Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Biography WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete. Please consider reviewing someone else's article too, if you request yours :-)

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 Requesting a review 1.2 Responding to a request 1.3 Archiving 2 Requests 2.1 Sathya Sai Baba 2.1.1 Yannismarou 2.2 John McCain 2.2.1 Yannismarou 2.3 Hippocrates 2.3.1 Gzkn 2.3.2 Yannismarou 2.4 Jenna Jameson 2.4.1 Specific question: lead image? 2.4.2 Trebor 2.4.3 Yannismarou 2.4.4 MLilburne 2.5 Faten Hamama 2.5.1 Gzkn 2.5.2 Yannismarou 2.6 Romaine Brooks 2.6.1 Yannismarou 2.7 Oliver Cromwell 2.7.1 Yannismarou 2.8 Walter Abraham (town planner) 2.8.1 Yannismarou 2.9 Katherine Cross 2.9.1 MLilburne 2.10 El Greco 2.10.1 Plange 2.10.2 Celithemis 2.11 Aurelian 2.11.1 Yannismarou 2.12 Joseph W. Tkach 2.12.1 Yannismarou 2.13 Francisco Gil de Taboada 2.13.1 Jeffpw 2.13.2 Yannismarou 2.14 Mitt Romney 2.14.1 Yannismarou 2.14.1.1 Formatting remarks 2.14.1.2 Prose issues 2.14.1.3 Referencing issues 2.14.1.4 Content and POV issues 2.15 Jack Coggins 2.15.1 Yannismarou 2.15.2 Nat91 2.15.3 Latest edit 2.15.4 Plange 2.15.5 Dinosaur puppy 2.16 David Koechner 2.16.1 Yannismarou 2.17 Seth Rogen 2.17.1 Nat91 2.17.2 Yannismarou 2.17.3 Plange 2.18 Jean-Claude Mézières 2.18.1 Nat91 2.18.2 Yannismarou 2.18.3 Plange 2.19 Prem Rawat 2.19.1 From SG 2.19.2 Comments 2.20 Pete Doherty 2.20.1 Yannismarou 2.21 Pat Buchanan 2.21.1 Nat91 2.21.2 Yannismarou 2.22 Joshua Toulmin 2.22.1 Yannismarou 2.23 Arthur Sullivan 2.23.1 Yannismarou 2.24 Ilaiyaraaja 2.24.1 Yannismarou 3 Archives

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

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

[edit] Responding to a request

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

[edit] Archiving

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

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

[edit] Requests

[edit] Sathya Sai Baba

Has has an old peer review to which nobody ever responded. Neverending disputes between editors for which multiple RFCs, one mediation, and multiple request for arbcom verdicts, but with only one arbcom verdict helped only to some extent. Nevertheless, I think that peer review may help to improve at least some of the few uncontroversial aspects of this article. I will announce the peer review clearly on the talk page and will request warring contributors not to attack the reviewers. May be the very closely related article Prema Sai Baba can be included in the peer review too. See also the failed FA nomination in April 2004. Andries 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

1. You could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
2. Something is wrong with note 63.
3. "Sathya Sai Baba in popular culture" is too stubby. Expand it or just get rid of it.
4. Get rid of the "See also" section. Incorporate the only link there somewhere in the main article.
5. Is all this long further reading necessary?
6. Categories at the end of the article are not correctly alphabetized.
7. "Sathya Sai Baba (born Sathya Narayana Raju on November 23, 1926 — or later than 1927[1] — with the family name of "Ratnakaram" [2]) is a controversial[3] South Indian guru often described as a Godman[4][5] and a miracle worker.[6]" Many inline citations in the middle of the sentence. Try to cite at the end of the sentence. Cite in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary.
8. The number of Sathya Sai Baba adherents is estimated between 6 million to 100 million.[8][9][10] Stylistically, it is not nice to have more than 2 citations in a row. There are ways to combine them. Check, for instance, the Tourette syndrome for ideas.
9. "It was said that instruments played on their own accord in his household when he was born [11]." Said by whom? Be more specific with such disputed assessments. And everybody believes that?! Aren't there any critics of this assertion.
10. Inline citation go straight after the punctuation markk, not before. Check WP:MoS.
11. "Since he was born after the Sri Sathyanarayana puja, he was named after the deity." I don't think this is a nice sentence. Think about an overall copy-editing.
12. Is "History and origins" the whole biography section? If yes, it is short, undercited (there are ^{[citation needed]} and a whole paragraph is uncited) and POV. We learn only what Baba and his biographer say. What about others? We need a more comprehensive presentation of his life and a more comprehensive analysis of the disputed elements of his life.
13. "Though the exact year on which he started his mission full-time is uncertain, it is a fact that in the 1940s he took the fakir's name." If it is a "fact" provide citation.
14. "The last paragraphs of the above section are a bit trivia and mixed. Personal information, something about an accident without coherence with the previous information.
15. What are ashrams and mandirs. Provide some information. The links are not enough.
16. Three paragraphs in "Ashrams and mandirs" are uncited.
17. "Daily, he is observed to allegedly manifest vibuthi (holy ash), food and small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches." Citation needed.
18. Are Baranowski's claims undisputed?
19. In general, since there is a main article for "Beliefs and practices", this section could be a bit more concise. Too many details, especially in "Miracles"!
20. The presentation with bullets of the primary teachings is a bit listy for me. Personally, I'd prefer prose.
21. "Organizations" is undercited and with some red links. Why don't you create stubs for these links, if they are important?
22. "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" is tagged for POV. I don't want to express an opinion for the disputed issues, but before an article goes for GAC or FAC such issues should br resolved.--Yannismarou 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. I agree. The lead used to be longer but was truncated only a few weeks ago. Andries 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

ad 12. There are no independent reputable sources for a detailed biography. The hagiography by Kasturi is al there is. Almost all other sources are based on the hagiography. Andries 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John McCain

I think this is a good article that needs a little work. I hope that this will eventually be FA caliber. I think the article is well written but maybe could be organized better, a longer lead and some sections expanded. What do others think? Jasper23 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Hmmmm! One of the most intriguing political personalities around the globe! Definitely, an article about McCain in a challenge, especially for its editors but also for a reviewer (especially if the last one has watched carefully the political career of the senator as I have been doing during the last years!). These are my remarks:

• The prospect of FA status may be difficult for this article, because of a major inherent difficulty: McCain is in the centre of the ongoing poilitical events in USA; his expected participation in the Republican primaries and his (probable) ensuing candidacy for the US presidency. What I mean is that there may be a problem with criterion 1e: "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day. I'm afraid that during the next months we are going to have here "day to day significan changes". It seems inevitable.
• I think the lead could be a bit longer per WP:LEAD.
• I see many ^{[citation needed]}. They need fixing.
• "Both his father and grandfather were famous U.S. Navy admirals." How do you define "famous". Who assesses that and why?
• In "Personal Life" I would like to have some more information about his first marriage.
• The same section ("Personal life") needs rewriting. The prose in incoherent and the paragraphs are stubby.
• Second paragraph in "Vietnam" is uncited.
• "He was then tortured by Vietnamese soldiers, who bayonetted him in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton." Prose repetitions! What about an overall copy-editing?
• I don't like the two last stubby paragrpahs in "Prisoner of war". They are stubby and they are mal-connected with the rest of the paragraph.
• You give almost no information for his political career from 1982 to 1997. This is a huge deficiency! 3 lines for such an important career, and then straight to the 2000 primaries! What he did as a senator? How did he win? A comprehensive article must answer such questions.
• Because of this deficiencies the introduction to "2000 Presidential Primary" is seamless and steep.
• "He made over 200 stops, talking in every town in New Hampshire in an example of "retail politics" that overcame Bush's famous name. He won by a 60-40 landslide, and suddenly was the celebrity of the hour. Analysts predicted that a McCain victory in the South Carolina primary would give him unstoppable momentum. However, McCain lost the crucial state of South Carolina. Bush now regained the momentum." Choose a tense, stick on it and further improve the prose!
• "However, McCain made serious mistakes that negated any momentum he may have regained with the Michigan victory." Hmmmm! Tricky assertion. Possibly POV. It would be better if you provided sources and rephrased like that: "According to X, McCain made serious ... "
• "In mid-November 2006 early polls showed him leading Hillary Clinton." I think current polls show the opposite, but I'm not absolutely sure.
• Can you explain to the ignorants what a "maverick" is? I had also read it in the Economist for McCain, but I'm still not sure about its meaning (and I think I'm not the only one).
• In "Political views" you have some stubby sub-sections. Merge or expand. Or create a sub-article and summarize it here. This could be even better. Whatever you decide you certainly have to say more (in the main article or the sub-article you'll create) about his environmenal views, which are contradictory to the Bush adm and the neocon indifference towards these issues. I think McCain and Schwarzenenger are the most environmentally friendly conservative politicians, and this deserves some analysis.
• Before going into details about his various POVs (environment, immigration etc.), I'd like to have some general assessments about his political presence. The fact that he is regarded as a "moderate conservative" should be stressed and analysed. And is he mainly a "realist" or an "idealist". After Rumsfeld's deposition, this division is again discussed. I was reading an article in TIME discussing whethere McCain will now prefer the support of the realists (such as the associates of the elder Bush) of his party or of the idealists (the neocons, and some close associated of Bush junior).
• "McCain has consistently shown himself to be a prominent "hawk" on foreign policy." Again possibly POV. I recommend rephrasing like above and citing. Are there different opinions? Does he accept that he is a "hawk"?
• In "Social issues" you go from gay marriages to abortions seamlessly. Again a problem of article flow!
• What are McCain's views concerning natural selection and the opposite Evangelist theories?
• I think that "Presidential Election 2004" should go to "Political career" and not "Political views". And the two last paragraphs there are stubby.
• "Such restraint should come from Hezbollah and the nations sponsoring it, notably Iran, McCain said in remarks that became a freewheeling, far-reaching speech on foreign policy, including his views on matters involving North Korea, Iraq and the U.S. war on terrorism." I don't understand this phrase. Bad structure.
• "McCain's brother, Joe McCain, has written a popular speech on Israel, Jews and anti-Semitism." Why is this important? And if it is important connect with the senator's views and provide more information. What does his brother say?
• ""Gang of 14" and Senate filibuster" is uncited. I also suggest that you provide some further clarifications for those not familiar with the American constitution and the operation of the Congress.
• "McCain argues that American military and intelligence personnel in future wars will suffer for abuses committed in 2006 by the US in the name of fighting terrorism. He fears the administration's policy will put American prisoners at risk of torture, summary executions and other atrocities by chipping away at Geneva Convention. He argues that his rival bill to Bush’s plan gives defendants access to classified evidence being used to convict them and will set tight limits on use of testimony obtained by coercion. Furthermore it offers CIA interrogators some legal protections from charges of abuse, but rejects the administration’s plan to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions’ standards for humane treatment of prisoners. McCain insists this issue overrides politics." This paragraph begs for citations!
• "Keating Five controversy" is stubby.
• Turn "Other Controversies" into prose.
• "Appearances on radio, television and in movies" also needs rewriting. It is listy.
• Get rid of "Trivia" and "See also".
• I'd suggest that you keep only the external links you regard as absolutely necessary.--Yannismarou 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Quite an in depth review. I agree with all of your points and when I have time I will start checking off the list. Thanks again for all your work. And I agree that FA status will be unattainable until after the primary. Jasper23 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippocrates

I've been away from this article for a few weeks and would like some feedback to help me further improve it. I hope to make it an FAC soon... -- Rmrfstar 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gzkn

Well researched and comprehensive with respect to the Hippocratic Corpus. However, I came away from this article knowing much more about the Hippocratic Corpus than Hippocrates. I would recommend separating them into two different articles. The prose needs some major polishing before it meets FA's 1a criteria. I would suggest trying to find someone more familiar with this topic than me to give it a run through and extensive copy edit. Specific comments:

• Why not use "prominent" instead of "outstanding", as one of the other common definitions of the word would violate NPOV?
• since it wasn't compiled until around A.D. 200 Avoid contractions in articles.
• Wikilink "Askleipion" in the caption.
• "however unreliable, on Hippocrates's person" Weird use of the possessive there. Why not just "on Hippocrates's life" or "on Hippocrates"?
• "but Polybus was Hippocrates’ true successor according to Galen," Who's Galen? Give some context here instead of defining later.
• "Soranus says Hippocrates was taught medicine..." Abruptly switches to present tense, when in the previous para, the equivalent was "Soranus stated that Hippocrates's father...".
• "Herodicus of Selymbria: Plato" Is that supposed to be a semicolon instead?
• Avoid passive tense (which riddles this article).
  • There was the Knidian school of medicine which was focused towards diagnosis --> "The Knidian school of medicine focused on diagnosis" (note also that towards is not the right preposition there) Also, "dependent upon" is probably not the best phrase. Try "because of".
  • The focus of Hippocratic medicine was on --> "Hippocratic medicine focused on"
  • In the Hippocratic work On the physician, it is recommended that physicians --> "The Hippocratic work, On the physician, recommended that physicians "
• The Hippocratic school, the Koan school, however, was more successful. Because of the commas, "however" would be better at the beginning of the sentence here, no matter what Strunk and White say.
• It could effectively treat many diseases, yet it allowed for a great development in clinical practice... What's that "yet" doing there? The latter half of the sentence isn't contradicting the first...
• ...he held many pseudo-scientific convictions based on bad anatomy and physiology such as Humorism. Ambiguous use of "such as" (do you see why?). The "such as Humorism" should be placed immediately after "convictions". --> "pseudo-scientific convictions, such as Humorism, which were based on bad anatomy and physiology." Also, there are more descriptive words than "bad" out there.
• On a similar note: result of an imbalance of the four humours in the body, fluids which were naturally equal in proportion (pepsis) --> "result of an imbalance in the body of the four humours, fluids which were naturally equal in proportion (pepsis)"
• Hippocratic medicine was, humbly, very kind to the patient, sterile and gentle whenever possible. Humbly? What's that doing there?
• Despite all of its advancements in medical theory, it was truly in discipline, strict professionalism and rigorous practice that Hippocratic medicine excelled. Weasely: "it was truly". Also needs a cite.
• The second paragraph of Professionalism changes tenses three times.
• "To him medicine owes the art of clinical inspection and observation"[4] For this reason, he may termed only the "Father of Clinical Medicine". What's going on here?
• textbooks, lectures, research, notes and even philosophical essays "even" is not necessary.
• There are a number of case-histories in the Hippocratic Corpus, 42 to be exact. --> "There are 42 case-histories in the Hippocratic Corpus."
• It must be taken into account that the Corpus is very large, and was written by many authors. It makes sense that not all of it is of this “laconic” style... but most of it is. Phrases such as "it must be taken into account" and "it makes sense that" should be avoided. Second sentence is not encyclopedic, especially with the ellipsis.
• It is notable that <-- GAH! Not another!
• This was in Latin... Ambiguous "this".
• This was scholarly, yet sometimes inaccurate and awkward. More ambiguous "this". Also, without a cite, the sentence violates NPOV.
• Hippocrates was the first great physician, and for a long time, the last While many people might agree, this statement violates NPOV.
• And yet, Hippocratic medicine is far removed from modern medicine. "And yet" is not necessary.
• Hippocrates and his followers identified many diseases and medical conditions for the first time. Such as?
• Hippocrates is in his description of the symptomology, physical findings, surgical treatment... Huh?
• Much of what he said is very useful to students of pulmonary medicine and surgery today. --> "His teachings remain relevant to contemporary students of pulmonary medicine and surgery."
• old doctor is reinforced by our busts of him Avoid first person.
• He, and the beliefs that he embodied, are considered medical ideals. "He is, above all, the exemplar of that flexible, critical, well-poised attitude of mind, ever on the lookout for sources of error, which is the very essence of the scientific spirit."[4] "His figure... stands for all time as that of the ideal physician”, inspiring the medical profession since his death. Don't list quotes without specifying who said them.
• This account is very much in conflict with unfinished sentence.
• With this legendary figure, comes a legendary genealogy... NPOV violation. Gzkn 09:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

I've already reviewed this article, which is obviously good. I may sound repetitive, but some of my current remarks are exactly the same with the previous ones I had made:

• "is commonly regarded as one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine". I'm afraid this could be regarded as POV.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the first definition of outstanding is, "Standing out among others of its kind; prominent. See synonyms at noticeable."[1] Hippocrates is undeniably this.

If you say so! I just have noticed that Wikipedia is sometimes weird with POV. But your argument sounds convincing!--Yannismarou 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• The "biography" is short. It is also short in Britannica and I also know that most details about his life are unknown. But it would be nice if we had some more things about him (if there is anything more available!).

Wouldn't it be nice! I haven't been able to find any more information, though I have recognized this as an issue. A reader must take into account, however, the "Legends" section which details some highly unreliable stories of his life.

• Again the red links! I know it is not a prerequisite for FA status, but they are not nice. And in FAC I read more and more critical comments about them.

Better?

• In "Methods of Treatment" I see a ^[specify]. Why?

I shall fix this.

• "The Oath" is stubby. And I think that some other sub-sections could also be expanded a bit.

I agree. "The Oath" itself is one of the most important topics of the article and should be expanded.

• "Medical practitioners who followed him sometimes moved backwards. For instance, "after the Hippocratic period, the practice of taking clinical case-histories died out..."" I don't like the way the quote is inserted here. I'd prefer to know who says these things in the text, because it is an assessment of some importance.

Fixed?

• I think these stubby paragraphs in "Legends" should be restructured (merged or expanded).

I agree.

• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.

Done!

• For me, the "See also" section is long. The tendency is not to use so much now "see also" sections. And I also see there red links! Do you intend to create these articles? Otherwise, I think you should move them to external links.--Yannismarou 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the entire See also was a list of his namesakes (after I removed the redundant "ancient greek medicine"), I renamed the section to "Namesakes"... how does this work? Let me try to create these redlinks. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna Jameson

This may be controversial, but hopefully won't be boring!

A few months ago, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team came to WP:P* and asked what our key articles were. We listed a few, and this was one of the most important ones, being about probably the most famous currently active porn star in the world.

She is unique in that she has actually gotten a lot of coverage from impressive sources: New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Rolling Stone. Also she has written a best selling autobiography. So unlike the other, poorly sourced porn star articles that so many see as a blight on the Wikipedia, this article actually has a chance of getting somewhere. (I think I've cited it ... just a bit. :-) )

Eventually I'm aiming high, hopefully eventually Wikipedia:Featured articles - but not quite yet, especially as this would be my first WP:FAC. Can we start with a review? Even if it doesn't get to so such lofty heights, at least we can make it of a standard for other porn star articles to aim for, and maybe indirectly help clean up an area that needs a bit of that.

Thank you very much. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
  • There are many links, but I can't see any that are repeated within the same section, or don't add much to the article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Checked all. Months only linked when with day of month, per WP:MOSDATE, no days of week in article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • Done, I think. All are a short sentence fragment. Short enough? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 48 foot, use 48 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 48&nbsp;foot.^[1]
  • Only units I can see in infobox. Done there. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Don't see any. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
  • Done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: color (A) (British: colour), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), aging (A) (British: ageing), kerb (B) (American: curb), program (A) (British: programme).
  • Can't find any British spellings in article.AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Tightened. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific question: lead image?

Maybe I'll get more feedback if I ask specific questions? The lead image on the article is all right, but it was taken at the same time as the one of Jameson and Jay Grdina, lower. This is obvious from her costume and background. Due to the efforts of User:Tabercil and User:Kamui99, and the kind donations of semi-professional photographers, we have other high resolution completely free (Creative Commons 2.5) images of Jenna Jameson, on commons. Would one of them be better, to avoid the repetition? Specifically, I'm thinking of this headshot (left), which had appeared on the article earlier, or this rather more dramatic three-quarters figure (right). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trebor

(breakdown into points by AnonEMouse)

The article starts well and is well-cited

• (although I question whether any sentence really needs 5 cites, 2 or maybe 3 would suffice even if the issue is controversial),
  • Reduced to no more than 3 everywhere.
• but there's too many 1-2 sentence paragraphs.
• I personally dislike direct external links within the article itself, e.g. to ClubThrust, and they aren't used on featured articles.
  • Moved to External links section.
• The Mainstream Appearances section I'm unsure about. It's just a list of things she has been in, and "mainstream" is a fairly debatable term. It definitely shouldn't be kept in its current form - either transformed into prose with decent sized paragraphs (if you are able to group the appearances into sensible sections) or made into a list. A lot of it is then listed again in Mainstream Work which makes it redundant.
  • It's a list of "appearances outside pornography", which is generally considered difficult to achieve: Ginger Lynn, Traci Lords, R. Bolla, etc., spend a lot of effort on it. Will work on expanding, and sorting.
• Also for the filmography, "important" is a bit POV - who says it's important and why?
  • The porn films are the ones unusually important to her career - first film, and award winners. I can put a line by each film saying so, but would that then be redundant with the Awards section?
    • Yeah, it'll probably be fine as it is. There's a part of me that wants to say "no, every assertion of importance must be sourced", vying with the less policy-obsessed part that thinks "well, it's pretty obvious which are most important and justifying each one is a waste of time". In this case, the latter probably wins. Trebor 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• For the pictures, I'd probably use the headshot to avoid the repetition. Trebor 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nicely done! These are my remarks:

• "She was born ... ". When you start a new section, I recommend not to start with "she". I think it would be better "Jameson was born ... ".
  • Jameson is her stage name, she was born Massoli. Wrote that.
• "Biography" needs more coherent writing. For instance, these stubby paragraphs are not nice. Merge or expand them.
• I think that you could also add more sub-sections in "Biography", such as "Early life and family", "Early career" etc. This might also help you better organizing your material.
  • Done.
• Before "Autobiography" there is an uncited paragraph.
  • Cited, expanded, moved down to Business (as it is a Club Jenna thing).
• There is a paradox with "Autobiography": The section of this article is bigger that the main article about the book! The opposite is more usual! I'd suggest that you expand the main article and then see what you want to include of the main article here. You could also link to the main article straight after the heading like that:

• That's because I didn't write the other article. :-). No excuse, I know. Expanded the other one, more work left.

• "Mainstream appearances" is poorly written. There are so many stubby paragraphs that it looks almost listy.
  • Right, Trevor said as much. Will work on.
• I read in the article about her awards, here achievements ("best renting pornographic title") etc. (there is also a long listy, which I am not sure if it is absolutely necessary, but let's see what other reviewers will say about that), but if she really is a controversial person, then there must be somewhere some controversy! Some critics, opponents etc. criticizing her style, her work etc. I think this should be further analysed.--Yannismarou 17:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant controversy in the sense of expecting clones of Brian G. Crawford showing up and demanding that all pornography articles be expunged from the Wikipedia, and their authors defenestrated. She's not particularly controversial among porn stars as such, she doesn't do anything particularly extreme, she's more revered or envied for her success. There's a bit where she criticised Suze Randall and Suze criticised back, I'll see if I can find that.

Thank you both! I did the quick things, others might take a bit longer. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLilburne

So far I've only had a chance to look at the "Biography" section, but I've noticed a couple examples awkward writing that could stand to be edited.

In October 1990, while the family was living in a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was gang raped by four boys after a football game. Later she would be raped a second time, by her boyfriend's uncle. She would later provide graphic details in her autobiography. In the book she writes...

There's an awkward use of passive voice, "later she would." The reader also wonders how much later. Then it sounds a bit repetitive when you continue with "She would later". There is another repetition when you have "in her autobiography" immediately followed by "in the book...".

Immediately after the second rape, at age 16, Jenna left her home and moved in with her boyfriend, Jack, a tattoo artist, her first serious relationship. He gave her what would become her trademark tattoo, double hearts on her right buttock, which her brother, who would become a tattoo artist himself, later enscribed "HEART BREAKER".

Way too many commas and clauses in a row. I don't have a specific suggestion, but you need to break up those sentences somehow, and vary their rhythm a little more.

Broke up. Better?

Later in 1991, she chose the name "Jenna Jameson" from scrolling through the phone book for a last name that matched her first name, and finally deciding on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks.

Also a bit of a run-on sentence.

Broke up.

While in high school, she began taking drugs, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines, again accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin.

Either you need to set the names of the drugs apart with something other than commas, or you need to start the list with "such as" or something similar.

In 1992 Jack left her, and a friend put her in a wheelchair, and sent her to her father, then living in California, to detox.

Another one of these strings of commas and clauses.

She has also avoided interracial intercourse.

This is not a stylistic point, but rather one of curiosity. Do we know why? It would be interesting to mention the reason, if so.

That's tough. Here's the thing - she's actually been called racist for this on several talk boards, but there isn't that much discussion in reliable sources. There is plenty of reliable writing about the fact she doesn't do other activities, but less for this particular one. I'm personally somewhat amused by the fact that someone can be called racist for restricting whom she has sex with, but that's beside the point.

Best of luck with the article. Hope that my suggestions will be of some use, even though they are rather nit-picky ones. MLilburne 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank all three of you very much for your excellent comments. I will try to implement them, but it could take a number of days to respond to them all - I do intend to repond to them all, and actually implement the suggestions in almost all, since they are very good, justified comments. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faten Hamama

Before starting work on rewriting this article it was a stub. I would like this article to be reviewed. I would appreciate any comments, advice, or notes. I would also like to request an assessment of the article, I think no major necessary improvements are possible, because not much info is available. ↔ ANAS - Talk 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gzkn

Helping out in Yannismarou's "sole domain" :). You've done a great job researching everything! Congrats on fashioning this out of a stub! In general, the structure is good, and references are present. However, whole paragraphs and key sentences still need citations (see WP:CITE). In general, aim for at least one citation per paragraph. The prose needs some work too. Consider better, more descriptive words than "big", "huge", "very", etc. I would rate this B-Class for now. Specific comments: Lead

• "her big contributions" <-- big is probably unnecessary there (or use a better word)

Done

• "for her role to help emphasize the role" <-- repetition of "role"

Done

• "Hamama was born in 1931 and..." <-- no need for that in the lead as you already have her birth year in parentheses.

Done: It wasn't me actually. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• " a very long time" --> "a long absence"

Done

• In general, the lead is OK, but skips from 1940 to 1996! What about those other 56 years of her life? :) Also, it's a bit listy at the end of the first paragraph (she won this award, and then this award, and then this other award, etc.). Consider reading WP:LEAD. A lead should hit all the major points of an article and basically offer a summary to the reader.

Done: OK, I wrote about that period. I tried to make it less listy for the awards, I removed some (less notable) and rewrote the paragraph. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Biography

• wikilink Assia Dagher and get rid of "(1908–1968)"

Done

• "movie and when the audience" --> "movie; when the audience"

Done

• "children beauty pageant" --> "children's beauty pageant"

Done

• wikilink Mohammad Kareem and get rid of the "(1896–1972, known as the pioneer of Egyptian cinema)"

Done

• wikilink Mohammad Abdel Wahab...in general, wikilink famous names

Done

• "translating "Happy Day", 1940"; also anywhere else a similar construct appears, you can safely delete "translating"

Done

• "4 years later", "2 years later", etc. --> spell out numbers less than 10 ("Four years later", "two years later")

Done

• "After her huge success" <-- previous sentences don't describe any such "huge" success. Consider adding some info on how successful those films were (box-office, critically). Then that transition will work.

Done: They are huge successes but I think you would understand that sources are extremely hard to find, it is definitely not as easy as finding reliable cites for an American actress for example. Anyways, I changed this line. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• "This movie attracted attention from media and Hamama became famous for her melodramatic role and was only 15 then." <-- This sentence gives us a good example of how to improve the prose. The "was only 15 then" is modifying Hamama, so we should put it closer to the subject instead of at the end of the sentence. I would suggest this: "The film attracted widespread media attention, and Hamama, who was only 15 at the time, became famous for her melodramatic role."

Done: Yeah, you're right, thanks! ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• "...were all huge successes in the Arabic box office." Needs source. (In fact, anytime there's a claim of a big success, you'll need a source).

Done

• "was nominated in the Cannes Film Festival" Nominated for what?

Done: Turned out to be The Prix International award. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• ""Date with Life") which she starred" --> "in which she starred."

Done

• "This particular movie earned her the title of the "lady of the Arabic screen" and to this day and after her latest work Wajh al-Qamar, she is the highest earning Arabic actress" Source?

Done

• The first para of Controversy in the late 1960s is confusing. What was she harassed about? Political pressure to do what?

Done: She herself hasn't revealed details, I made it much clearer, hopefully. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• "This is why most of her films have been the brightest offerings in the history of the Egyptian cinema and it was not a coincidence that the most prominent and brilliant Egyptian filmmakers produced their greatest films with Faten Hamama." Haha, while this may or may not be the case, unfortunately Wikipedia requires a NPOV. Also, without a cite, this qualifies as original research.

Done: Why is it unfortunate though? :D ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Would the Hamama and Omar Sharif section be better in the Personal Life section? Gzkn 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Done: I took care of this. I made the Hamama and Omar Sharif more focused about details on her career, and removed the personal life details from there. I also expanded the Personal life section with some details and references. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review Gzkn! I appreciate your patience and time my friend. I fixed every thing and worked on every comment. The article is completely cited. Perhaps you should consider the "References" too, some are full biographies and are reliable. I improved the prose and added better descriptive words. I also improved the lead paragraph. Is it worthy of a better assessment now? Thanks again! :) ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

This is a nice effort, but it needs some more work. This is my review:

• Inline citation go always straight after the punctuation mark and not before. Please check WP:MoS for such stylistic details.

Done

• And try to have the citations at the end of your sentences; not in the middle. Place them in the middle, only if you think it is absolutely necessary.

Done: I'm afraid it is necessary in parts of the article. I took care of the others, though.

• "considered by many a legend and a major icon in Arabic cinema for her contributions to the cinema industry in Egypt and for her role to help emphasize the importance of women in cinema and the Arabic society." Citing the lead is not necessary, if you cite the same things below, but I think that this "considered by" begs for a citation.

Done

• More stylistic mistakes! We don't wikilink years (e.g. 1939), only full dates (e.g. May 28, 1939).

Done

• "In the series, Hamama played the role of a prominent TV presenter and portrayed and criticized many problems in the Egyptian and Arabic society[3] and was awarded the Egyptian Best TV Actor of the year" I find many "ands" here.

Done

• I find "Early life" a bit stubby. Can you add some more details?

Done

• I have a problem with your sources. I checked all your footnotes and only two are in English. First of all, aren't there any printed sources about her? They are not a prerequisite for FAC, but they are highly esteemed. After all we don't speak about a person of 25-30 years, about whom printed sources are not usually available. She is over 70s and, obviously, a highly esteemed person in her country. Secondly, arab sources are Ok. But not 80% being arab! More English citations would be welcome. After all, they are easier verified by a FAC reviewer than the Arab ones.

Done: I replaced many Arabic (not "arab") sources with English sources, 60% of the sources are English now. I hope you understand it is difficult to find English sources for everything, there are barely Arabic ones. Besides, most of the Arabic cites are for awards and movies, which by the way are available in other sources I provided, in English. And you can always use online translators for confirmations. :) I have added printed sources with confirmed ISBNs. Any other comments on the references? What are your thoughts on the current style of the references section? :)

• And something else: you make a distinction between "Footnotes" and "References". OK! But I don't understand your distinction! Usually, in references we put with full data the printed (and sometimes online) sources we used in footnotes. However, your references are not used in "footnotes"; if I'm wrong tell me. Is this "References" section really an "External links" section?

Done

• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.

Done

• Have you thought using the Template:Cite web for your online sources and external links? I think it is nowadays recommended by FAC reviewers.

Done

• You have only two red links. Again not a prerequisite for FAC, but I think it would be nice to make them blue! Just create two stubs.
• The first paragraph in "Hamama and Yousef Wehbi" is uncited.

Done

• I suggest that you also add at least one citation for each paragraph in "Hamama and Omar Sharif".

Done

• "Hamama left Egypt from 1966 to 1971 because she claimed she had been continuously disturbed by the Egyptian intelligence. She refused to cooperate. The Egyptian authorities made her suffer, she wasn't allowed to travel or participate in festivals and was only able to leave Egypt after a huge controversial debate". I think this paragraph should be rewritten. What are the problems according to MPOV? i) After "suffer" I don't think comma is the right punctuation mark, ii) the second sentence is too short and for me breaks the flow of the prose. And there is also information missing: why did the Egyptian intelligence disturb her? When you say that she refused to cooperate what you mean? Previously, you tell us that she was disturbed, not that the British intelligence asked her to co-operate. And what did they ask from her?
• What problem did Nasser have with her? I'm afraid the whole "Controversy in the late 1960s" is obscure and needs more info, analysis and expansion.
• "In her following movie, Oreedo Hallan (أريد حلاً, "I Need a Solution"), she controversially criticized the rules of marriage and divorce in Egypt." Controversially? What does this mean? Again you don't cite and you don't explain what you mean. What was the controversy? Were there any enemies of her or supporters? Tell us some more things! It looks an interesting topic like her problems with the Egyptian intelligence and Nasser.
• Is Hamama pro democracy and critical towards the regime in Egypt? Her problems with Nasser and your edit that "she played critical roles with messages of democracy as in the 1972 movie Imbarotiriyat Meem" give us some hints, but again no further explanation is offered.
• "Nevertheless, her films were all successful box office blockbusters." According to whom? Referencing needed here.

Done

• "In spite of that she was able to magnetize fellow actors as well as her audiences, which is why she was successful in a lot of her films." This is an uncited assessment. If you don't cite such assessments, you give the wrong impression of original research.

Done

• "Most critics agree that Hamama became full-fledged after her movie Dua'e al-Karawan (دعاء الكروان) in 1959, which was chosen as one of the best Egyptian productions and was based on a novel written by the prominent Arabic writer Taha Hussein, Hamama played the role of a complicated, double charactered, psychotic woman" This sentence is not OK. Something is wrong with it.
• This list with "Honors and awards" is too long for me. I'm afraid you'll be criticized in FAC. According to me it is better to create a seperate article and in this article either to make a prose summary of it (I prefer this solution) either to include a shorter list with the most important awards.

Done: I started such an article to both the awards and filmography. I will also write a prose summary for the awards and a shorter list for the filmography.

• All your photos are fair-used tagged. If you had 2-3 of them, it wouldn't be a problem. But you have 7 of them all tagged. I'm not a specialist in photo copyrights, but I've read some FAC reviewers criticizing such an extensive use of fair-use tagged photos. Maybe, you should take a second opinion for this specific matter.

In general, the article is nice and informative. I'd also rate it as B-Class. But it needs stylistic, prose and content improvements I already mentioned. When you are over with the stylistic and content stuff, I'd suggest that you ask from an experienced native English speaker copy-editor to go through the article and copy-edit it.--Yannismarou 18:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Yannismarou. I will work on everything and hopefully make the article a better one. I appreciate your help and am grateful for the review. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romaine Brooks

I've been working on this artist bio off and on for a few months and have undoubtedly lost all ability to tell whether I'm being clear. I haven't put it through the GA process yet, but I'm interested in finding out what it will take to bring it all the way to FA.

I'm working on a short article about Gluck (that dashing young artist who inexplicably chose a name that sounds like a chicken noise) so the one remaining redlink will be gone soon. —Celithemis 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Great! And what an interesting personality! And that is exactly the succcess of a good article: to reveal the intriguing aspects of a personality. This is one of the cases I believe a reviewer is mainly redundant. Some minor and possibly trivia things:

• "When a fellow student left a book open on her stool with pornographic passages underlined, she picked it up and hit him in the face with it. She had no further difficulties." No difficulties with what? Further sexual harassments? I just don't like so much this little phrase.
• "hated the constant socializing on which Barney thrived". I think "hated" is a very strong verb. But if you think it is definitely the right word and you can verify its accuracy ...
• I'd like the photo captions a bit more informative (some comments, whereabouts of the painting etc.). But it seems we have a different philosophy in this issue. I usually transfer information in the captions and do not over-analyze a painting in the text. You, on the other hand, incorporate analyses of significant paintings within your prose and keep the captions laconic.
• And do not forget to alphabetize the categories at the end of the article.

In general, I think the article has a good chance in FAC. About the prose I'm not the best to comment, but it looked to me fine. And the research is definitely more than fine (25+ references when more FACs have not more than 5-6).--Yannismarou 08:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Cromwell

Self-nomination - I have been doing a lot of work with this article and hopefully have improved, but am far too immersed in it now to be objective. My aim is to get it to GA status and then beyond. I would really value any comments. Greycap 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Cromwell is a historical figure who always intrigued me, especially for the way he imposed his will on the people and the way he treated the royal tradition of England. But, anyway, this is not our subject here. I don't think you'll have any problems with GA. My remarks have mostly to do with a future attempt for FA status. These are my remarks for this nice article:

• I think you say twice in the lead that Cromwell was regarded by some scholars as a dictator. I think once is enough! For me this is a repetition. And be careful, because the lead is the mirror of your article.
• "He was a regicide who debated whether to accept the crown himself and decided not – though ironically he had more power than Charles I. He was a parliamentarian who ordered his soldiers to dissolve parliaments. He was devoted to Christian values yet his conquests of Scotland and Ireland were brutal. He advocated religious liberty of conscience but allowed blasphemers to be tortured. He advocated equitable justice but imprisoned those who criticized his raising taxation outside the agreement of Parliament." I also don't like the prose here. Many "he". Two "advocated" in a row. You say "He was a regicide" and a few words after "He was a parliamentarian". A better variety of expression would be welcomed. What about "As a parliamentarian he ... " or something else. If you are a native English speaker, you can definitely have better ideas than me!
• "Family" is stubby. Expand it or merge it with "Early Years" (I'd also suggest that for GAC).
• "He then studied at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, which was then a recently founded college with a strong puritan ethos". Again the prose! You see the "thens"? I'd suggest a copy-edit (not absolutely necessary for GAC; definitely necessary for FAC!).
• "At this stage, however, there is little evidence of Cromwell’s own religion. His letter in 1626 to Henry Downhall – an Arminian minister – suggests that before this point Cromwell had yet to be influenced by radical puritanism.[3] However, there is evidence ..." Again prose. I think these two "howevers" are too close one to the other. A better variety of expression is needed.
• Try to avoid red links as much as possible. If necessary, create stub-articles. And check if your red links are really red! For instance, although there is Portrait miniature you had a wrong and useless red link miniature portrait (I fixed that).
• "In May 1641, for example, it was Cromwell who put forward the second reading of the Annual Parliaments Bill, and who later took a role in drafting the Root and Branch Bill for the abolition of episcopacy". Citation needed.
• It'd be nice if you could tell us with 3-4 words or a short sentence what is the Long Parliament and not just wikilink us.
• Who is John Lilburne? Again the wikilink is not enough. Persons and institutions come and go, but you don't explain us what they are exactly.
• "Irish Campaign: 1649-50" needs more citations.
• Last paragraph in "Politics: 1647-1649" is uncited.
• "One of his major victories in Ireland was diplomatic rather than military - persuading, with the help of Roger Boyle, 1st Earl of Orrery - the Protestant Royalist troops in Cork to change sides and fight with the Parliament." Is this phrase OK? Especially the use of dashes. I'm not sure if the syntax is Ok here and that is why I'm asking!
• The first paragraph of "Debate over Cromwell's actions in Ireland" is full of assessments but has no citations. Don't have such assessments uncited! And, at least, try to have one citation for ech sentence (have in mind this rule for GAC).
• "Scottish Campaign: 1650-1651" also needs more citations.
• Don't wikilink more than once. For instance, Presbyterianism.
• "Death and posthumous execution" is also uncited.
• "Posthumous reputation" is excellent. Very nicely researched! Nevertheless, personally I'd create two seperate sections: one with the assessments and one with the films, songs etc. (last two paragraphs of the current section). But I suppose this is up to you!
• Just a question: You have a "References" section. Is this really a "References" section? What do I mean? I see in Footnotes more ISBNS. So, I wonder have you used the books from "References" in "Footnotes" or the "References" section is really a "Further Reading" section? There are three ways to have references: 1) In just one section (Notes or Footnotes), 2) In two sections (Footnotes and References [citations in Notes are analysed in detail with ISBNs etc. in References]), 3) In three sections (Citations, Notes [here we have a division of the previous Footnotes or Notes section] and References). Pick the form you prefer, check the current References section and rename it or create a "Further Reading" section if you feel that you need it.
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Abraham (town planner)

Hoping this article may qualify for GA or A status. It has already been nominated (very shortly after its creation) by an admin (User:GeeJo) for inclusion on the 4 November 2006 "Do You Know" section of the Main Page.. so maybe even FA status might be a possibility.. Bezapt 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice start. The article can be GA. These are my remarks:

• The lead is too short. It could be expanded per WP:LEAD.
• Further information could be added in some sections. For instance, I think "Early life" could be further expanded. We don't learn much about his early life.
• Speaking of "Early life", I don't see the nameds of his parents mentioned.
• More photos would also be welcomed.
• "Other career highlights" is stubby. Try to expand it a bit.
• I would also like to have a few more assessments of his work (analysis of innovations, artistic aspects etc.).--Yannismarou 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Cross

I would like to see what needs to be done to get at least a B on this article. Please keep in mind that there are no known photo's of this person. I know that it would be helpful to have a photo of her but I can not provide one. T. White 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLilburne

Firstly, you really, really need to clarify the copyright status of the text, because it looks like it was copied wholesale from that "Find a Grave" website. I have listed it on the page for possible copyright problems, and left a note on your talk page. When this has been cleared up, let me know, and I will be happy to come back with other suggestions. MLilburne 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been taken to the article's talk page, as the article is now on notice for copyright problems, and a draft replacement is being discussed. MLilburne 21:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Greco

First of all, I want to make clear that this is not yet the final form of the article. Regard it as an incomplete effort. But I request this peer-review, in order to receive feedback and proceed with the adequate improvements. My obvious goal is to submit this article in FAC. Please, any suggestion, contribution, idea is welcomed. I want to highlight my major concerns:

• Possible prose defficiencies.
• Factual accuracy.
• Possible ommissions in the content.
• Artistic assessments and comparaisons.

Thank you!--Yannismarou 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plange

I will definitely review this for you this weekend! --plange 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my thoughts:

• "These works would come to impose themselves" impose on whom? the artworld, the king?

Rephrased.

• the quote from Pachero leaves me hanging: "If I say that Domenico Greco sets his hand to his canvases many and many times over, that he worked upon them again and again, but to leave the colors crude and unblent in great blots as a boastful display of his dexterity?" Usually "if's" are followed by "then's"?

Rephrased.

• This sentence is pretty convoluted: "The same scholar asserts that Platonism and Neo-Platonism (not that of the Renaissance but the ancient one), Plotinus and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (who was included in his library), texts of the Church fathers and liturgical texts offer the keys to the understanding of El Greco's style"

Tried to simplify it.

• I see you're using {{cquote}} for your inline quotations, and while they look pretty, they're really not in keeping with WP:MOS. Inline quotations (where you have "someone said:" and then the quote) should just use <blockquote>s. cquote template is for "pull quotes" that are outside of the flow of the prose, like you do with your nice blue ones (which I use as an example, BTW, when I try to show people what a pull quote is)

I rearranged the quotes and inserted also the use of <blockquote>s. I hope it is now better.--Yannismarou 20:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job!! --plange 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will work on your proposals. I've already done some tweaks.--Yannismarou 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celithemis

I'm surprised you say this isn't in its final form -- it seems extremely thorough and well-organized. Mostly a matter of copyediting, I think.

Some miscellaneous notes:

• "Fodele or Candia (or Chandax, the present day Herakleion)": this sounds as if it refers to three different places rather than only two.

• Rephrased.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "English teacher Janet Sethre": is she really a primary or secondary school teacher, rather than a professor? If so, it's not clear why she is a source worth quoting on a question of interpretation. Does she have another claim to authority that isn't mentioned?

• Removed claims of Sethre, because I did not find any other source supporting them and just kept a reference to another art historian and El Greco's critic.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "According to Harold E. Wethey, professor of the History of Art at the University of Michigan" -- I think the name would be enough here. In general, if someone quoted is some kind of art historian or professor, including their job title doesn't seem necessary.

• I changed it to "According to professor Harold E. Wethey ... ".--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Could all the discussion of exactly when El Greco went to Venice be summed up as "around 1567", and the full explanation moved to an explanatory footnote? The research and care are impressive, but there's a risk of losing the important points in all this detail. Also, it's unclear whether this paragraph means to say that his works were greatly esteemed in Venice or in Crete.

• I totally agree! I overanalyzed the whole issue. More analysis shifted to note e.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "the hostility of certain artistic cycles" -- this phrase doesn't make sense.

• Rephrased. I hope it is clear now.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "The inventory of the household goods does not mention, however, a large house." What?

• I know! I thought the same thing seeing it! It was copy-edited. The intial phrasing was: "The inventory of the household goods does not retain, however, the memory of a wealthy mansion" and I now made it "The inventory of the household goods does not retain, however, the memory of a large house". What do you think?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Under Re-evaluation of his art, there's a repetition: "Future generations found little appreciation..." and then "The master was disdained by the next generations after his death".

• Re-organized the paragraph per your suggestion.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Referring to El Greco as "the master", "the Cretan painter", "the Cretan master", etc. rather than by his sobriquet is an awkward way of avoiding repetition.

• I'll have more of his sobriquet! I was also thinking about this matter.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "grace is the supreme quest of the artistic form": "the supreme quest of art" would make more sense (unless "the artistic form" refers to painting?)

• Corrected.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "turn this use of light into a detonating force": "detonating" doesn't seem like quite the right metaphor here.

• Tried to rephrase. It is difficult however to exactly translate the Greek word as it is in my source and as I understand it.

• "the interweaving between form and space": can you unpack this a bit more?

• Well, I tried to. I added one more explanatory sentence.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The heading "supposed Byzantinism" is POV (implying that the supposition is incorrect).

• What about "Suggested Byzantine Affinities" I wrote?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, though, it looks really good. —Celithemis 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I should mention I made a printout to read earlier today, so if you already changed some of the things I mention here, don't mind me. I'll try to do a bit of copyediting based on the notes I scribbled, as well. —Celithemis 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One more I noticed while copyediting:

Acislo Antonio Palomino de Castro y Velasco, a Spanish painter and writer on art, described his mature work as "contemptible and ridiculous".^[2] Some of these commentators, such as Céan Bermúdez, argued that El Greco made his works so eccentric that he became ridiculous and worthy of scorn.^[3]

This seems repetitive: "contemptible and ridiculous" is virtually the same thing as "ridiculous and worthy of scorn." Maybe consolidate the two sentences? Or even just say "also argued". —Celithemis 06:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merged.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, I should have copyedited BEFORE posting here. Just a few more things:

• "the structural code in the morphology of the mature El Greco": this could use more explanation.

• I tried to offer some further explanation.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "he visited his friend Ignacio Zuloaga": it's not made clear why this is relevant to Picasso's interest in El Greco.

• Because Zuloaga was the owner of the Fifth Seal. I'll clarify that.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "he declared that color had primacy over drawing": does this mean primacy over *line*?

• Well, by "drawing" I want to say design. Is "line" saying the same thing?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Under Further assessments, there's some repetitive phrasing: "typically Mannerist" and then "a typical representative of Mannerism."

• I tried to fix it.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The section on his Byzantinism is confusingly organized; it's hard to work out what the progression of views over time has been. —Celithemis 08:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to restructure the section and make this progression through time more obvious. But it is such the complexity of the various opinions that this is not an easy task!--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank for all your comments. I tried to address your concerns and I'll keep working on your detailed remarks. If you wish to do any further copy-edit, please feel free to proceed.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The changes completely resolved nearly all my concerns, so rather than go point by point I'll just drop down here....

I'm actually still confused about the house. Is the sentence saying that he never had a large house? Or that he did have one, and the inventory of household goods doesn't reflect that because he got rid of the furnishings?

Re "color over drawing" -- in that case, maybe form is the right word? Or possibly composition. It's not usual to refer to drawing in a painting in English, and I think line is probably more specific than what you mean.

Your revisions to the Byzantinism section definitely make things clearer (despite the welter of critical opinions on the subject!) The first sentence winds up being a bit vague, though. Perhaps something like "Since the beginning of the twentieth century, scholars have debated whether El Greco's style had Byzantine origins."? —Celithemis 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I removed this confusing sentence about the inventory. After all it did not add everything important. I'll implement your proposal and replace the first sentence according to your proposal.--Yannismarou 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aurelian

I would like to know what are the weak points of this article, and how to improve it.--Panarjedde 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice start! Some remarks:

• The article needs inline citations.
• In the lead you have a whole seperate paragraph with its full name. I don't know if this is definitely necessary.
• You don't have any information about his early years. Isn't there any available?
• What was the "Palmyrene Empire", the "Gallic Empire" and the "Sassanid Empire". You should offer us some explanations I think.
• After adding inline citations, you should reorganize "References and further reading". You put the sources you used in "References" and further material in "Further reading". "External links" is usually a seperate section.
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
• I think you could add a section with assessments about Aurelian or with an analysis of his legacy, if the sources offer such a possibility.--Yannismarou 09:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph W. Tkach

I am requesting another Biography project peer review of this article and an assessment on whether this is an A-class article. It currently has GA status and has gone through a general peer review. Many improvements have been made since it reached GA. I have placed the old Biography project peer review comments in the archive below. I am not sure if this is the best way to archive old peer reviews. RelHistBuff 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive1

[edit] Yannismarou

I think the article is A-Class and can go even higher. It was already a very nice article when I first reviewed it and it is even better now. I don't have much to propose here. Some minor, mainly technical, remarks:

• You could wikilink some more technical terms, such as deacon.
• One time you say Herbert W. Armstrong, then Armstrong, then again Herbert W. Armstrong! You say once Herbert W. Armstrong and then is always Armstrong.
• Check double wikilinks. I think you wikilink tithing twice (minor issue of course, but I don't see any major issues in the article!).
• "The impact of Tkach’s tenure as the head of the WCG was tremendous." Personally, I don't like this phrasing so much. I would prefer a more mild wording.--Yannismarou 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I implemented your suggestions. I agree that "tremendous" is a bit strong so I changed it to "notable". I intend to submit this for FA status so any other suggestions to help attain that goal are welcome. --RelHistBuff 11:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francisco Gil de Taboada

This is an article on a Spanish viceroy of Peru and later a high official in the governing junta in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars. My sources are mostly Spainish. I don't believe there is much available in English. There are some parts of his career I could not find much information on. I would be interested in suggestions about how to find more information. Of course I would also be interested in additional information if someone can add it. And any other suggestions as well. Thanks. —Rbraunwa 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffpw

• Hi Rbrauna. I sympathize with your problem about finding sources. Have you tried Nexis? Though it's a pay search engine, you can sign up for a free three day trial. That's what I did when I needed to research an article. Nexis can give you magazine and newspaper articles (among other sources) going back 50 years, all in English. Hope that helps, and here's a link: [2]. After you find articles, don't forget to use inline citations. People here find they help in quality assurance. Jeffpw 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Jeffpw, thanks for the Nexis tip. I really don't know anything about that site, so I'll give it a try. I suspect there is more on this guy and I just haven't been able to find it. I need to try a big university library, too. --Rbraunwa 13:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

This article is in its begining; so, I don't have much to say, until I see a more expanded version. Some guidance and general remarks:

• Have you searched Google Book for search? You could find something. If not then use your Spanish sources and see then what you can do with the prose.
• You have no inline citations, where you could also include these external links you link within the text.
• "As viceroy of New Granada" is too stubby. Needs expansion.
• You might like to use the Biography infobox or the military person infobox.
• By the way, you could also search in the Military Project in case there is any user there who can help you with the sources.
• There are also many prose problems. Small unconnected with each other sentences, stubby paragraphs etc. The article will eventually need copy-editing.--Yannismarou 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitt Romney

Please note There is a disagreement over the need to have a peer review by the editors of this page. I suggest the editors come to a consensus about the peer review before wikipedians take the time to comment on this page. If suggestions are not wanted, we should turn to others pages where peer reviews have been requested.

Thanks to those that take the time to make meaningful contributions to wikipedia!--71.232.179.222 20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitt Romney is a biographical article about the current governor of Massachusetts, who is visible as a likely contender as a Republican candidate for President of the U.S. in 2008. The article has yet to be rated for quality. I speculate that more than a hundred editors have touched this page since it started as a three sentence stub on 10 January 2004. It has had about 1,500 edits. Apparently over the summer of 2006, the article was expanded significantly by several editors, and sources with links were attached to most of the statements and claims in the article. There are about 10 footnotes and 150 embedded links to sources.

Key points and desires, for a review by outsiders:

1. General comments that assess its current level of quality and advice on how to improve the article
2. It is understood that the article presently fails to follow policy by lacking a listing for citations in a References or Notes section at the foot of the article, and that that makes it hard to scan the quality of the sourcing for the article.
3. Since admirers tend to expand on articles about leading living politicians, it is desirable to have specific comment on various aspects of the neutrality and balance of the article:

• • a. tone and style of the words used to describe activities, speeches, accomplishments and events, in relation to balance and neutrality
  • b. quality of the sourcing and citations (no small task), with attention to balance or neutrality of the sources
  • c. an assessment of what is selected topically to be in the article, and assessment as to what extent that topicality indicates a point of view
  • d. there is little mention or explanation in the article about the environment surrounding the efforts of Romney, and why and how his rhetoric or actions (whether in speech, or in bill-filing, or otherwise) have achieved modest results in comparison to his desires in the state of Massachusetts. Comment on this environmental aspect of a biography is desired, as several editors have said sections read like a press release from a candidate.

A scan of the talk page's table of contents may (or may not) be informative: Talk:Mitt_Romney.
Many thanks -- Yellowdesk 02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

I gave a detailed review, because the request was also detailed. In general, it is a quite good an informative article. It needs formatting and content improvements; therefore I rated the article as B-class. As far as POV issues are concerned I give a more detailed analysis further down. In the intro I'll just say that I may not agree with the comment of another commentator that the article "was submitted by the Romney camp", but some slight POV issues exist. The article is not, as a whole, POV, but some phrasing (a phrase concerning the previous governer), the tone in some sections ("CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee" is a hymne for Romsey - in "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" we get the impression that some "vilains" tried to impede Romsey's plans), the over-analysis of Romsey's views and the underanalysis of the legislature's viewes (in "Health" and "Education"), and the lack of critical analysis (pro- and against-Romsey as well) throughout the article raise some partial POV issues.

You make some good suggestions, but others are off base. I think the article is informative and the tone is appropriate. Words like "villian" (which you suggest is in the drunk driving section) are wrong, however I cant find them in this article. Where is this reference? Does it exist? I cant find a place where somebody is called a "villian"? To suggested that this article stoops to name calling is really uncalled for.--Michael16G 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting remarks

• First of all some "technical comments". The article definitely needs formatting. It is really peculiar the way some links are done. For nistance, the link to the List of Eagle Scouts was made like an external link, although it is a wikilink (I fixed that)!
• Let's come to external links. First, it is not nice to link like that: "Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 [3]." Like that is better: "Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998." It is even better if the link is transferred along with the other notes. It is not nice to have 10 inline citations and about 150 external links spread within the prose. Check any recently confirmed FA to see who the system works.
• Even the notes mentioning external links need formatting. Example: A note was like that: "Greenberger, Scott S. "Romney often casts himself as budget hero; But speeches omit some important detail," Boston Globe, October 24, 2005.[4]". Isn't it better like that? "Romney often casts himself as budget hero; But speeches omit some important detail. Greenberger, Scott S. (Boston Globe). Retrieved on October 28, 2006." I fixed this one, but obviously much formatting work is needing here.
• The "External Links" at the end are too long. Try to keep only what is absolutely necessary.

[edit] Prose issues

• "Among the first companies it invested in was Staples, an office-supply store. In 1986 Staples, Inc., had one store. Today it has nearly 1,700." Prose here obviously needs some polishing.
• "One poll taken after the September 20,1994 primary, sponsored by the Boston Herald and WCVB-TV, showed Romney ahead 44 percent to 42 percent but within the poll's sampling margin of error.: I have a question: Since Kennedy finally swept Romney (17% ahead), why do we have to emphasize on some polls (obviously not to accurate as the elections proved) that had Romney ahead?

The polls that Romney was a serious contender in 1994. His serious candidacy to topple an iconic US Senator gave him name recognition. These polls were not inacurate, they represented the mood in September. Elections are held in November.--Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• "His critics cited ... ruling in court." Another phrase needing copy-editing. In general, the whole prose needs copy-editing so that the article flow gets better.

Citing unamed critics are against wikpedia policy. Take the line out.--Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Governor Mitt Romney has been discussed as a potential 2008 presidential candidate as early as 2004. [2] Governor Romney is frequently mentioned as a potential contender in the 2008 presidential election." Aren't these two sentences telling the same thing? Copy-editing needed again.
• "One Laptop Per Child Initiative: Duplicating a successful program" Rephrase in normal prose.
• In "Abortion" there are many one-sentence pragraphs. Merge or expand in order to make the prose more solid.
• "Other Issues" is listy. It should be turned into normal prose. If you can keep it as it is, incoroprate its content in other relevant sections. Like now it looks like a "trivia" section, which is not recommended.

I disagree. The section is for minor issues that dont warrent their own section. Minor rewording might be needed, but it should be left as it.--Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing issues

• "According to figures in the 1996 Almanac of American Politics (which relies on official campaign finance reports), Romney spent over $7 million, with Kennedy spending over $10 million, mostly in the last weeks of the campaign." Here we need a citation.
• "Romney announced in 2005 that he will not seek re-election for a second term as governor, fueling speculation about a run for the White House in 2008." Citation needed.

If something needs a citation, go find it. Stop making work for others. Take some intitiative.--Michael16G 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Isnt the Almanac of Politics the sources in the first one? I will add a citation for the second one.--Waverider5 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content and POV issues

I can't say that the article is n general POV, but there are some possible POV issues that should be resolved. There also some topics needing further analysis:

• In "2002 Campaign for Governor" I would like a further analysis about the issues raised during the campaign (not only the legal controversies mentioned) and in which areas Romney and O'Brien confronted each other. After all, it was a narrow defeat for Romney and it looks like an interesting campaign. GIve us some more details about it. Not just the final result!

Its a fine length. Keep in mind this is Mitt Romney's page, not "the 2002 Massachusets Governor's Race Page." Start a separate page if you want to add more details. This page is undoubtably going to expand when Romney runs for president. We cant clutter it with minor details.--Michael16G 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Swift was viewed as an inept and unpopular executive, and her administration was plagued by political missteps and personal scandals." "Viewed" by whom? "Inept" and "unpopular" according to whom and why? What "missteps" and what "scandals"? This phrase, at least under its present form, is definitely POV for Swift. This arguments need substantiation, analysis and rephrasing. And of course, the only citated source is not enough for me.

Somebody just added the "inept" phrase. I removed it. It is clearly POV. The sources do show that she was unpopular. Read the Associated Press article sourced. "her approval ratings had plummeted." Look at the poll. If you have questions about the scandal, read the article. It mentions ethics investigations.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• In "Health" and "Education" we have a comprehensive analysis of Romsey's policies. And after this full analysis, we learn about the legislature's vetoes. But we donot have an equal analysis of the legislature's point of you. We see the clash, we see Romsey's beliefs, but we do not learn why the legislature does not agree with Romsey. I think a more balanced analysis is needed here. Critical viewes of both Romsey's and the legislature's stance would be also welcomed.

Here is what you need to know. Romney is a Republican and the legislature is dominiated by Democrats. Democrats and Republicans disagree. The legislature has so many democrats that they can override his vetos as they choose. The sections are appropriate for Romey's page as is. If you want a page that deals with large scale philisophical discussion aboput policy, launch anopther page (as was done in the healthcare section). This page summarizes what Romney proposed, and what became of the proposal.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure that Romsey's plans to file a death penalty bill in early 2005 must have initiated an interesting debate and there must have been critical voices and supporters as well. But in "Death Penalty" we learn nothing about these issues! Only a dry narration of events. I want something more here, including a brief presentation of those opinions critical to Romsey's initiative.

Once again, lauch a new page. We are all aware that some people favor the death penalty and other dont due to philisopical differnces. We dont need to have that discussion in a short summary about Romney's legislation. This section defines his proposal and mentions that outcome. Lauch a "Death Penalty in Massachusetts page" that would talk about the history of capital punishment in the state and link it to the bottom (for more information) of Romney's death penalty section.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think the tone in "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" is a bit pro Romsey. Again the point of view of the other side is not analysed and the narration leads to the conclusion that the governor tried to do the right thing and some "bad guys" tried to impede him. At least, this is the impression I get.

I dont think so. Read all of the sources. Romney proposed drunk driving legislation. The legislature weakened the law. There was a public outcry over the legislature's action, and the legislature eventually caved and restored most of the provision. It clearly looks like a victory for Romney and the view of the public. That dosent mean that it is POV.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• In "Abortion" we learned that Romsey changed his views concerning abortion. During the campaign he said one tthing and after the campaign he advocated another thing. Weren't there any criticisms for this shift, for this important change in his political beliefs? If yes, we don't see them in the article. Does this shift in his views has anything to do with his plans to run for President? Has any analyst raised this issue? I'm a European and maybe not so familiar with American politics, but, when I read about this change in his viewes, this thought crossed my mind. Am I the only one?

This section adequatly chronicles Romney's changing abortion stances. It even menions why it changed. It is sucessful in conveying his attitue towards the subject. Criticisms of his view when he runs for president will go in the Presidential campaign section.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Cape Wind has received both bipartisan criticism and support." Such as? Analyse and citate accordingly?--Yannismarou 07:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, for more details go to the cape wind page on wikipedia. The sources indicated bipartisan positions (Kenndy and Romney both oppose it for instance)--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Its "ROMNEY" not "ROMSEY". Please read and article a identify the topic before suggesting any type of changes. Please know what you are talking about--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment To Michael16G: Some of your remarks were really uncalled-for. There's no need to attack the reviewer who took the time to give an excellent review because you disagree on certain points. A peer review consists of suggestions and ideas for further improvement, you should know it's not the reviewer's job to do the work for others. As I said before, these are just suggestions, take them or leave them. You may know more about the subject than the reviewer but that doesn't make the tips less valuable. The readers could go through similar problems. Nat91 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think there are many changes to be made on the page based on the current suggestions. I think that Michael16G makes some valid points (although the editor's tone was a little harsh) about mantaining the current structure of the page. New pages should be created for in depth discussion on issues that go beyond the current page.--Waverider5 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment To Michael16G: I'm puzzled as to why a peer review was requested if the editors think the article is fine as is? We're impartial/outside editors (and most are non-American, so clearly have no stake in an election. In fact, your reviewer Yannismarou is not American) that volunteer our time to review any article posted to the WikiProject Biography Peer Review page. Attacking them and saying they need to do the work that's suggested is not in the spirit of peer review requests. You asked our opinion and so we gave it. You can take it or leave it, but don't be so harsh on the reviewer. Thanks! --plange 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment to plange by the editor requesting the review. The history of the request is that another editor submitted a nomination that the article undergo a Featured Article Review, without understanding that FAR was for already featured articles, nor understanding how far the article is from being a Featured Article Candidate. I withdrew the {FAR}} template, and suggested a peer review instead, and since there were no objections, submitted the peer review. As you can see by the comments above, some editors participating in editing the article are hostile to adjusting the tone or balance and content of the article, nor do they understand how much effort will be required to achieve even an A-Class article. - Yellowdesk 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I can tell you that based on the above reaction to Y's review, I won't be conducting a review. Hope you understand! :-) --plange 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The problem is that Michael16G does not understand how peer-reviews work and what is their purpose. So, I apologize for mispelling one letter of Romney's name and I express my confidence that there are definitely other users who are interested in improving the article. That is why I ask Plange and maybe Nat91 (if he intended to) or any other possible reviewer to launch their own independent reviews. It is unfair because of one extreme reaction editors who are interested in ameliorating the article not to get the right guidance. Thanks!--Yannismarou 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Yannismarou. She, and yes, I intended to; but after seeing the reaction above, I second what Plange said. You bring up a good point though - it is unfair for others interested in improving the article. To be honest, I took a look at the article and I thought your review was excellent. I don't think I have anything to add, but I'll give it a second thought. Nat91 07:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thank you to Nat91 for still considering to comment. I agree that Yannismarou's review was comprehensive and very responsive to the outline of concerns. We have a great deal to consider. I believe the review will have the attention of at least three quarters of the 20-odd people who regularly edit the article. I have started converting the embedded links into footnotes what will show up in the references (a previously known problem); this will cause me to examine all of the sources and compare the article statements to the sources. Some of the specific wording noticed in the review has been attended to. There's a negotiation yet to come, among the article editors about point of view, and analysis of the Romney administration, and this will take some time and effort; as you can see, some editors treat the article as an effort for promoting Mr. Romney, and others, including me, indicate the article fails explain important aspects of Romney's milieu. In any case, I wish to express appreciation and high regard for the fact that the reviewers are willing to spend effort, time and energy reviewing articles that you collectively have no stake in, and especially I appreciate it is a voluntary effort on your part. Thank you. Yellowdesk 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yellowdesk: The conversion of the links to footnotes is a wonderful project. It improves the quality of the page and ensures that the provided sources supply the information referenced. Thank you for the effort. The article looks to be comprehensive and well written, but should still be reviewed for any innacuracies. I do however share Yannismarou's disagreement over your opinion that the page "was submitted by the Romney camp." It does have some minor issues, but does not read like a campaign document as you suggest. I absolutely agree that the Romney page should not be used to promote his campaign, but it does not do this in its current conditon. Lets continue this review and focus on the things that need to be addressed. Thanks!--MN57798 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Reply toMN57798: Yannismarou was referring not to a statement made by me, (on the "Romney Camp" quote), but to an annonymous review located here: Talk:Mitt_Romney/Comments, where Yannismarou gave a one sentence summary during the peer review. I think that the article is on the whole comprehensive, but in sections merely descriptive of proposals by Romney without context. Yellowdesk 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Coggins

This article has been rated Start class. I have added a lot more to it and would appreciate comments and possible re-rating. Dave 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

I upgraded to B. I'm reluctant to rate it GA without having successfully gone through GAC. In general, a nice article. These is my review:

• The lead is short. Check WP:LEAD.
• I didn't like some wording. For instance "While his father served with the Life Guards Regiment in France during World War I, Coggins and his mother lived with family in Folkestone, Kent and he attended the Imperial Service College, a public school preferred by army families." I lost the persons here! It may be because I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm almost convinced something is going wrong here! "He was pulled from basic training before he could complete it, however, to work as an illustrator for YANK magazine, which was a U.S. Army weekly magazine "by the men ... for the men, in the service". This sentence also does not flow so well. "As a result of his friendship with Fletcher Pratt, Coggins became closely associated with notable science fiction writers such as L. Sprague de Camp, L. Ron Hubbard and Isaac Asimov, through his membership of Pratt's Trap Door Spiders club, and he frequently joined Pratt in playing Fred T. Jane's "Navy Game". I also don't like this phrasing. I repeat I may be wrong since I am not a native English speaker, but I beleive that a slight copy-editing would help.
• "translated into other languages.[1]" Don't citate external links like that; it is not nice. You have your citations you can use.
• Photos are not an obstacle neither for GAC or for FAC, but an article with one photo is usually regarded as poorly illustrated.
• You have 3 listy sections with books and magazines. First of all, when we citate a book, it is better to give all the information about it (ISBN, publisher, author, year) and keep the same format for all the books citated. Second, it is not nice to have 3 listy sections in a row. You can create a sister sub-article and make a selection for your main article (this is a suggestion - wait to see what other reviewers will say on the same matter).
• I think it would be also nice to have some evaluations by critics and others of his art. I saw only his personal beliefs about his work and not what other people said about him.--Yannismarou 12:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nat91

I'm another non-native English speaker, but I don't think Yannismarou is wrong. Those are odd sentences.

• "While his father served with the Life Guards Regiment in France during World War I, Coggins and his mother lived with family in Folkestone, Kent and he attended the Imperial Service College, a public school preferred by army families." - You can make 3 sentences out of that. "Kent and he attended..." who's he in that sentence? I'm lost too.

Same with the others, you could make 2 or 3 sentences out of 1. It'd be more clear and less tiring for the reader. Nat91 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit

I accept the comments regarding the sentences mentioned above - they did sound a little confusing and I was formulating ways to improve them, but for me the latest edit done by Jreferee doesn't improve the article at all. My personal preference is to keep the tone of an article slightly formal and authoritative, but in my opinion it now has a bit of a "movie script" feel. Also, what is the point of linking to all those dead ends? All those red links look terrible. Sorry, that's just my opinion. Dave 21:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plange

I echo the above reviewers and would only have this to add, that you need to pick one spelling style. I saw a mixture of US and UK spelling and wasn't sure which to switch to, since he was born in the UK, but became a US citizen. You guys, as editors, can decide which makes most sense and correct the spelling to whicever you pick. As for the edits by jreferee, you do not have to keep them... --plange 22:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur puppy

It may be a conflict of interest if you are related to him (both of your last names are Coggins). But I didn't see any NPOV violations so it doesn't look bad right now. T REX_speak 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think as long as it remains neutral, there shouldn't be a problem. It is possible to write an article fairly about a relative. I've done so with Stephen Trigg and John W. Johnston. (If I haven't, let me know!) --plange 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Koechner

This page was originally rated as a stub, but has since been revised and expanded. See me let go 23:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Ok! It is not a stub any more, but it is still a start article, that need much more work. Some of the problems:

• The lead is too short. Check WP:LEAD.
• The biographical information is not as expanded as it should be.
• "Personal life" is stubby.
• FOr such a short article "Filmography" is huuuuge.
• Just too sources. Hmmmm ... Much more research needed.--Yannismarou 11:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Rogen

Project has been significantly updated from its original incarnation. See me let go 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nat91

The article has been significantly improved indeed! But it's still a start article. It needs more information and improvements. Some suggestions:

• Expand the lead. See WP:LEAD
• The picture in the infobox is too big. Size it. 240/250px is a good size.
• In my opinion, the article has too many pictures and very short content. Also, some of them do not have a fair use rationale.
• After "Biography", you could put another section called "Early life" or "Personal life" and expand it.
• "Early career" is also a stubby section. Work on that.

On a side note, there's a "Frat Pack"? There is no originality anymore! Nat91 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I've removed some images, added a few sections, added many references and generally expanded what I submitted earlier. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. See me let go 12:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice, in general. This is my review:

• "Universal Pictures gave the ok to cast". I think this expression is a bit uncyclopedic. I'd suggest rephrasing.
• "Influences" can't be a sub-section of his personal life. Something is obviously wrong there. In any case I also believe that this article should be placed befor his "Career" sections along with early life information. Another strucuring you could do: Remove "Biography" heading - create a seperate section "(Early years and) Personal life (or any other title you choose)" before the "career" sections and then start a "Career" section with the relevant sub-sections ou already have.
• I think you could further expand "Influences" by adding critics, evaluations etc.
• I always speak about the importance of verifiable printed sources apart of magazines. I don't know if there is any available in this case.
• "External link" go after "References".
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
• All your photos are fair-used tagged. In FAC this could be a problem.--Yannismarou 12:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll get to fixing those areas within the weekend. Question though... It seems like every entertainment bio I see has some kind of Image use violation. I, and probably many other users, am not quite sure what kind of images are allowed. I've read the lengthy descriptions, and still have trouble understanding which are the appropriate ones. Any quick tips? See me let go 07:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right. This is a general problem. That is also why in FAC there is no clear policy on this issue. I just have to point out that, when in FAC the reviewers see more than 2-3 fair-use-tagged photos, they tend to be critical. But I repeat that the whole problem is not yet clarified and that I'm not a specialist in photo copyrights. I just wanted to warn you for possible criticisms, when and if you decide to go for FAC.--Yannismarou 08:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I really appreciate the feedback, and the looking out for future problems. It's much better to be aware of potential problems before someone else immediately pulls the images. Hopefully, there will be some clear FAC guidelines so we can all start editing in the appropriate manner. Again, thanks! See me let go 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plange

First of all, great job in your expansion!! I think you are now ready to go for GA. I did some minor copyedits for you... --plange 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, one more thing-- I'm not up to snuff on Canadian English spelling, I only know that it is more like UK than American, but is a mixture. So you might need to go through and make sure Canadian spelling is used. I wasn't sure if they spell program in Canada like they do in the UK - programme, for instance --plange 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Yannismarou about influences being under Personal life, doesn't really make sense. And some things in personal life are repeats of info above... --plange 23:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Claude Mézières

I confirm that I have completed the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. This article attained B-status in its quality assesment. I have expanded the lead section as per feedback received and am now submitting for peer review as suggested. Would like to attain GA status. Joe King 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nat91

Nice article. Some comments:

• The inline citations go after the full stop, comma or semicolon. Try to fix that.
• As for the section named "America", personally, to me that word means the American continent (I'm from Argentina). Perhaps you should call it "Work in the United States" or something similar if he only worked there.
• The picture in the infobox doesn't have a fair use rationale, add it. Also, it would be good if you could find another picture related to his work, since the article only has one picture.

You should nominate it for GA, I think you won't have many problems. Nat91 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. In response:

• Inline citations fixed (thank God for "find and replace")
• Very good point about America. Section renamed.
• Added rational for the infobox picture. Regarding additional images, as I understand it fair use only allows the use of one image to illustrate an article. I'd love to add more but I'm not sure it's possible.

Joe King 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you'll have problems for adding another picture. I've seen FAs with 2 or 3 fair use images. Nat91 06:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nicely done. Some remarks for further improvement:

• You should turn "Awards" into prose. Like now it is a trivia section and trivia sections are no more recommended.
• "Christin, Pierre, Mézières, Jean-Claude (2002). Les Correspondances de Pierre Christin : Adieu rêve américain (in French). Paris: Dargaud. ISBN 2-205-04904-6." You mention you source, but you don't citate the exact page. The same with "Lofficier, Jean-Marc and Randy (2004). Shadowmen 2. Heroes and Villains of French Comics. Encino, California: Black Coat Press. ISBN 0-9740711-8-8".
• You have a variety of sources, but you overwhelmingly citate the first two ofyour sources. Try to have a better distribution of your citations.
• I repeat what Nat91 mentioned: According to WP:MoS, citations go straight after punctuation marks.--Yannismarou 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the kind comments and the useful feedback. In response:

• The Awards section was originally prose but changed to a list by another editor. I did think about changing back but felt, in the end, that a list was a better way of conveying the information. I could go back to prose but I remain unconvinced about what value that would add to the article - as it stands I think as a list it's more useful and makes it easier for a reader to extract the information it seeks to impart (which, after all, is the ultimate purpose of an encylopedia). Your point about Trivia sections is well made but, I feel, does not apply here - each list item remains relevant to the section it is in whereas Trivia sections usually present endless lists of wildly disjointed and useless information - the trivia sections in The Fifth Element and Blake's 7 are a case in point.

• Your call! You may be right!--Yannismarou 07:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Page numbers for the Lofficers book added. Page number not needed for Adieu rêve américain since the entire book is quoted.
• Not being based in France makes accessing sources difficult. I accept your point but I don't think there's much that can be done about it.
• As mentioned above, inline citations are now fixed.

Joe King 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plange

I don't have anything to add to the above; I did some copyedits... I also think it's ready for GA! --plange 00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's always useful to have someone with fresh eyes do this. Much appreciated. BTW, I've nominated the article for GA this morning. Joe King 13:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Review 1

[edit] Prem Rawat

The first phase of the peer review was completed, see archive above.

Look forward to phase II and your comments about structure, reorganization, lead, prose, etc., as suggested during the first phase by Sandy and Yannis. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Than

[edit] From SG

Plange and Yannis will be more helpful at how to best organize a bio; I typically go to the bottoms and work my way up, looking at the referencing (I don't like to read an article until I'm certain the references are in order :-)

• References section seems very long: are all of those used to source the article, or should some of them be listed as Further reading?

These are all references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do these have ISBNs? Aagaard, Johannes, Who Is Who In Guruism? (1980), in Update, Vol. 4.3, October 1980 and Cameron, Charles (Ed.), Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (1973), Bantam Books, Inc. On any other books that don't have ISBNs, can you doublecheck that enough info is given to allow anyone to find the publication?

Some of these do not have ISBN numbers as these are articles in journals (Aagaard), and others becase these are books pre-ISBN and were not reprinted (Bantam) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Expand all blue links in refs to full bibliographic entries (I would have done it for you, but I hate Citeweb :-) Example, Opposition to Maharaji and his message – Detractors and the negative message they convey, please give biblio info like name of website or author and last access date. This should be done on all weblinks.

I hate citeweb as well, but it needs to be done. Will find some time do do these. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some refs need page nos, example (there are more), LansVolgelingen van de goeroe, pp. and Levine, Life in the Cults.

Levine I can find, as I have the book. The other ones, I do not, but I know the editor that added that ref and will ask hiem to provide. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• As examples (there are more), expand these refs, we need name of site or author or title of the page and date of press release and date of last access (having as much info as possible makes it easier to re-locate the info in case the link goes dead in the future):
  • Prem Rawat Honored by International University of Peace
  • Prem Rawat Interviewed on National TV in India Press release
  • US Patent Office

Sure. Will do. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Avoid ibid - I saw some in the references - the problem with ibid in Wiki is that another editor could insert another line of text sometime in the future, invalidating the ibid. Use named refs instead.
• Not sure how to handle Criticism - Plange and Yannis may have ideas - but there's that whole business of Jimbo saying Criticism sections should be avoided, as they are POV magnets, and criticism should be woven into the text.

Not in this case. This is a summary of a spin-off article, as per Wikipedia:Content forking.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Excerpts is a strange heading ?

Any suggestions? Maybe "Quotes" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look more closely at the prose next week - have pending travel. Sandy (Talk) 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Though not a FA criteria, usually lead should have as less citations as possible. Here we have 17 citations in the lead only. This should be curbed. Also the size of the lead is big.
• techniques of Knowledge should be wikilinked on first appearence (in Childhood in India).
• Rarely some copyedits needed. eg, "...mourned his father death..."; a space lacking after the citation superscripts following the sentence "Between January 2004 and June 2005 alone, he delivered 117 addresses in Asia, Europe, and North America"; etc
• "In October 1969 he sent a mahatma..." - what is a mahatma?
• "...India Gate in Delhi..." - wikilinks needed.
• The section: "The 1970s" is choppy, with many short paragraphs. Please try to merge some.
• All website references should have access dates.

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Doherty

What do you think about rating the article A-Level? What is left to be done? -- dreadlady 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

In general a nice article. It is in GA level. I'm not still sure about A-Class. This is my review:

• Expand the lead. check WP:LEAD.
• You have the infobox without any pivture. This is not nice. I suggest you use one of the two pictures you have in the article for the infobox. Even the group phot, explaining that the one in the middle is Doherty.
• "However, while post-production ... involved in other projects (see Yeti and Dirty Pretty Things)". This paragraph is uncitated.
• I recommend when you quote something no to use italics. If you want to emphasize on a specific quote, have in mind that there is a variety of quoteboxes.
• I think the "Collaborations" section is short. For sure, it has three stubby paragraphs. Try to make the prose flow a bit better here. With the right expansions of the content and/on mergers of paragraphs you can do that.
• "left the band on at least one occasion[19] before returning intermittently." I don't see a reason you have the citation in the middle of the sentence and not at the end. Citate in the middle of a sentence, only if it is absolutely necessary.
• "On New Year's Eve 2005, Doherty held ... leaked onto the internet. 31 March and 1 April 2006 Doherty was performing ... after he failed to turn up in January. For this occasion he produced at the suggestion ... a film with the title "Spew it out your soul". Citations needed.
• "Most of Doherty's journals are freely available on the internet[1]". Citate the external link properly. After all, you can simply add it in your references.
• "Albion and Arcadia" is too stubby. I don't see why it should be a seperate sub-section.
• In "Influences" we read what Doherty himself says about his influences. But what are others (critics, musicians etc.) think about his lyrics?
• "Awards" is stubby. If you can't expand it transfer the information in another relevant section.
• You can't have empty sections like "Controversies and Legal Troubles". It does not matter that there is another sister article. Make a concise summary of this article here.
• "The tabloid press ... Kate Moss". Uncitated paragraph. Personally, I donot also like where this section is placed. I would prefer it somewhere before "Influences", so as to be interconnected with his biography, part of which is this section.
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 11:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Buchanan

Just got assessed as A-class; would appreciate comments and criticisms. I think the article could use some pruning and editing, but would like to hear some feedback from other Wikipedians. Thanks! Schi 17:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nat91

Very detailed article. In my opinion, the article is too long. 126 KB is too much. It has too many stubby sections that could be edited into one, for example, "Early life." I know we're talking about a politician, but the article seems to have too many quotes. You could keep the essential ones and the others could be turned into prose. Nat91 04:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• I agree that the article is too long. I think it should become a bit more tight in general. For instance there are many sections, sub-sections etc. some of which are stubby. I suggest you merge some of them, without deleting essential information. Sme problem with the too many quotes: They are far too many and long. As Nat91 said, keep only the important ones and try to incorporate some of the others within the main prose.
• You have some listy sections. For FAC this is a problem. Turn them into prose.
• You have about 80 inline citations and about 180 external links! Why aren't these extrernal links in your inline citations? The way you link to external links is not recommended. Transfer them in your notes and citate them properly (title, author [if there is one] or source, when they were retrieved). The same with some of the exisiting external links in "Notes", which are also not properly citated.
• Some of your citations are empty. Something is wrong there.
• Trivia sections are not recommended. Get rid of it and incoroporate the information in the main prose of your article.
• Is this long "See also" section needed?
• In general, I think the problem of the article is not the lack of information, but the proper organization of the existing information. The existence of too many sections is part of the problem.--Yannismarou 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Toulmin

This is my third biography and I think I included everything. I've taken the article as far as I can and need your guidance to improve the article and my writing. -- (Jreferee 23:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice start, but it needs more work. This is my review:

• "Dr. Toulmin's sympathy to both the American (1775-1783) and French (1787–1799) revolutions lead this Englishman to be education by the United States and caused others to see this prolific historian as a religious radical." Something is wrong with this sentence. Bad prose!
• Don't say all the time "Dr. Toulmin" or "R. Toulmin". "Toulmin" is Ok.
• Your three first sections in "biography" are stubby. Merge or expand. I'd suggest merge. They are all about his early life and family. After you merge make also the prose a bit more coherent so that the passing from one section to the other is not seamless.
• Try to have inline citations at the end of the sentence. Cite somewhere in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary.
• Prose in "From Presbyterian to Baptist minister" not good. Many stubby paragraphs. Merge them or expand them.
• I think the information about his main life (after early life and marriage) are inadequate. Can you get us a bit more about him.
• "Caused others to see this prolific historian as a religious radical". I'd like to elaborate a bit on that in a seperate section. Some criticisms and assessments about his life, role and influence in both the American and the French Revolution would be nice.
• In "Works" why do you citate 3 external lnks in the wazy you do? You already have a notes section. Don't you? Transfer this citations there and citate properly.
• A very long list with his works. I'd suggest to create a seperate article and make a short selection with his most important works for this article.
• All the printed sources you used in "Notes" should also be mentioned in "References". Are they? If you don't like this system, then delete the "References" section and have just the "Notes" one.
• All the links in "See also" section are redundant. Get rid of it!
• The "The Serial Dissenting Minister" section has no inline citation.--Yannismarou 08:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Sullivan

Trying to move this article towards FA-class, so all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice material, but you have some work to do here! Some suggestions:

• Expand the lead per WP:LEAD.
• Citate the article. One of the basic FA criteria.
• Add ISBNs in the books you mention in "References". And keep them there only if you citate them. Otherwise, move them to a new section (e.g. "Further Reading") or delete them.
• In "Musical Quotations" I think you should make the prose a bit more coherent and solide. These In... In... In... and the short pars are not so nice.
• In "Reputation and criticism" there are too many quotes. This is not good for the article flow. Try to keep only those absolutely necessary and the other quotes incorporate them in the prose. I also think that some material from this section would better fit in "Life and Career", but I don't want to spoil your structure. Get some more opinions about that and about the length of "Reputation and criticism".
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
• I'd prefer this "Wikisource" thing somewhere at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilaiyaraaja

Article deals with an important Indian musician/composer (see article lead). It is in fairly good order structure-wise and in terms of language. The referencing for this article is fairly rigorous (consisting of academic journal articles and book chapters). There is fairly substantial material here, and the narrative is tied together fairly well. Unsure about whether article needs to be longer if it is ever to aspire for FA status. Or if its layout is fine. Or if the lead section needs to be longer/shorter/contain more info that it currently does, etc. Please take a look and comment. Merci! AppleJuggler 06:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice article and well-citated. Some remarks:

• You could add one more paragraph in the lead. Have you checked WP:LEAD?
• The information about his family could go in "Early life and education", which could be mentioned "Early life and family". This last information in "Music and Career" look like trivia information which is not good. By the way, try to expand a bit "Early life and family"; it looks stubby to me.
• "Career and music" is long. You could divide it in further sections, e.g. "Early career", "Mature career", "Traits of his art", where you could further expand and analyse.
• The fact that you have just one photo is not the best thing for FAC. It is not necessary to have more of them, but it would be nice.
• Sections "Awards and nominations","Partial discography" and "Literary works" are three sections in a row, which are long and listy. I think you should turn "Awards and nominations" into prose. Now, about "Partial Discography", I'm afraid that in FAC you'll be asked to make it even more partial! "Literary works" could also be turned into prose, but I'm not definite about the necessity of that.--Yannismarou 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Articles archived - 2006