence on the 'wonderful' Internet Explorer.
In any case, I will attempt to write it out again, but I'll do it in sections this time.
Sorry, that's all I have time for. Internet access is currently limited, and if I am not online before tomorrow evening, I won't be able to review until next weekend. J Milburn ( talk) 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, managed to find some reliable Internet access, on a computer with Firefox, so I will give a full review now.
Overall, another great job. The prose in the section on Mustaine is a bit dull, but I can't really put my finger on what is wrong with it- perhaps it should be rewritten. Also, it may be worth expanding the fair use rationales on the images. I'll take another read through once you have gone through this review. J Milburn ( talk) 14:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
First paragraph uses the word "form" (or derivative) three times which is a little redundant, maybe replace one or two with a synonym. ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it to FA status. I will respond to comments as quickly as possible. Thanks,
PeterSymonds |
talk 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Peer review request to ensure it conforms with Biography format for possible GA submission in future (don't think it's long enough for FA). -- DavidCane ( talk) 23:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to you that you reach out to a copy-edit volunteer. Anne Teedham ( talk) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
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. |
This is a relatively short subject, as the subject is most famous for his legacy rather than the length of his life. I'd like to see if we could bring it to A-level fairly quickly. Not sure a subject this short could ever become a featured article, but I want it to be the best it could be. -- Leifern ( talk) 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 06:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This was recently promoted to GA status and I am interested in improving it further. Areas in particular need of improvement are the introduction and the childhood/education paragraph. I would also appreciate feedback on readability, NPOV issues, reliability of sources, and anything else I may have missed. Thanks. Wronkiew ( talk) 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
See also:
First of all, let me say that as far as I read your article was very well-written, documented, and researched. Unfortunately, I stopped reading as soon as I determined that your citation-style would make it next to impossible for me to continue. I will explain—
As soon as a reader decides to click footnote [6], for example, he encounters a lengthy alphabetic line which leads to an author's name. So, then, a curious researcher clicks the author's name and he is quickly transported to the appropriate parameters of title, publisher, etc.. Unfortunately, herein is where the problem lies.
After a researcher has decided to return to his original query point, i.e. [6], there is no quick and precise manner in which that reader may return. Rather, the reader needs to scroll backwards to your article and needs to hope that he can recall exactly where he was before he began his quest for further knowledge.
If a reader is a short-way into your article, I suppose a fact that there are only six or eight [6]s to choose from may not be a problem. But what is a reader of half your article to do? Try to remember if he was at e, f, g? Or scroll up and down, from one minute to the next, pondering where he was before he began? (Thank Technology for center-scrollwheels, eh!)
I stopped instantly, and decided to explain: Although your citation-style is new, is unique, and is very well-organized, it is inoperable to a researcher who needs to move quickly back and forth from research note to manuscript. I would prefer that you abandoned your style, or made it more researcher-friendly.
I will come back some, other day and will tell you my reaction to the overall content—because the article is interesting—but I will do that only when I decide to ignore your references completely and just read the main-body. Anne Teedham ( talk) 14:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
MORE
As a faculty member of Princeton University, he invented the particle storage ring and the mass driver.[1] (second sentence LEAD)
I understand how wikilinks work; however I believe it is sometimes necessary for a writer to provide a short phrase for the lazy reader who does not wish to spend his precious time wikilinking through Wikipedia. Thus, the reference to the "mass driver" in the very beginning of your article needs a quick phrase because the mass driver—more than any other O'Neill invention—is vital to an understanding of Gerard O'Neill's contribution to future space manufacturing and space colonization. I doubt that a lazy reader will be happy to wait until paragraph 19 for an appropriate explanation.
Citations
The subsection Birth, education, and family life is jammed with one reference after another; however in other places footnoting is sparse e.g. He even explored the possibilities of flying gliders inside a space colony, finding that the enormous volume could support atmospheric thermals. He calculated that humanity could expand on this man-made frontier to 20,000 times its population. The initial colonies would be built at the Earth-Moon L4 and L5 Lagrange points.
Or: In 1956, his second year of teaching, his two-page letter titled “Storage-Ring Synchrotron: Device for High-Energy Physics Research” was published in Physical Review.
I am certainly NOT suggesting that either procedure is better than the other; my concern is: How do you decide what is important to footnote and what is not?
I believe that once you decide the importance of one criteria over the other, then you will find a happy medium for your referencing. At present, I believe your referencing in places is excessive, specailly in subsection Birth, education, and family life.
Sometimes your prose gets excessively wordy e.g. This would increase the amount of energy involved in particle collisions over the method used at the time, which was to direct the particle beam at a fixed target.[2]
I believe that it is just quicker to say: This would increase the amount of energy involved in particle collisions over the method used at the time to direct the particle beam at a fixed target.[2]
Consequently, I think that your article would benefit from the introduction of an unbiased, unimformed good copyeditor, one with whom you would feel comfortable.
This brings me to structure. I am not certain that I found your constant repetition of material pleasing. For example, you refer to O'Neill's freshman physics class at Princeton a great number of times in a great number of different subsections. Perhaps if your biography were more linear in its approach i.e. 1927 to 1992 highlighting the various aspects of O'Neill's endeavors in depth, it would be less repetitive. Yet, on the whole, I found myself becoming bored and wondering when will this thing come to an end.
There is a lot here. And my final evaluation is not fair. I am sorry. I feel though that your article needs to be re-tuned for the lazy reader (like me) who is less scholarly than you and more interested in the simple facts.
Lastly, I would like to return to our discussion on your style for footnoting. I follow your reasoning for the use of the Back Button. Yet answer me this—
In the sentences: O’Neill was diagnosed with leukemia in 1985.[58] He died on April 27, 1992, from complications of the disease at the Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City, California.[6][7]
After I have read that, and have decided to click [6], I am taken to footnote 6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Daniels 1992. I click Daniels 1992, and receive Daniels, Lee A. (April 29, 1992). Gerard K. O’Neill, Professor, 69; Led Studies on Physics and Space, New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. I then decide to return. So I click my Back Button. This takes me back to footnote 6 (good). I then click my Back Button again. This takes me back to a screen which begins: On November 18, 1991, O’Neill filed a patent application for a high-speed train system. He called the system VSE, for velocity, silence, and efficiency.[2] The trains, instead of running on tracks, would be propelled by electromagnetic forces through tunnels. He estimated that the trains could reach...
But I thought that I was reading something about leukemia? But where? (darned IE ver 6.0, Win 98 SE...dump this archaic software on the Chinese, eh???)
Do you understand what I am saying now. The use of your Back Button produces a return to the previous PAGE, not the previous CITATION.
I doubt that this is a real big deal for anyone other than a nitpicking fool. My only reason for bringing it up is to suggest that your style is less satisfying than existing examples that I have seen elsewhere.
In closing, I find it necessary to say that I have been unnecessarily harsh only because I believe that your article would benefit by closely evaluating my silly remarks, and by deciding do you want lazy readers such as nitpicking Anne Teedham to read completely through your article without struggling with minor technicalities.
It is a good article. But I think that it can be better. Anne Teedham ( talk) 16:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This review is closed. Many thanks to Anne Teedham for her helpful comments. Wronkiew ( talk) 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I requested this peer review because I rewrote this article a month or so ago. Although it was well-written prior to my endeavors, it contained in-line citations such as this:
Danny Casolaro was a [[freelance writer]] who committed [[suicide]] one day (Ridgeway and Vaughan p. 37) in [[Room]] 517 (Corn p. 517) at the [[Sheraton Inn]] (C.D. Seltzer ppg. 511-12) in [[Martinsburg]],[[West Virginia]].
Because the article looked like a Christmas tree of "overlinking" and in-line citations, I determined that it needed my input. The result now is ready for a peer review.
I would like the article to be reviewed by reviewers who will show an interest in moving the article along a path towards becoming a Featured Article. This, of course, will mean following ALL REFERENCE MATERIALS, evaluating ALL crosslinking throughout Wikipedia without passing subjective opinion on whether or not "the conspiracy" is, or isn't.
The fact of the matter is: The Story of Danny Casolaro and Inslaw and Michael Riconosciuto from 1980 to 2001 engulfed a great deal of historical, U.S. events. There is even suggestion that this story involves 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden. Consequently, due to these elements of history, I believe that it is essential that an article on Danny Casolaro reads well, is referenced well, and presents whatever facts are facts.
There is a comment on the talkpage that the section "Remaining questions and allegations" is silly.
I do not agree with the writer; that kind of review is NOT what I look for.
I look for the kind of review that realizes that those remaining questions and allegations are factual, open-ended details of Casolaro's life which remain troubling, and are therefore an intregal part of a Danny Casolaro article.
My major concern is whether or not this article is an encyclopedic article. In my opinion, it may be little more than mainstream background detailing the final days of Danny Casolaro's life.
Thanks for reading me this far.
Incidentally, if you check the History on this article, it has seen very little interest since its beginning. I stumbled upon it myself. I am glad that I did. The complete story (Danny et al) is fascinating when someone weeds through the details separating facts from repetitive speculation . Hag2 ( talk) 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Update This article has been sitting here too long without comment. Surely someone could read a bit, and then say "This article stinks." At least, that's a review. *smile* Hag2 ( talk) 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program, which highlights minor issues of style.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on this article for the past two months, with the ultimate goal of certifying it as a Featured Article. I feel that the research and structure are solid, and I welcome all comments about what can be improved. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Scartol • Tok 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yet another fascinating biography of a radical! :) Here are my comments:
Prose and whatnot:
Lead:
Images:
Like always, this was a pleasure! Awadewit ( talk) 13:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Embarrassingly, I have very little to nitpick about this article. It's well written and entirely engaging, so forgive my briefness.
Overall very good work; I was worried that areas may be too lengthy and/or descriptive, but I was glad to find it to be a rather engrossing read. A biography and a history lesson, all in one! It's a shame there aren't more images of her available, but I understand the difficulty in hunting such things down. Thanks for inviting me to read this in full, it made my lunch break a lot more interesting. :) María ( habla con migo) 17:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for ways to improve the article further as it proceeds along in quality status. No rush, but interested in input from some fresh eyes. Thanks,
Cirt (
talk) 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The scientology story is very interesting, but the article needs work both in prose and analysis.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope to get a peer reivew and make this a good article It is me i think ( talk) 13:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs a lot of work.
After the article gets improved, a new peer-review will be needed.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting a peer review to make this a better article and with some more work eventually make it a GA. I will be the first to admit I will never earn a living as a writer, so any suggestions on phrasing, style, grammar, etc. would especially be appreciated. 09er ( talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The greatest problem of the article is the prose. It needs great improvements. Read MoS instructions and Tony's essays and exercises. ANd try to cooperate with a good copy-editor.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like a formal peer-review of the above article to gather shortcomings for it to become at least a GA article. Please comment on anything, from the grammar in the article to the referencing. I would surely work with you guys on this.
Thanks, Arun Reginald ( talk · contribs) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping that this article be reviewed by another editor mainly so that I can get feedback as to my job [as I was the main editor of this article] at writing Mr. Flynn's biography. I dont believe the artlce would ever be fetured, but I hope it can become a good article. This biography is a work in progress. I wrote the his biography at first, but did not include sources for his noteability. It has been rewritten and many more indipendent cites added. I desided to remove the noteability tag, hopefully not prematurely. Now that i've reworked it, i'm hoping I can get some advice as how to smooth it out. This is my first biography. The noteability issues brought up in the first draft of the biography is the reason for this peer review. Cindy Flynn ( talk) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What mainly needs this article is less editing by Flynn himself! What you need in order to upgrade it is uninvolved editors to work on it, and verifiably sources to back Flynn's own edits, because, otherwise, the article suffers from OR. So, I'm more concerned about the CoI issues, and the quality of the sources, and less for the notability issue. Some of the web sites used look to me as not the best sources one could cite.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/John Degnan
A tremendous amount of research and writing effort has been expounded to make this article as comprehensive yet balanced and user-friendly as possible. The goal in this effort has been to bring the article to A-class or Featured Article status. Hopefully a peer review by WikiProject Biography would constructively facilitate this to happen, or at the very least allow a greater improvement of the artifcle from where it stands now. As it currently stands, the article has grown well beyond the B-class status it currently enjoys. Jonyungk ( talk) 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but towards the end of the article I lost my concentration. After all, after the article is copy-edited and further improved, maybe an additional review would be useful. I must laud the scholarly research, and I would also like to point out that, although I liked the instances of "poetic prose", I am not sure if this is something the FAC reviewers would also like! But this is the task of a good copy-editor basically!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
So, the main weak point of the article might be that it primarily comes from one book—as mentioned in the article, Masuda's been glossed over in English language Japanese film scholarship and criticism—but I think it manages okay. Also, haven't found a reference for the Kinema Junpo readers choice award yet. Anyway, I'm looking for any glaring errors or omissions and maybe some opinions on whether this has GA or FA potential. Thanks very much,
Doctor Sunshine
talk 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a peer review because I am hoping to get this article to at least B status.
Dovcamp ( talk) 05:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments on this article will be appreciated to get rating and maybe GA status. Regards— G716 < T· C> 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well-written, try to enrich it with more material not necessarily focused on the abortions (any other interesting aspects of her activity), and make it less one-sided; I'm afraid that POV is the article's main problem right now.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 11:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is currently rated as Stub-class. I have made substantial edits to the article, including adding sub-headings and many references. I feel it could at least be upgraded to Start-class. I would also like to receive feedback from other editors on what could be improved and find other editors interested in working on the article. Tstreet ( talk) 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
DrKiernan (
talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)I plan on adding additional references for this soon, but Bob Staake is already well referenced on the interenet because of his long involvement with major publishing houses which print his books for adults and children. I hope that this is suitable but would appreciate review as I am still very new to this. Rezimmerman ( talk) 19:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am seeking a peer review of this article because I invested a lot of time in the research and writing of it, and would like to make it as good as possible. Bowie60 ( talk) 00:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at
WP:FAC mostly for lack of having generated commentary. Thus, feedback is needed. I intend to incorporate information from several books that I have checked out from the
Chicago Public Library, but the current article may have some problems that are causing people not to want to take an interest. I think maybe there may be some organizational issues that are keeping readers from getting into the article. Advice welcome.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks for all comments, DrKiernan ( talk) 08:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Generally quite well done article, assume this will be going to GAN (already seems to be GA level) or FAC soon. Here are my comments, mostly nit picks:
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed at WP:GAC for the third time this year. Although many of the most recent reviewer arguments were for reasons not in keeping with policy (e.g., the reviewer knowledgeable on size policy and thought the article exceeded policy limitation), some arguments were of varying degrees of merit. With respect to size, the article is currently only half the length that is against policy at WP:FAC. Currently, according to this tool, the article is 30.2 KB of readable prose and 5350 words and WP:SIZE says articles much more than 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose is a problem. Generally, much longer than 30 of 50 KB is perceived as over 60KB. So this article could be nearly twice as long and be a WP:FA. It certainly is far short of the length of Harry S. Truman or either of the Roosevelts for example. In truth, given my experience with WP:GAC, which is about as broad and deep as any on WP, I was quite surprised given the lack of merit of some of the arguments against this article that it was not given a hold at GAC. I am somewhat convince that the common dislike of Bonds may have spilled over into the evaluation of the quality of the article. However, I concede that that as the most active editor of the article, I may be too close to see very deep problems with the article. In short, I need more outside eyes on this article that I think of as very close to WP:WIAGA to help me see points of improvement.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This article got little notice during the last peer review, and has since failed featured article candidacy, after much work from the Psychopathic Records WikiProject. What further needs to be done in order to get this article up to FA standards, quality and status? ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC))
Tell me when done or when extra commentary would be useful. -- Kakofonous ( talk) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is my second contribution to Wikipedia, and it is very complex. I would appreciate any help with formatting or any other issues that veterans here may be able to help me with. Rezimmerman ( talk) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Similar to the Tim O'Brien (illustrator)'s article remarks. Nice lists (which when getting long can become a separate article), but not so much of content. The formatting is nice, and this is not my problem right now. Right now I would first like to see this biography enriched with material so as to go further the stub-class status.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 09:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the formatting is fine too, but I did remove some HTML syntax. If you want to include tables, they should be written in Help:Table wiki-markup. The way you've done the columns is fine.
Again, I would agree with Yannis: try to expand on the biographical text. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is my first contribution to Wikipedia. I have attempted to follow all of the guidelines for creating useful and informative content, although I am certain to have made some mistakes and would appreciate any guidance offered.
My particular area of interest is contemporary American illustrators and I would like to continue to contribute informative biographies on that subject. Thanks for any suggestions and tips to creating successful content.
Rezimmerman (
talk) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Your references are well-formatted, but the problem is the lack of content! The article includes a lead, and then just a list of honors and awards, and an "Influence" section with no analysis; almost no prose; just a small sentence. Expand your article, add material, create a well-written biography, and then a peer-review will be more helpful. I think that at your stage you should try first follow these nice tips about how to create a biography.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 09:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
My comments have been generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
Similar to what Yannis has said above:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
DrKiernan (
talk) 14:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Would like a fresh set of eyes to check this article as I wish to progress it to GA status.
Thanks DISEman ( talk) 02:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is close to GA, but needs work for A-Class or FA status.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please check the spelling: the article uses a mixture of British and American spellings. I would prefer fewer external links; currently looks like a link farm. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I edited this article to better conform to Wikipedia standards and would like some other editors to take a look at it to make sure I'm not missing anything obvious. Also, I really don't know about the section titles in the article. They don't sound very good to me, but I couldn't think of a better way to divide them at the time. The names and section-break placement are open for discussion.
I'd like to get this article up to GA standards if we can. —
OranL (
talk) 08:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Too short to be judged. The citation-tags need fixing, the article should be expanded to go further the stub status, and the last stubby section is a "Personal Life" or "Family" section; note what its heading declares.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I created this article and wrote it to WP:GA. I need a new set of eyes to help this article achieve WP:FA status. It hopefully will be my first:) PG Pirate 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Even though I'm a college football fan, my main concern is that there isn't enough about his life outside of football. I'm afraid that when you bring it up for FAC, that's going to be the main point of contention. I'm also not a big fan of tables that don't have accompanying prose. If there's anything that can be written about his experience coaching in a bowl game or about his overall coaching record, I'd love to see that in the accompanying section. Barring that, I'd suggest trying to somehow incorporate those tables into the main body of the article, somehow. I've never seen a FA with standalone tables, but that could just be because I haven't been looking for them. Judging from the Jack Kemp FAC and its trials and tribulations, you're going to be in for a long haul getting it through FAC no matter how much prep work you do. Just keep at it, keep making changes, and eventually you'll get this to FA status. Best of luck. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 08:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This article has undergone a large amount of reconstruction since it was initially rated a start-class article. I believe that the article could be a B-class article. I would also appreciate any advice that others could give on how the article could be improved, especially from those that may not be familiar with the band. Thank you to everyone who takes the time to review this page. -- Ars Sycro ( talk) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's an article about a controversial person (political and health writer and documentary film producer, president of activist organizations) and dealing with controversial and popular topics, such as the Federal Reserve System, cancer cures, or the discovery of Noah's ark. Since the article's resurrection after a hot AfD discussion and its survival of a second, a handful of friendly editors have steadily improved the article, especially in terms of content, neutrality, quality of sources and balance. Now the article appears to be more or less stable. We'd like to see the quality assessment catch up with those improvements, and would warmly welcome any constructive criticism for further improvement. FeelFreeToBe ( talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is well-referenced and well-written, but it needs further development and probably restructuring.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope to get this article up to FA class standard. I would like help to address all prose issues here, as I think that is all that is left to be done. Tenacious D Fan ( talk) 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of content, the article is fine. Some more critical approaches and not just what the band's members say of themselves would be fine. The overciting, as I mentioned above, gets a bit tiring sometimes, and the prose is obviously improved with still some flaws (in FAC you may face Tony's harsh criticism!). However, I think it deserves the star!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article replacing an older (Jordanus Nemorarius) article based on an early-twentieth-century encyclopedia article. For the last 100 years a great deal has been learned about the work of Jordanus, as now summarized in the article, and all biographical rumours about him have been refuted. We simply know nothing certain about this man, only that his works start appearing in the first half of the 13th century.
It is not a stub. I have worked on Jordanus all my life, and no one is going to get anything more of substance. All that is left to do is to critically edit one of his texts, although that will be unlikely to change the content summary in the article.
If the reviewer(s) think that more informtion of a certain type is desired, I would be happy to either add it, or show why such information is never going to be available (e.g., birth, death, education, nationality information).
It should probably be a GA article, but I could try to turn it into an A with some comments.
Ron B. Thomson ( talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the help of a semi-automatic javascript program.
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
New article on a South African statesman of of Dutch descent of the mid-19th century. This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. Looking for Start-status, if possible on the basis of quality B-status. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about a well known Italian singer, it initially was a small article when I first began working on it, I expanded it as much as I could by whatever knowledge I had about the artist and then I did thorough research in order to include information about his early life and details about his 20 years of career. I have included sources for the article, unfortunately, not every single one could be found in English language, some of them are in German. At the moment the article has a Start rating, I'm hoping to get at least a "B" and perhaps it may even qualify for GA rating.-- Harout72 ( talk) 02:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's already attained "good article" status, and I think it potentially could become a featured article. It receives a great deal of visitors, and will probably receive much more attention from the public in the coming year.
I think the text of the article is in pretty good shape, but a general review of the whole article would be appreciated. One particular issue that I would like to see addressed is the black-on-black image at the top of the article (and to the right). At my request, the Wikipedia Graphics Lab yesterday created an alternative image (at right) by changing the background color to a lighter color. [1] I believe that the Graphics Lab Image is a big improvement, at least until a better image is obtained. If the current black-on-black image is retained, will that affect our chances of getting the article featured?
Thanks, Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been a while since the last time I had a peer review done on an article, but I did some major work on this article and want some feedback in order to find out what needs to be done to get this article up to FA status.
Thanks,
Ibaranoff24 (
talk) 12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reconstructed this article (about the most important woman mathematician of all time, according to Einstein and others) with the goal of making it an FA. The math and physics stuff is still trickling in (though I think we're nearly where we need to be), but the biography is pretty complete. (I have no skill in math or science, so while I welcome comments/questions on those matters, other folks may have to respond.) Thanks in advance to everyone who takes a look. – Scartol • Tok 14:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Karanacs
I'm totally impressed with the quality of the writing. Good job :) There are a few things I had questions about:
Karanacs ( talk) 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your review! – Scartol • Tok 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's so well done (and subsequently so over-my-head-technical) that I'm afraid I can be of little help. (You're too good for me!) Some scattered thoughts nonetheless.
These are all minor nitpicks, none of which would prevent supporting at FAC. I can't really vouch for the math and would want to hear from someone who could. What an interesting person... how'd you get turned onto this topic, Scartol? -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Another thought: did Emmy herself ever reflect at all upon being the only woman in her field for much of her life? -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed its second
WP:FAC. The article is very thorough and well-cited. However, this guy is a Reaganite and
Ronald Reagan took 6
WP:FACs and 2
WP:PRs (not to mention 2
WP:GACs to achieve
WP:FA. I am not a political scholar, but I imagine some people bring thier own persuasion into the promotion process for political figures. I have felt that at the conclusion of each
WP:FAC process, I have substantially addressed the concerns raised, but the reviewers failed to reconsider their opinions in time for the FA promotion. I am not entirely convinced that much needs to be done to the article when I compare its quality to my other 5 successful
WP:FAs, but I bring it here on the advice of
User:SandyGeorgia.
Thanks, TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review in preparation for FAC. Any comments, suggestions, or criticisms are welcome.
RelHistBuff (
talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. This is a new article about a nineteenth-century State Secretary and Acting State President of the Orange Free State. As created, it is more than a stub and I am looking for at least a class=Start in both listed Projects. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 09:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program:
You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
DrKiernan (
talk) 09:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
With the improvements and expansion I want to suggest that the article may qualify for B-status. Your opinions and action please. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has been further improved. Although it is a short article, it is my feeling that the quality is as good as it can get, and that therefore it could qualify for GA-status in its current form. Apart from the peer review and B-status handled here I have therefore also lodged a review request for GA-status. Who will assist? Michel Doortmont ( talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is a new submission in a series of Orange Free State biographies of historical political persons. Originally presented a stub, with just name info, the article now contains a full biography, info box, images (rare!) and references. We are therefore looking for a B-rating in both WikiProjects the article is in. Also we are looking for reviewer's comments and assistance to bring the article to GA-level (and eventually A- and FA-level). Michel Doortmont ( talk) 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
box.
Michel Doortmont (
talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
DrKiernan (
talk) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Re-request for classification as class-B article. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have written a few biography articles lately, but can't seem to get any above B-Class. I am hoping to find out what I need to do to this one to move it from B-Class to Good. Thanks for any advice you can give me. EraserGirl ( talk) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 11:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I made a stub and then flushed it out in a day, and I think it has potential to go to GA or higher. It has been through a copy edit and proofreading by the League of Copyeditors, now I would like to get feedback and collaboration on what needs to be done to further improve this to FA (aside from getting it from 20k to 50k). MrPrada ( talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) All in all I think this is a really good article. There are a few things which need to be changed though (most of them are very very minor). I've listed them below in the order that they appear in the article. Hope it helps and good luck!
This article is about a prominent South African politician and statesman. It is in need of additions and references. We are looking for a B-classification and are in need of assistance. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]The main thing is that this article is clearly too short for a Prime Minister of a major country, and needs to be expanded. [?] Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 11:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This article about an important South African politician and Boer leader is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. Looking for assistance to bring it up to B-level and possibly GA-level. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
New article on colourful South African Afrikaner statesman of the late 19th century. This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. Looking for B-status at least. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 11:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. Have another look in a couple of days, when I have dealt with the references. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article about a Japanese singer had a lot of speculation/personal opinion and almost no references when I started editing it. Since then, I've provided about 90% of the references, removed unconfirmable statements and personal opinion, and added necessary sections. I'm hoping to eventually turn it into a featured article. I'm especially hoping for constructive criticism concerning the lead section and flow of the article, but any feedback is appreciated. Thanatous ( talk) 04:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is comprehensive, well-written and well-cited. Well-done! (Your username is "thanatous"; do you know that in Greek "thanatos" [without the "u"!] means death?!)-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to submit this article for peer review, as I feel that it has undergone profound improvement recently. My hope is that it will achieve Featured Article status. I feel that it is excellently sourced, nicely laid out, and well written. It was recently nominated for FA status, but turned down due to some referencing issues (inconsistency of format being the main one). However, I think that these issues have been solved, and would like to get some outside opinion before re-submitting it as an FA candidate.-- AC+79 3888 ( talk) 10:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There were only two very minor points generated by the program. It looks like a very strong article to me.
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 06:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the biography of the leading Chad rebel commander. I want to ask a review of this article so to see how far it is from a potential A-class category, and what is most necessary to be done. The great lack, as all may notice, is the lack of images; there's little I can do, unfortunately, as free images of prominent Chadians are in general extremely rare (there's only one in wikipedia, and it's that of the current President of the country).-- Aldux ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite nice, overall. A few minor suggestions:
Keep up the good work! Kirill 12:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 13:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This biography on a South African Boer politician from the nineteenth century has been completely rewritten, as part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. We are looking for a class=Start in both Projects listed, with a view to class=B. Review comments are heartily invited. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 14:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
box.
Michel Doortmont (
talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
DrKiernan (
talk) 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In view of above edits I re-request B-status for this article. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. This is a new article about the first nineteenth-century State Secretary of the Orange Free State. As created, it is more than a stub and I am looking for at least a class=Start in both listed Projects. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 23:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
You may wish to browse through
User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
DrKiernan (
talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It is my feeling that the article now qualifies for B-status. If you agree, make it happen! Michel Doortmont ( talk) 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is part of a series of Orange Free State biographies. This biography on a South African Boer politician from the nineteenth century has been completely rewritten. However, information from published sources is scarce. Therefore, we are looking for a class=Start in both Projects listed, with a view to class=B. Review comments are heartily invited. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic
javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
added.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This article on a South African politician was a stub with hardly any info in it. It is now completely rewritten, with references and sources, portrait and infobox links to WikiSource etc. Currently a B-status is looked for, with GA-status or above hoped for, when the remaining section of Reitz as cultural figure is completed, and some more editing has further improved the article. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
B-status has been issued by an independent reviewer. Michel Doortmont ( talk) 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
inserted.You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
All of the above comments have been worked on rigourously and subsequenly the article was put up for Good Article (GA) status. Please assist in making this happen! Michel Doortmont ( talk) 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This was my first article. I am hoping to see what others think and for suggestions on how it could be improved. Forhist100 ( talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if you could further expand the article with more information.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 14:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Am hoping for comments and feedback on what to improve in this article in order for it be classified as a Good Article. The article last had a peer review in 2005 - and significant changes and expansions have taken place since then. I'd also like some feedback on the percieved weaknesses of the article. I've been putting some work into the article and I'd like to know if there any significant problems with it. Thanks. -- Cazo3788 ( talk) 17:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Several changes were made to this article since the last peer review, based on peer review recommendations. Requesting a second peer review to help move this article along to WP:GA status. SqlPac ( talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In general, the article looks comprehensive, informative and the prose seems to be fine.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
From a peer review, I'm looking for feedback on how to improve this article to a B-class quality article. I thought it was at least B-class when I submitted it for reassessment just yesterday, but apparently it is not. What do I need to do in order to improve it to a B-class article? -- Mr. Brown ( talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've worked this article up to B-class status, but apart from a little feedback while it was on the front page, I've gotten very little feedback. I'm aiming to push it to Good Article status at the moment, with maybe an eye towards FA after that's done, if I can. Any feedback would be appreciated, but especially layout, flow and appropriate depth. Mr Lemon ( talk) 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Article was recently promoted to GA. I would like a review to ensure promotion when nominated for FA. Also, during GAN the review suggested the Legacy and Personal Life sections be independent from the Biography section, but I thought it looks better when those sections were sub categories of the Biography. I'd like a second opinion. Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's all from me for now. Let me know if you want a follow-up, re-review or have any comments or questions that need addressing. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that Personal life should be a part of the biography section, but I'm not sure about Legacy.
This turned into a lengthier article than I expected on one of the more... interesting... characters in contemporary Colorado politics. I hope to pull this article up to GA and then FA status after a bit of polishing, but, at the moment, I'm mainly interested in how well the more colorful aspects of Douglas Bruce's career are covered. -- Sethant ( talk) 05:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an excellent, informative article. I'm glad to see an article on a state politician go beyond stub status! In terms of content, I'd like to read more about his younger years and personal life, but I understand that that information may just not exist in published sources. Here are my suggestions:
Please leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions or comments. Good luck. Psych less 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Myself and Fabrictramp (collectively operating as " TC&FCNSCFIBBA") are making an effort to bring this article to GA/FA status. We want a neutral third party to evaluate how far we've come and what needs to be done prior to submitting it as a GAC/FAC. Caknuck ( talk) 02:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
DrKiernan (
talk) 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)I would like to submit this article in the hope that I could gradually upgrade its rating to that of a Featured Article. Bill King is the oldest surviving submarine commander of the Second World War, an author, and a solo cirumnavigator.
DocDee ( talk) 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A very promising piece that would benefit from extensive revision to its structure. Here are some initial thoughts.
If you decide to restructure it, it will need a close look afterwards. I'm happy to do this if you like. If you have any questions, just ask. Keep up the good work, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article—see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]Current GA article looking for comments to help it improve towards FA. Subject is the president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, which promotes motor vehicles worldwide and is the international governing body for motorsport. The man himself has been a barrister, racing driver, team owner and sporting administrator. His father was Oswald Mosley (pre-war leader of the British Union of Fascists), and Max had some early political involvement with his father. Likely problems are neutrality and explanation of racing terminology for those new to it. Thanks in advance. 4u1e ( talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I am new to this and need feedback. At the moment it is tagged with Cleanup from November 2007 and All pages needing cleanup and has a Start-Class rating on the quality scale. I want to know where to go from here to improve the article. -- Okeeffe.christopher ( talk) 06:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I think you've done a good job of adding references, but I do have some comments:
The article wasn't fleshed out before I re-wrote it. I added most of the references and built upon the existing text to create a more detailed biography of Fulton. I hope to find out what people think could be added to the article and what parts need improved. I hope to add a lot more references from Fulton's autobiography, to try and mix the types of references found. -- My Name Is URL ( talk) 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the fair-use rationales on the two non-free use images: they may be too weak. The licensing on the other image is highly suspect. If the image ( Image:Francie&josie.jpg) is free use, then the fair use rationales don't apply because there is a free use image with which they can be replaced. Maybe you can get around that by saying "no free use equivalent depicting him out of character" or something of the sort on the fair use items. If the image is not free use (as I strongly suspect) it's been uploaded with the wrong licensing tag, and it needs to be corrected or deleted. This is a complex issue (see Wikipedia:Image use policy and related pages). The rule of thumb is avoid any images that you think are suspicious and only use free-use ones if possible. Make any fair-use rationales as tight as possible including any and all arguments for the image's use. For example, you can only include cover art (like the autobiography) if the article contains critical commentary on the item, but you only really mention the book in passing, and the picture on the front cover is the same as the picture in the top-right corner of the article, indicating that one or other of them could replace the other. If you insert extra citations from the autobiography which adds considerably to the article or discuss how his version of events in his book differs from other sources then I feel this requirement would be satisfied.
Minor points: Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?] Can you say for what he received his OBE? Was it for "services to entertainment", or did he do charity work? If the latter, include it in the article.
I would lose the external link: IMDB is already in the references and its use is controversial anyway (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). Personally, I don't consider it a reliable source as, like wikipedia, anyone can contribute to it and references are hardly ever given. DrKiernan ( talk) 13:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for feedback on this article about the gay rights activist from Philadelphia. I plan to submit for GA and would be interested to know if a FA may be possible for her. She rocks. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Douglas, the proverbial little old lady who wears a big hat, pearls, and tells you to go to hell. The simultaneous Grandmother of the Everglades and Anti-Christ, depending on who is doing the describing, is a fascinating writer and environmental activist. I'm looking for input from other editors on how to improve the article. I nominated it for GA on the same day, but sometimes that process takes a while, so I'm hoping you fine folks can give me some suggestions to make that smoother. I appreciate the effort you put in reading the article. It was most fun to research and write. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 pounds, use 100 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 pounds.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
One more in the series of Colorado legislators, a former mayor and Iraq veteran with quite an extensive private record before being elected to the state house. It was improved significantly after being featured recently in DYK, and will likely be sent up for good article review after completing peer review. -- Sethant ( talk) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?] The dates in the references are date first, but the dates in the article are month first. I would standardise so they are all month first. Good article.
DrKiernan (
talk) 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)This peer review discussion is closed. |
I noticed this stub about a fairly notable and colorful State Legislator and had serious concerns about NPOV and UNDUE regarding the controversy section. In researching him, I found a great deal of information and I've tried to include as much as is notable and covered by two or more publications. I would like to get the article to a point where it can be featured as a GA. Obviously it must be vetted for accuracy, POV, and to some extent, the prose. I look forward to hearing your comments and implementing them. MrPrada ( talk) 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done so far. A few comments:
Hopefully these comments are helpful. Carom ( talk) 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hope that is helpful. Rockfall ( talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to submit this for FA, but wanted someone else to review it first to help make sure it's ready to go. Coemgenus 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review before taking the article to
WP:FAC. OK, reading a long article on a sixteenth century theologian might sound pretty dull. But then maybe this article might convince you otherwise. If not, then at least tell me why!
Thanks, RelHistBuff ( talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In general, a very nice article.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Very promising article. Well done, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 07:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it up to FA status, so any comments against the FA criteria will be useful. :) Thanks,
PeterSymonds |
talk 14:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I have responded to your request on my talk page. My points below are ordered in the same way as what they refer to is in the article.
Specifics
General points
That's all I can find at the moment, it is an excellent article, you cover everything I can think of and write well, lots of images. Don't feel that it's a problematic article just because I haven't mentioned what's good about it. Everything above is minor. Hope this helps, SGGH speak! 15:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've already corrected the few minor things that I found issue with. You shouldn't have any major problems at FAC (assuming no major part of her life was omitted). Great article. -- mav ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added bio details from a new source. Wondering whether this one would still be considered a stub or not. I'll see what anyone says before removing that designation.
Tom Wood ( talk) 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]{{reflist}}
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Reviewers!
Shortly after joining Wikipedia a few months ago, I began to look for a stub article that I could work on and improve. I did not have much luck at first, but I stumbled upon the Annie Russell article, which hadn't had a sizable edit for quite a while.
So, as this is/was my first attempt at improving upon an article on Wiki. (Yes, I realize my IP address is the one that did the two huge edits, but that's an entirely different story). In any event, I want to get this article up to GA status, and hopefully learn a thing or two about the whole grooming/editing process in addition to learning more about Wikipedia for future edits. Thank you for taking the time to read and assess!! Galaxy250 ( talk) 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]Good work. I think you should expand the lead per WP:LEAD so that it includes mention of her most notable performances and summarizes the whole of her life, rather than used as a prelude to give details of her childhood. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 08:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have extensively re-written this article and I think it is shaping up rather nicely. Perhaps, GA status.
Can other contributors find additional sources and/or suitable images?
Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for a while now and I would like to make this a Featured Article. I think it's close to being a FA candidate, but I'd like to get someone else's point of view on how to make it better. Thanks Alot,-- Cal ( talk) 08:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:Please add
DrKiernan (
talk) 08:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
I would welcome any suggestions that would help me take this article to Featured Article status. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice article and well-researched!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to ensure that this article is in neutral point of view. I also want to suggest on what parts of the article are in need of improvements and in need of revisions. I also want this to be listed as a Good Article and hopefully as a Featured Article.
Thanks,
Kevin Ray ( talk) 04:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"History" section in biography is small. -- The Watusi ( talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
JS 08:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading the article. Maybe some further expansion with more assessments of her music and style throughout the article would help.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Recently, I rewrote the Dirk Nowitzki article from scratch, centering around the biography of this NBA basketball player. Chensiyuan helped me with his copyedits. I want to make it a FA in the future, and hope to find a fertile source of constructive criticism here. — Onomatopoeia ( talk) 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. — Onomatopoeia ( talk) 10:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Very nice article, and I liked a lot the prose (although I got a bit tired and bored in "Mark Cuban and the "Big Three" (1999–2004)" reading about one play-off game after the other!), which is something I don't often say about athletes' bios!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This article just passed at WP:GA. I want to take it to WP:FAC ASAP. Please prvoide feedback here to help toward that end. TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Another in my series of Colorado legislators. This one turned out a bit longer than most because there was quite a bit of excellent coverage about her from local news outlets. After going through peer review (and acquiring a free image), I plan on sending it up for good article review. -- Sethant ( talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on this article for a while now and my eventual goal is to get it up to Featured Article status. I think it's getting close to being a potential FA candidate, but I'd like any input on how to make it better. Thanks, K. Lásztocska talk 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The article, Bernie Ward, is a good candidate for good article status. When I first began editing the article after it was mentioned at WP:WQA, the article was in a pretty sorry condition. There were numerous BLP errors, lapses in citations, POV-pushing, and many other deficiencies. These have been corrected through much work and discussion.
The primary concern at the moment is if enough weight has been placed on Bernie Ward's history outside of the recent criminal allegations. For this to be promoted to GA status, the weight needs to be distributed equally, and I would like confirmation on that, or if there is an error, please provide a method of correction.
Thanks, Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've worked a lot on this article and i would really like to make it a FA, therefore, feedback is most cordially requested.
Yamanbaiia( free hugs!) 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is an important one. Am initially hoping to get it rated B or GA and ultimately featured. Suggestions on how to progress the article will be useful to all involved in WP:UNIONISM - Traditional unionist ( talk) 17:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?] DoneYou may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 11:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is around good article level, and wondered if anyone had comments before I nominate. I started editing the article because I had followed Britain's Got Talent, then started referencing it to adhere to WP:BLP concerns that were raised. I then realised I had started it, so I may as well 'finish' it, and so wrote it up to the current standard. I have no specific concerns, but any comments anyone has are extremely welcome. Thanks, J Milburn ( talk) 15:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never reviewed anything before so I'm not sure if I missed anything important, but, the only thing I can see that should be fixed is: "show singing The Wizard of Oz's "Somewhere Over The Rainbow".[3]", the link to "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" is a redirect, maby put this in place: "[[Over the Rainbow|Somewhere Over the Rainbow]]". I'm not sure if redirects are bad, but I personally like the original link, and the T in "The" shouldn't by capitalised. I hope I can help a little, I've never reviewed before this, but it is an interesting article and looks good.
Thank you,
Burningclean [
Speak the truth! 03:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You should of left me a message on my talk page ;p M3tal H3ad ( talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
What I hope to achieve with this peer review.
Navy.enthusiast ( talk) 11:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm not the main editor, the article has in fact been written mostly by one person, a neophyte editor: Slp512. My role has just been formatting and generally tidy-up duties.
Personally I think it has the makings of a GA article at the very least, as such I'd be grateful for suggestions from the experts :) -- WebHamster 15:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Rewritten in the past 2 days by myself, would like helpful comments to fix any errors for GA status. M3tal H3ad ( talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
These problems are just from a quick scan of the article. You need to start proof reading your work, so that basic mistakes are spotted. Also, you really need to find a copyeditor to collaborate with. Such articles of this quality may pass the more lenient GA, but the writing wouldn't be embraced at FAC. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 14:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Two editors have made extensive edits to improve this article. The writing style is improved, the content is more extensive and thorough with a more neutral perspective, some incorrect biographical information was corrected, and copious in-text citations have been added where appropriate. Also, several new sections have been added. The list of references has been expanded. Overall, the article seems to be a much better representation of Wiki standards.
I would like to see the tags at the top of the article (that there are no in-text citations, and that the tone might not be appropriate for wikipedia) deleted and also to see the rating of the article go up. Currently it is start class but that was in reference to a prior version. I would also like to hear suggestions on how the rating can increase if any reviewers still think the article needs improvement.
Thank you! Unscathed310 ( talk) 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Unscathed310
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
These are just some examples of the many problems this article faces. It still needs much more work in order to become a proper encyclopedic biographical article. I'm not even sure it fulfils B-Class criteria.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know if this article can become FA, and if not, what does it need? I'd also like to know what are the positive and negative things of the article. Armando.O talk · Ev · 3K 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Other than that it looks pretty good, good work M3tal H3ad ( talk) 05:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO it is a GA but not yet up to FA status. To achive that it will need more profound analysis.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't have to be a good article to be nominated for featured status, which I have done. This article was and should have remained a good article; I believe the only reason it did not was because of its instability at the time. Here's to Evanescence FA status. /\\//\|_()|\| ( talk) 09:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Dan Gibbs, on a newly-minted state senator, is the latest in my attempts towards building good articles on Colorado legislators. I'm still working on obtaining images, but I'd appreciate more feedback than the single automated response I got for my peer review request of John Kefalas last month. -- Sethant ( talk) 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
From this peer review I am hoping to get this article up to the level of FA. It is already a GA and I want to know what needs to be improved and added/expanded upon to improve it. Andrew D White ( talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Just some trivia:
Very nice indeed! I think this article is on the track to be FA! And I do not see any serious copyright problems with the pictures. Good chance in FAC!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 14:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
After revamping the article, I have gone through 2 failed FACs. I would like to know what I need to get this up to FA quality. Thanks! TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Old Peer Review
|
---|
===
Killswitch Engage ===
Completely re-written the past 2-3 days, would like helpful comments to get it to GA. Thanks. M3tal H3ad ( talk) 07:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC) LuciferMorganComments There are too many long sentences, ones that would stop this progressing beyond GA status. They need cutting into two sentences. For example;
These are just examples, indicative of a wider problem. Ceoil is busy right now at FAR, and then will be copyediting Undisputed Attitude. Following that, I think you should request a thorough copyedit from him. Despite making the odd typo, his copyediting skills are quite good.
Needs work if you wish to take this to FAC. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 09:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
J MilburnI see LM has already given a rather comprehensive review, but I'll have a read through.
I realise that is a rather short review for me, but I don't really see anything else that needs fixing. Conversely, it doesn't seem to be featured, and I can't quite put my finger on the problem. This makes a great good article, but isn't quite at featured, and I am not honestly sure what could be done. In any case, another article which has benefited immensely from your attention- well done. J Milburn ( talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
|
I am submitting this article for peer review. I hope to achieve GA status. In the event that this article has achieved this standard, I would like some feedback as to how to bring the article up to the next level (FA status).
Thank you.
Brinabina ( talk) 08:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan ( talk) 13:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
*The lead is ok, but why do you have to link "book"? I don't think it is necessary.
Done I have removed the link. I think the idea here was to link to the wikipedia bibliography of his works, but I was unsure of how to do this. I have the same problem later on in the article. It would be nice. I have searched for the info on how to link to a subsection of an article (even the same one) but I seem to be wading through a lot of other information and I just can't find it... help?
*"The methodology described in the book described ways of affecting immediate and positive life changes by reprogramming speech, movement and thought patterns.". You see the prose problem here?
Done Oh, yes, I seem to have missed that one. My bad. It reads much better, now. If you have further suggestions for improvement on this or any other sentence please let me know.
*You have a separate subject "Education", while you also speak about his education in "Biography". Overlapping?
Not done I think of the biography as a general overview that includes the subsequent topics, but does not go into any one of them at length. I understand this to be Wikipedia's style. Perhaps I can further generalize the earlier reference, or further specify the latter. Alternately, I can eliminate any reference to his education in the biography, altogether. What do you suggest?
*"The skepticism stems, in part, from the fact that NLP is largely based on cognitive linguistics which emerged from later work on generative semantics--the "losing" side of the heavily debated "Linguistics Wars" in academic circles of the 1960s and 1970s. Furthermore, this credibility debate is compounded by the previous lack of empirical research supporting NLP's effectiveness." I would cite that.
Not done Ah, yes, I believe this is another one of those places where I wanted to link within Wikipedia (to a subsection) and couldn't, for the life of me, figure out how.
*"Linguistics Wars" is also undercited.
Not done Same.
*“If you want academic credibility, if you want respect from the established entities, whether they are psychological or medical or whatever, well, you have to play their game. If game sounds too flippant, then you have to meet their values. Have to meet their standards of evidence.” Citation?
Done Yes, this one slipped by me and I neglected to cite it. I actually have the source somewhere and can't quite find it at the moment. If I can't place it, then I'll just delete it from the article. It's a pity, as it's a good quote.
*In "References" we put the material we used in notes. Otherwise it is "further reading". I don't think it is clear what is exactly your "References" section. And why Koppel is in "Further reading", although he is referred in "Notes"?! Some fixing is needed in these sections.
Duly noted. I will review these sections and make changes, as needed.
*I am not a specialist on the issue, so I will not elaborate on the ideas of Faulkner and how they are presented in the article. I will just point out the necessity to follow the POV policy. I express some scepticism about the source (note 9) used in the first paragraph of "achievements". It is a site where no author is sigining Faulkner's short biography. I am not quite sure if such a source is " reliable", but I hope I am wrong.
I tried to be especially careful to maintain a NPOV. I feel that any biography used as a source for this article can be considered reliable because they can be cross-referenced with reliable sites (such as Faulkner's own and those belonging to established Societies or organizations who are accountable for the information they present to the public). However, I will reread your posted link and review the citation extra carefully to be sure that I am correctly following Wikipedia's guidelines.
In terms of structure, IMO the "Achievements" section is not exactly an "achievements" sections! It includes the whole career, ideas, works of Faulkner being something broader than mere "achievements". Maybe it should be renamed or divided in two sections. Again this may just be a personal preference.
Done I agree that the title is too narrow. I am looking into some alternate choices... leaning towards splitting the section into two and coming up with narrower titles. Thanks for the suggestions.
In general the article is good IMO and goold well go through GA. For FAC I am not yet sure ...
-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your thorough and honest feedback. :)
Brinabina ( talk) 18:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
In April 2007, the Ferry article was reviewed, and it kept its B-status because "No linline citations, several sections marked as stubs, and a short lead keep this B class.". Since then, lots of references were added, sections rewritten, information added.
I believe Bryan Ferry's article could become an A-class article. Because there is no (copyright-free) image of Bryan Ferry available, and some other things still remain unsolved (what did his father exactly do? how many albums did ferry sell?), it is currently not A-status. But the article has improved a lot since the last review. I would like to have a new peer review for the Bryan Ferry article, to see how far the article is from an A-article (or Good Article).-- Pie.er 13:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}
along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
[?]
DrKiernan 09:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an article on the Welsh comedian/performer Max Boyce. I've virtually written the whole article from scratch (or from a very poor stub at least) - I did all this a few months ago, but never bothered to get it reviewed till now. Whilst I'd dream of having it featured, the dearth of sources on his life (his 'biographies', factually speaking, are useless...) probably means that looking towards Good Article status is more realistic in the short term. I'm hoping for reviewers to point out any mistakes/oversights/POV, etc. and any suggestions about how to expand or re-work the article if possible. Many thanks! Rob Lindsey ( talk) 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In general I liked the article! I am not a specialist on the issue, but I think that it is well-written.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like this article to have a higher rating, from B to A and eventually to FA status. There has already been a general assessment of it, but I feel that it needs more input. It's an important topic, since as the article states, The Wiggles is the highest-grossing entertainers in Australia, and have influenced countless children and their families worldwide. -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 05:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"Using his connections with the Cockroaches, Field arranged with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to distribute their album in Australia. Their manager suggested that they tour.[3][8] Their public debut was at a pre-school in Randwick." Some choppy prose.
References look fine to me. With some more tweaks I think the article could get GA status and then FA.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Article on the biggest/most influential/successful heavy/thrash metal band ever. Over the past week i have completely re-written the article, which previously looked like this. I hope to take it to FAC in a week or two and hope you will be able to provide useful feedback. It just needs a copyedit by some "fresh eyes", and any information you could think of to be added to the Legacy section would be appreciated. Thanks.
Irritated, as I just lost everything I typed over about three quarters of an hour thanks to my college's dependence on the 'wonderful' Internet Explorer.
In any case, I will attempt to write it out again, but I'll do it in sections this time.
Sorry, that's all I have time for. Internet access is currently limited, and if I am not online before tomorrow evening, I won't be able to review until next weekend. J Milburn ( talk) 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, managed to find some reliable Internet access, on a computer with Firefox, so I will give a full review now.
Overall, another great job. The prose in the section on Mustaine is a bit dull, but I can't really put my finger on what is wrong with it- perhaps it should be rewritten. Also, it may be worth expanding the fair use rationales on the images. I'll take another read through once you have gone through this review. J Milburn ( talk) 14:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
First paragraph uses the word "form" (or derivative) three times which is a little redundant, maybe replace one or two with a synonym. ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it to FA status. I will respond to comments as quickly as possible. Thanks,
PeterSymonds |
talk 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Peer review request to ensure it conforms with Biography format for possible GA submission in future (don't think it's long enough for FA). -- DavidCane ( talk) 23:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to you that you reach out to a copy-edit volunteer. Anne Teedham ( talk) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)