Talk:John R. Countryman
John R. Countryman was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 14, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Shirley Temple's mother tried to get the "notably talented and cute" Johnnie Russell fired from the set of The Blue Bird so that he would not share screen time with her daughter? |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Spouses
[edit]Why is only one spouse listed in the Infobox when the article clearly names two spouses?
Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing. I was unable to figure out how to put two spouses' names in the infobox. Meanwhile, the name of his first wife is unknown. Yoninah (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:John R. Countryman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 09:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Parking this here for the reivew. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Some basic fixes:
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I'm a little concerned about the over-use of a primary source for the article; see elaborated comment below. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no problems | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Couple of additional points:
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Given the nature of the sources, it does present a completely anodyne portrait; 33 citations from the oral history interview are more than all the other citations combined. The interview itself is not a critical engagement, but rather an exercise in allowing the subject to provide as much information, unanalysed, as possible. I think one way of balancing this problem out would be in more points where the interview is used also connecting to sources which highlight the particular issue at hand. Doing this with the points I listed above in his foreign service career would be good in that regard. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | It's unfortunate there's not actually an image available of Countryman himself for the article. In lieu of that, given one of the most important people he worked with directly was Averill Harriman, I suggest adding a photo. I can see at least two photos of Harriman on Commons that coincide with the time (1965-66) Countryman worked for him: [2] [3]. I've cropped one for a portrait that might be appropriate [4]. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Thanks for putting the work in on this, I actually found reading about Countryman extremely interesting. He's a worthwhile subject for a GA. There's more than a small problem with the over-use of a primary source, but at the same time, it is not a great problem that cannot be rectified through some balancing. I think the article is very close to being GA with the suggested changes. Let me know how long you think you may need to clean up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
|
@Yoninah: thanks for your patience, that took me a little longer to complete than I planned. I leave a space below for you to respond. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Nominator responses
[edit]Thank you for the thorough review! I would like to address your comments over the next week. I don't know if I have enough information to get around the overuse of the primary source. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Goldsztajn: To be honest, I thought this was a relatively detailed article that would be able to pass GA. By your comments, I see there's a lot more research to be done. Frankly, I created the article because I was interested in his film career (and even that was hard to research), and I don't feel like expanding the rather technical and political details that I'm frankly not interested in. I appreciate your time pointing out the faults, and perhaps in future I'll try to fix up a few of them so the page is useful. For now, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Hi Yonniah, sorry to hear this. I'll have a little time in about a week, I'll see what I can do to address these points and perhaps we can make it a co-renomination. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Oman articles
- Low-importance Oman articles
- WikiProject Oman articles