Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ann Bannon

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:37, 3 December 2007.

Ann Bannon

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it qualifies under the Featured Article Criteria. Moni3 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Comment

Just a couple of things in a fly through. In the info box, some of the occupations should start with a capital letter (like Writer).
- Fixed that. --Moni3 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Moni2[reply]
The lead is a little lengthy. See WP:LEAD for the guidelines
- The guidelines state that an article as long as this one (40k) should have a 2-3 paragraph lead and should summarize the main points of the article. The lead follows those guidelines. --Moni3 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
  - My bad sorry, at the time, I was thinking sentences!! Sorry! Aflumpire 01:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following that, there are one or two really long sections. Try cutting them down r put in some more headings so it keeps the reader's interest.
- Let me think about this one. I know the section you're referring to, but I'm not quite sure how to break it down the way it is... --Moni3 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
Otherwise it's pretty good! Aflumpire 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your time and comments! --Moni3 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Support. Very enjoyable read, covers all important aspects of her bio (including a very detailed account of The Beebo Brinker Chronicles release) and fullfils IMHO all FA requirements. Nicely done! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Overall good, but one issue persists (which I should have caught in my GA review). For the subsections on the individual books in The Chronicles, there should be {{mainarticle}} links (obviously only if there is a separate article for the book in question). Also remember that if there is seealso or mainarticle links, then images should not be so situated (i.e. to the left) as to divorce the links and the text. Issue dealt with, so I'll gladly Support. VanTucky ^Talk 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You didn't notice those before GA because I added them after... --Moni3 03:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a difference wouldn't it :) VanTucky ^Talk 04:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well-written, well-sourced, seems to meet all criteria. --MgCupcake (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please format the citations correctly per WP:CITE/ES, review the punctuation in the image captions WP:MOS#Captions, remove the red-linked categories, review the section heading "Current life" (becomes dated), and visit the External links per WP:EL, WP:NOT. All websources need a publisher and last access date, author and publication date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reformatted the citations per WP:CITE/ES as requested, adding all relevant information, removed the red links in the article, changed the punctuation in photo captions, renamed the "Current life" heading to "In retirement", and removed some of the external links per WP:EL. Please let me know if there's something more I should do. Thank you. --Moni3 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question for SandyGeorgia: I read your changes and I just want to make sure I understand what you're suggesting: that all dashes between page ranges are unspaced, and read as -- (two dashes), and all references involving newspapers have a cite news format? Thanks for your reply. --Moni3 17:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No :-) Page ranges are separated by unspaced endashes; you currently have hyphens. You only have to change those hyphens to endashes. Hyphen (-), endash (–), emdash (—). My comment on the citation formatting isn't about cite news vs. cite web per se (although that was also an issue); for some reason, the article uses a partial cite template and partial manual formatting for several citations. I can't understand why that is being done? I guess it works, but it's confusing, may be difficult for other editors to maintain in the future, and is extra work. If you're employing citation templates, why not convert the entire citation to a cite template format? I did one for you as a sample. If it's still not clear, you can drop a message on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I changed all the hyphens to endashes (who knew? You're contributing to the mishmash of the wikieducation of Moni3) in the references. I used the WP:CITE|ES to guide me in the references. All online sites and news are in the cite web format, but in the manual cite web|url= |title= (I type that faster than I can find the template), while books, journal articles, radio, video, and other interviews are in the normal manual format. I'll change what needs to be changed for the FAC process - please let me know what you require. --Moni3 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's move this discussion to talk pages; the end result of the citation method you have used is fine, because all of the needed info is there and correctly formatted. The way you've done the citations is confusing and labor intensive, because you mixed citation templates with manual formatting within individual citations. It would be more straightforward to either use a cite template, or use manual formatting, but not mix. I will do one change to one citation to show you what I mean; let's follow up on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.