Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruno Maddox

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 21:12, 19 September 2007.

Bruno Maddox

[edit]

Self nomination Bruno Maddox (born 1969) is a British novelist and journalist. He studied English literature at Harvard University, graduating with the class of 1992. I think the article is FA quality. What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 09:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The writing for the article is somewhat clunky and could use a good copyedit, which I started and will return to later. Other problems aren't so easily fixable. I know this guy is pretty obscure, but the holes in his biography are definitely noticeable. I didn't really understand the timeline of his moving around in his early career, and after adding an inline query I saw your open letter to journalists asking them to explain how he got his first reviewing job--which I found a bit unclear also. If all this info is lacking, I'm not sure I'd be willing to support. Calliopejen1 09:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I appreciate the copyedit. I would like this article to achieve FA so that the missing biographical information can easily be determined by journalists. I've done my best with what little is available. Often it will be stated that he spends his time between London and New York. I'm steering away from mentioning that because it's difficult to say which years it was in which he split his time between those two cities/did he have apartments in both/ is it still the case? There may be more there to know, but then again what is and isn't an invasion of someone's privacy (meaning will such questions ever be answered)? So if I stick to the work he did and where those employers were located I can safely steer clear of such problems. As well, Maddox is only 38 years old so he can't have done that much. As well as well, I'm going for a short FA that meets all criteria. It seems to me that FAs always end up as monster articles, most often warranted, but shouldn't always be the case.-BillDeanCarter 12:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: The article has received a thorough copyedit from user WillowW. Let me know if there remains any awkward sentences.-BillDeanCarter 10:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Changed to support. The writing is actually quite good. I'm going to echo Calliopejen's concern—is so little known of this guy's personal life? If a full birthdate is unavailable, I presume a picture's out of the question :) There are also still a few...subpar passages:
There are photos available, but they're all fair use. The best one is actually this one by the Picture Perfect Agency. So they are definitely going to want money. And I wonder if there's a way to find out Maddox's birth date? What resources would a journalist avail themselves of? But a lot is known about the guy, who is after all only ~38 years old.
    • Second section: Maddox envisioned SPY as a national magazine instead of its legacy of covering New York-centric stories—weird construction.
      I changed it to "Maddox wanted to turn SPY into a national magazine, rather than build on its legacy of covering New York-centric stories."
    • In "Recent essays": He draws upon a breadth of knowledge gleaned from his youth, growing up in a family immersed in science due to his father's writing career and was regularly exposed to scientists at social events. Perhaps you could change it to He draws upon a breadth of knowledge gleaned from his youth; Maddox grew up in a family immersed in science, thanks to his father's writing career, and was regularly exposed to scientists at social events.
      Excellent. I added the copyedit into the article.
    • The "Popular science" subsection of "Genres" isn't working for me. It's just a repetition of previous content, and [...] that dealt out his own personal views on science with a markedly humorous and skeptical bent could easily be added into the "Travel + Leisure" section.
      Hmmm, the idea is to have a Genres section that categorizes somehow Maddox's work. I'm trying to keep the Popular science sub-section hanging in there (stuff has already moved up into the rest of the article). It really is a major genre of Maddox's work but unfortunately I'm at a loss as to how to elaborate on it esp. without duplicating the rest of the article. Perhaps the critical articles on his Discover articles will have something. Will work on this.
  • Overall: nice work. The article's a tad on the short side IMHO, but if there's no more verifiable information to add I guess you've hit the wall. I would like to see some more copyediting, and perhaps a close look by another uninvolved editor. (Willow is an excellent editor, by the way; nice work getting her on board :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see what I can do about more copyeditors. So far there has been Calliopejen1, WillowW, Mike Christie, and you. WillowW really did a thorough copyedit that pulled the article together in a nice way.-BillDeanCarter 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I am withdrawing my opposition because the article has been extensively reworked since I first looked at it. Karanacs 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article seems really short to me. I think more information about his works can, and should, be added. Even after reading the article, I still don't feel like I have a very good grasp on who this guy is. Here are some other suggestions:
    Thanks for the comments. They are very helpful. The problem is Maddox is only 38 years old. This is all the information there is atm. Without this article there is no comprehensive look at his life and career. So I've done that and now as his career develops journalists can fill in whatever they find there is to fill in. The point of me seeking FA is to validate the comprehensiveness.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the lead is too short.
      I disagree. The lead was reworked by WillowW and I think it is perfect. Simple and to the point.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Over the next four years, Maddox moved from"...this could either mean the 4 years after he graduated from college or the four years after his article was published (meaning last year of school and 3 years after). Please reword.
      done. I reworded and then reorganized the paragraphs.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like the way the last few sentences of the 2nd paragraph of Early years sound. It does not flow well at all. (I like the first sentence of that paragraph, though :) ) Also, this paragraph talks about 4 years of moving and various jobs he had, then in the next paragraph goes back to 1994 and talks about what he did then.
      I reorganized it.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but some questions remain. Did he quit his job as a book reviewer to work for the dotcom company or work both at the same time? Do you know what he did at the dotcom? Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      His last book review at The Washington Post was in 1996, and his last book review at The New York Times was in 1998. It is not known what kind of work Maddox did at the IT company. It is only known that morale was high.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      done. I incorporated the information about the end dates for the book reviewing jobs.-BillDeanCarter 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand the quotes about SPY's market (but then, I've never heard of the magazine)
      Tackled by Outriggr. I think it fixes the problem.
      MUCH better :) Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence about the editorial team seems like it should go into the first paragraph, when it talks about him becoming editor-in-chief
      I explain what Maddox wanted to do with the magazine, and then right after I explain the editorial team he pulled together. He only becomes the editor-in-chief in the second paragraph.
      It still makes more sense to me that you would talk about his team when you first mention that he is the editor in chief, rather than after mentioning his vision. Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      done.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First sentence of last paragraph in Editorship section is very clunky. Can it be rephrased or separated into multiple sentences?
      Done by Outriggr.
    • Maybe reword the first sentence of My Little Blue Dress. It made me think at first that the novel had been written, and then it says later that it wasn't finished.
      Done by Outriggr.
    • Two paragraphs in a row begin with "My Little Blue Dress was". Can this be changd a little.
      I changed the second sentence. Sounds much better.
    • Need a citation for: "The novel's intrigue lies in the mysterious reason that compels the fictional Maddox to forge a memoir."
      Done. I used Salon.com with "When you finally do figure out the entire story behind Bruno's decision to forge the memoir (well, almost the entire thing -- there are some intriguing holes), you can't help being moved, and even a little sad that it may not work in the way Bruno hopes."-BillDeanCarter 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you have a quote within a quote, use ' ' for the internal quotation
      Done.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed this -- it was using two single quotes on each side, which made it italicized. Next time, just one single quote on each side. Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall, many of your paragraphs are really short. Some of them could probably be combined.
      It can't always be done but I did combine the last two paragraphs in Recent Essays.
    • This needs to be reworded "but a completed script was never on track for film production" - I'm not sure what it means
      It just means that the script was never completed, or if it was it was never on track for film production. It wasn't made. Outriggr reworded it some so maybe it makes more sense now.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      What if you change it to, "it is unknown if Maddox completed the script" with a footnote saying that this is as of 2007? Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      done with the footnote.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't begin the Recent Essays section with a quote -- there is no context for it.
      The section used to be called Free-lance journalism. I think the quote is excellent and starts off the section topically. Maddox is not a career man. He writes wherever he can which is a difficult way to live.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      For a magazine article, you are perfectly right. For an encyclopedia article, I think you need to give context to the quotation. Karanacs 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I moved the quote to the right and down a paragraph.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of "As yet," use a date (as of 2006, as of 2007, etc).
      Okay, done. It was recommended to write as of August 2007 which I thought was too precise. As of 2007 sounds better.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence about the essay "Before it was real" is too long. Please try to make it multiple sentences or reword.
      I switched places with two phrases, but I kept it all connected with the semicolon.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is characteristic about his "Literary Terrorism" essay? Please expand on this.
      Right. What is typical and what is characteristic of both essays mentioned in that paragraph? This was just added later and possibly these qualifiers should be removed. I'll put some thought into it.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed the words typical and characteristic because they cannot be sourced. The qualifiers were added during one of the many copedits, but I kept the rest with some slight rewording to keep the same explanation of his works.-BillDeanCarter 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The recent essays section as a whole sounds too much like a list. I think it could probably be grouped a little differently and sound better. It could also use some expansion when discussing his works.
      I grouped it a little differently.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I like the new grouping, but can pronouns be substituted for some of the many "Maddox" references? Karanacs 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      done.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the information in the Genres section should be incorporated into the article. It doesn't really talk about genres at all.
      It basically explains the two genres he writes in: satire and popular science. I think it's a helpful section because as you said you don't really know who he is after reading this article. Well, at least you know he specializes in satire and popular science. I'd love to elaborate more on these two genres but there isn't anything to elaborate more upon.
      To me, the Genre section feels more like a conclusion, or summary of the article, but introduces just a few new facts (like his quotes). I think the one sentence about Blinded by Science that is in that section needs to be incorporated into the Recent essays section. The information about him being satirical in his own biography should probably go into the secton on My Little Blue Dress, as it is directly related to the book, which you've already discussed as a satire. Karanacs 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I would like to keep the Genres section. It is a nice categorization of the kinds of writing he does. The information seems trivial if dispersed throughout the other sections. The Genres section may get stronger over time if people note it and decide to comment themselves on the genres that Maddox writes in. It is also a somewhat higher level section which I like to do from time to time, such as the 'Writing process' section I have in the William Monahan article and the 'Writing style and characteristics' section I have in the Aaron Sorkin article.-BillDeanCarter 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should not have external links embedded in text, even if the links are pointing to his own articles. Instead, these should go into an External links section, perhaps pointing to the column indices instead of each of the articles. (For example, the Blinded by Science index: http://discovermagazine.com/columns/blinded-by-science/?searchterm=Blinded%20by%20Science)
      I like these kind of linkfarms in bibliographies because they are very functional. The bibliography obviously stays, and then you're just depriving the reader of links to the articles. I don't see the harm when it's done in a bibliography.-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:External Links, external links should either be in an "External links" section or should be used as references. As the bibliographical entries satisfy neither of those requirements, they need to be removed. Also, per the MOS for list of works, the author's name (or the dash representing the author's name), should not be included for his own works. Karanacs 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I am following List of works by Joseph Priestley as a template for this Selected Bibliography. I'm using the same style in my own List of works by William Monahan. I believe the bibliography's style is fine but it is a matter then of whether to remove the links. I will remove the blue links if this is the only thing stopping the article from making FA. It does seem a waste to not be able to directly go to the articles.-BillDeanCarter 18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that the dash/no-dash option is really a matter of stylistic preference, not a matter of written-in-stone policy. I am not sure that there is a reason to change the current style, since it makes clear to the reader that Maddox wrote all of the materials listed. I also think that the choice to link titles in the "Selected bibliography" is a personal choice, not a MOS policy. I myself have seen several different suggestions regarding this for lists of works that I have worked on. I think that it is safe to link those works which will never have a wikipedia article. As one editor pointed out to me, it is repetitious to list a work multiple times: collapsing the external links with the "Selected bibliography" in this way helps avoid that repetition. Awadewit | talk 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      What if you convert the external links into citations for each article? That way, you remove the external links from being embedded in the article, but the link will be available in the references section? Karanacs 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think a Selected bibliography is a lot more professional.-BillDeanCarter 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Karanacs 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This seems like a fairly good article to me. I am not familiar with the subject but it appears comprehensive. One thing - the comment "While growing up, he was immersed in the world of science" in "Genres" does seem slightly repetetive, since the same is mentioned in "Recent essays". I copy-edited a few other bits. Is there some kind of policy or guideline on category placement? I like them alphabetical, I know others have different tastes, but is there a definitive decision somewhere on which of the two it should be? Another question of the same type refers to the opening, which states "most well known" - I usually regard "best known" or "most known" as POV (something like "perhaps best known" seems better), but is there a definitive statement on that somewhere as well? Cheers, Mad Jack 08:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I just went and removed the redundant sentence. I don't really know about the policies regarding categories. You're right about "best known", because he himself is not well known, nor are his works, but he is best known (if known at all) for his novel and his satirical essays.-BillDeanCarter 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Support. Can you find a citation for the sales of My Little Blue Dress being "modest"? This is quite an important point to cite; I think it would be OK to cite Maddox saying something to this effect in an interview, since there is no reason for him to downplay his own sales, but anything more definite would be good too. I would support after you fix this. It would also be nice if there were something that could be quoted from an interview with him about his future plans, if he's stated any. You do have something about an upcoming novel, but it's from a six-year-old source. Is there anything more recent? This isn't necessary for me to support, though. Mike Christie (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How could I cite that? I tried to figure out how many printings it had. It's currently out-of-print. There are 5 mentions of my little blue dress after June 2002, according to Lexis-Nexis and none of them mention sales or much at all. I could use the sales ranks for the major online book sellers which place it at ~300 000. How does one normally cite the fact that it had modest sales? There is no interview comment that I can find. I'm now wondering if this is just a personal conclusion I came to or if there was in fact a comment made by Maddox in an interview.-BillDeanCarter 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also haven't found a more recent comment of a kind, which could be used further down at the bottom of the section as well. I'll keep an eye out for it.-BillDeanCarter 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest just cutting "to modest sales". Sales figures aren't an absolute pre-requisite for an article about an author, and I think you're better off cutting it than leaving it uncited; as it stands I admit it's probably true, but I don't think it has to be there for the article to be featured. Mike Christie (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I cut it.-BillDeanCarter 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To expand the article a bit, you could devote a paragraph beginning with this sentence, which currently isn't elaborated: "His Discover columns are often criticized; his controversial essays include "Stuck in Creationism" and "Fictional Reality", a column on the current state of science fiction." –Outriggr ₪ 09:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll quote a few comments from the various critiques. Good idea.-BillDeanCarter 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a first attempt at this. Let me know if it works. That first sentence now seems a little dead compared to the rest of the paragraph, although it might be a good overview of the paragraph.-BillDeanCarter 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a writer as the topic, let's be careful about the prose.
    • Remove the comma and hyphenate "best known" in the opening sentence. Remove the second "for".
      So like this: Bruno Maddox (born November 15, 1969) is a British novelist and journalist who is-best known-for his critically lauded novel My Little Blue Dress (2001) and his satirical magazine essays. ? I think you mean something else. Please show.-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsure what it means by "early" exposure to science and technology. And exposure implies he was relatively passive in this acquisition of knowledge.
      Yes, he was relatively passive. It explains it more in the body of the article. HE gravitated towards the humanities but couldn't help picking up some knowledge of science from his surroundings. Supposed dinners with such éminences grises like James Watson and Sir Fred Hoyle.-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • His one sister, Bronwen, is notable for what? It sticks out unless she's relevant to his output. Why not put his grandparents and aunts and uncles in, too?
      She's mentioned once in the Early years and in the Infobox. It's immediate family. She is actually Chief Foreign Commentator of The Times. I will have to do something about this, such as mention what she blossomed into later on. Or possibly simply change the sentence He has one sister, Bronwen to He has one sister, Bronwen, who became ....-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      So I mention her and what she became. Maybe one day Bronwen Maddox will have an article of her own. Some kind of sibling rivalry no doubt has probably begun.-BillDeanCarter 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long quote: is it possible to end it at "have done"?
      That would kill the quote and misrepresent. I'd prefer to keep the quote intact esp. considering the article is not long to begin with.-[User:BillDeanCarter|BillDeanCarter]] 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge the "Critics" para into the previous one.
      The paragraph is specifically about the criticism of his Discover columns. So an idea as paragraph.-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a bit short: I wonder whether it covers the man and his output in a comprehensive fashion, as required. Tony 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      It's comprehensive. He's only 37 and not being famous there isn't copious amounts of biographical info on him.-BillDeanCarter 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I haven't opposed, I can still find plenty of issues. First thing my eyes landed on at random was:
    • "a five-page fax proposal he sent on the advice of his literary agent John Brockman.[10] The proposal was sufficiently intriguing that his agent Brockman was able to sell My Little Blue Dress in nine countries within a week". Unsure we need to know it was faxed. Remove the second "Brockman"; change the book title to "the novel", since the title has only just appeared in the previous sentence. Sell the rights to the novel? Unsure, but check.
      Did a copyedit tackling this.-BillDeanCarter 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then: "Although the novel is a memoir of a hundred-year-old woman, it is also a satire of the literary memoir"—the logic is a problem: "although" is contrastive, whereas aren't you telling us two things that aren't at odds with each other? "... anyway."—MOS insists on logical punctuation.
      Likewise here. I changed to : My Little Blue Dress was published in 2001 by Viking Press, a Penguin Group imprint. The novel begins as a memoir of a hundred-year-old woman, but several chapters later reveals itself to be a satire of the literary memoir. The protagonist is a fictional Bruno Maddox who is desperately attempting to create a forgery of an old woman's memoir in a single night.-BillDeanCarter 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'd still be happy for a fresh collaborator to come into this. Tony 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC) PS I fixed the first sentence for you.[reply]

There have been a lot of collaborators making changes here and there. Mostly positive on the whole. I'll try to get a few more though.-BillDeanCarter 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, part deux Changed to support. The article's much closer to FA level now. I still have a couple of questions, though:
    • "...moving from Boston to Moscow and to New York..."—confusing sentence. I'm lost here. Perhaps you could expand a bit—"...spent the two years after graduation moving around/traveling/seeing the world (just examples, whatever suits best), first living in Boston, then moving to Moscow and New York..." or something of the sort. If he lived in NY after Moscow, the sentence that follows ("hand-delivering...") is not in chronological order.
      done. The Boston part is simply his departing point, which is really Cambridge, and then he briefly spends time in Moscow and moves to New York where he suffers for two years on rice with egg fried into it.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I tweaked it a little bit more, I hope you won't mind. Hmm... egg-fried rice. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      No, good edit. I don't have a good grasp on when to use the dash or the semicolon yet but hopefully I'll figure it out sooner or later.-BillDeanCarter 01:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lot of repetition of "satire/satirical" throughout.
      I got rid of a lot of them and changed those that I could.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under "Recent essays": "His Discover columns are often criticized; his controversial essays..."—lose the second "his".
      done.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please go through the bibliography and italicize magazine names! Sorry, couldn't take it; did it for you :)
      Thanks. I see you made the switch from the publisher to work parameter, which makes sense. Penguin is the publisher of his novel, but in the case of his SPY articles it would be Sussex and work would be SPY. I also struggled with the fact that the magazine/newspapers weren't italicized but figured the cite news template knew what it was doing. I will have to make that modification in the other articles I've worked on. I've been misusing the cite news template.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I used to get publisher/work mixed up all the time; oddly, I find it happens most often (to me) when "switching" from frequent use of {{cite web}} to templates for citing print work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kudos on getting a full birthdate, by the way.
      Thanks. When I can I try to answer my Wiki Letter to journalist questions.-BillDeanCarter 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really, really close to supporting (if the FAC is still open, of course :P) Anyway, nice work! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed. Avoid terms which become dated, when is "currently" (Maddox is currently a contributing editor to The Week magazine.)
    That is a very recent addition to the article. I have followed up this question with The Week (at www.theweekmagazine.com)'s editorial staff and they have confirmed the information. I hope to incorporate that sentence more appropriately shortly. The Week magazine is not available online (other than a special Green issue for one brief week last April). I've asked the anonymous editor User_talk:63.144.166.5 to specify more information as well as a kind email to the editors at The Week for appropriate encyclopedic information concerning his contributing editorship there.-BillDeanCarter 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been able to verify the position at The Week by using the Internet Archives because there was one issue called the Green Issue which was available for a period of a few weeks last April. I would like to be able to note when that position as a contributing editor began though.-BillDeanCarter 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you change the word "currently" to an "as of" date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    done.-BillDeanCarter 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in date formatting is not pretty: Diary: The ULA profiled", Gawker.com, 2003-08-01. Retrieved on August 14, 2007. (If you wikilink the publication date, user prefs will show both dates in a consistent format.) I'm not crazy about the numbers in the section headings—Travel + Leisure magazine (10). Don't you want to wikify the dates in Discover magazine (17) (see WP:MOSNUM)?
    Okay, I removed the numbers in the section headings. They were ugly and problematic considering they would have to be incremented every month or so. I don't wikilink the dates in any situation so I'm a bit baffled by why they are wikilinked. Could someone who knows which is the right way to do this fix it?-BillDeanCarter 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an adequate reference: Date of birth obtained from Discover magazine's editorial staff. Where's the source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is an email I received from Discover magazine's editorial staff. A source will only give you his year of birth, 1969, not the month and day. This is a valuable addition to the article allowing us to know how old Maddox is exactly.-BillDeanCarter 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I broke up your paragraph to facilitate addressing them. If someone could fix those wikilinked dates I would be grateful. I also believe I am coming up against Wikipedia's no original research policy ever so slightly. Considering it is highly factual information (an exact date of birth and his work at The Week magazine) I hope it can be allowed for the sake of the article.-BillDeanCarter 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dates; not crazy about the birthdate situation, but I won't object over that one issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support... with final comments, I promise
    • Under "My Little Blue Dress":
    • "...his agent was able to sell the novel..."—shouldn't that be rights to the novel? I'd change it myself, but I'm not sure.
      I did a copyedit. Let me know how the new 1st paragraph works.-BillDeanCarter 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second paragraph: memoir, memoir, memoir... How about "The novel begins as a memoir of a hundred-year-old woman, but several chapters later reveals itself to be a spoof of the genre"?
      done.
  • That's it. Congratulations—the article's come a long way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the help.-BillDeanCarter 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article looks much better than when I first saw it. The holes in his bio seem less noticeable, maybe because they're disguised by sharp writing. :) Anyways I made a last copyediting pass through it and made some small changes, but it looks great. Calliopejen1 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Your copyedit looks great. Do you mind if I put the through LexisNexis® Academic stuff back? I thought they were useful especially considering I don't know of any other ways to get a hold of some of those articles. NYTimes can be obtained elsewhere, don't know about The Washington Post, but The Hartford Courant and the others I don't think can.-BillDeanCarter 22:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Calliopejen. I like the bulk of your copyedits to the article. I'm just not sure about whether removing the mention that certain articles where pulled from LexisNexis is a good idea. The mention of LexisNexis makes it clear where you can find those articles if you need to. I'm also wondering if the Infobox is a good idea. I'm half for it, half against it, because it seems a little unsightly, maybe I need to get used to it, but it does add certain details about the book which are useful. If anyone else has anything to say about these points I would appreciate hearing them. Thank you everyone so far for helping to improve the prose and make it beautiful.-BillDeanCarter 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the infobox, but I'd take out the information about his sister. Karanacs 01:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a big fan of infoboxes, although they're not required—I do think both the lead infobox and the book infobox add relevant information. I agree on removing the information on his sister; it looks quite odd under "Parents". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll remove his sister. Should I put mention of his sister back in if the Infobox Writer is fixed (i made such a request and the improvement is in the works) so that siblings is a parameter much like Infobox Person? But what of the through Lexis Nexis appendages to publication in references? I think they are useful and would like to put them back if in conformance with wiki policy and group consensus.-BillDeanCarter 03:40, 18 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bruno_Maddox&oldid=1192288736"