Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/2007/Promoted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was pass.

Nhat Hanh

[edit]

This article previously had an A class rating by an established member of the the Biography Project team, but has recently been changed to B class pending review by the A class review team. The article is extensively referenced, has previously been peer reviewed, and is stable. The review here would be very helpful in fine tuning the article with a goal of submitting it for featured article status. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Nightngle (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Minor style points:

Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your input and the edits you made, DrKiernan. I have trimmed the external links; the article has lots of references, so it doesn't need such an exhaustive list of links. Nightngle (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was pass.

Alan Keyes

[edit]

This article received the B-class rating a long time ago and has undergone many changes. I believe the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Peer review/Alan Keyes/archive1 have been addressed. I also updated all the citations, changed them all to citeweb format, checked the facts, removed the "trivia" section, and reorganized things more appropriately. Consensus has been reached that this is NPOV. Considering all this, I believe it is time to upgrade this to A-class in preparation for an eventual submission as a featured article candidate. --Jdcaust 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - for the moment. Article needs WP:PERSONDATA. {{citations needed}} templates need to have citations added, and then the templates should be removed. Third paragraph of intro is a single sentence. Single sentence paragraphs are strongly discouraged. "Maryland Senate campaign 1988 and 1992" paragraph needs citation. All paragraphs should preferably have at least one citation, generally preferring 2 or more. It is preferred that only one kind of link be used. this article uses external links to other sites in the "Media and advocacy" section which could probably be turned into footnotes or links to the appropriate wikipedia pages. Many of these are not major problems, but taken together they're enough to withhold A-Class rating. John Carter 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fixed all of the citations and external links a while back. I've also added a few other citations for other material that could possibly need citations. Next, I plan on fixing the single sentence paragaphs. If I add a bit more to those sections, would that be enough to complete the review and earn an A-class rating? Thanks. --Jdcaust 18:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added persondata to the article. --Stormie (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have also added references for the election results in the "Maryland Senate campaign 1988 and 1992" paragraph. --Stormie (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose Did he really receive death threats? [1] isn't an acceptable source: note that the site gives wikipedia as its source, so anyone could have inserted it. Linking that to Bloom's book is a leap of logic that doesn't strike me as valid. DrKiernan (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I just saw your removal of that source and re-cited it with one from the Boston Globe. He did receive death threats. Bloom's book mentions the incident to the letter without actually mentioning Keyes' name. If that's too much of a leap, I can remove it. However, I would like to hear from others on that matter. --Jdcaust (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article still contains two single sentence paragraphs, which will almost certainly prevent it reaching FA status, but aren't enough to withhold A status. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was promoted.

Mendy Rudolph

[edit]

This biography is well sourced and has a good amount of content. It doesn't quite have the length to be a WP:FA, so I thought I would see if it meets the A-class requirements. RyguyMN 06:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Length per se isn't really a factor, completeness is. I wish I knew whether the article could be said to be complete, but I can't. I think that it would be reasonable and probably expected to add information about when he married Susan, at the very least. Also, any other details, about perhaps children (if any), maybe a bit more detail regarding his early life and his service in the Air Force, if it's available, would definitely be appropriate for a biographical article, and if nothing else give a greater impression that the article is complete. If however that information isn't available, it can't be added. Are there sources which go into greater detail on these aspects of his life available? John Carter 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the comments, John Carter. Unfortunately, I've exhaused all my resources finding additional information about his personal life. RyguyMN 02:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Following up on my earlier comment that I have been able to obtain some additional information on his early years now that the New York Times archives are free to access. I'll be updating the article some more over the course of the next several days. RyguyMN 23:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with additional information. I still wish a bit more information regarding his early life were included, like the names of his first wife and children, but I can understand how that particularly information might not be reported. John Carter 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Support per John Carter. There is not enough information for this to be a Featured Article, but it is definitely an A-class article as it is. Good work by Ry on this article. I would love to see it become a featured article soon enough. FamicomJL 05:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was promoted.

John Knox

[edit]

This article has passed GA and has gone through a Biography Peer Review. Considerable work has been done based on the very helpful peer review comments (see article's talk page). I would like to know if this is now A-class, but even more importantly I would appreciate your comments and suggestions on improving the article. --RelHistBuff 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was: promoted.

Preity Zinta

[edit]

Support This article has had considerable development even since its promotion to GA status. It is well written, structured and informative and is an excellent source for encyclopedic information. It covers every aspect of her career and life and has over 100 references which are correctly filled out and professional. For me this is already A-class standard and with some minor improvements I believe is up to FA quality. It is better in my view than some of the actor articles which are already FA. Please could you review as soon as possible thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My only really remarkable reservation is the number of comparatively short paragraphs. Paragraphs should preferably contain at least three sentences, and several of these contain only one. That's the only real reservation I see, though. John Carter 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Thanks! Can you give examples please? Shahid • Talk2me 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph indicates that she is one of the most popular people in the industry. That might require either referencing or some indication that the "Indian cinema industry" or whatever is being referred to. 4th paragraph of the introduction is only one sentence. 3rd and 5th paragraphs of "Personal life" are only one sentence apiece. 2nd paragraph of "Humanitarian work", first paragraph of "Controversies", and first paragraph of "Alleged affair" are also all single sentences. John Carter 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance. I'll take care of it, but tell me please, are paragraphs of one sentence not permitted at all? Shahid • Talk2me 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the intro sentence can be re-written, removed or attached to the previous paragraph, as it deals with distinct description. And the intro of the controversy section is just like it has to be, it's a little introduction. Don't you agree with me? Shahid • Talk2me 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're clearly permitted, as there is no official policy or guideline prohibiting them. But there are guidelines that any such very short paragraphs either be removed or be merged into another paragraph, which stand in the way of articles with such paragraphs getting A or FA status. John Carter 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See it now, please. What do you think now? Shahid • Talk2me 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I took the liberty of making some minor changes to the format of some of the content, which I hope no one minds. If they do, they can revert them. I personally have reservations about including footnotes in the middle of sentences, rather than perhaps breaking up the sentences so that the footnotes do come at the end, but that is really more a personal preference. Other than that, I can see no real problems. John Carter 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!!! Shahid • Talk2me 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great job! It would be nice if the table in the Filmography section was fixed (some of the lines aren't presented in a standard manner), but it isn't a big deal. With that fix it would make FA easily. - Francis Tyers · 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article looks good. I only have one suggestion - The section header "Commitments" looks a little odd to my eye. It is not something that I have seen on any other biography pages, which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist it just means that I haven't seen it. Also not everything in this section quite fits this wording. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better title at this moment for this section so I am only throwing this out there in case someone can come up with one. Otherwise it should stay and this should be given its FA. MarnetteD | Talk 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is promoted.

Bleeding Through

[edit]

An important and quite popular band of today's metalcore scene. It has been passed as a Good Article, and the GA reviewer suggested it should get an A-class peer review by the article's relevant wikiproject. Gocsa 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the "Musical style" section needs more referencing and could do with a bit of expansion. The "Influences" section should probably be merged with "Musical style". It seems odd that to so closely related topics are in different sections, especially since influences are explicitly discussed under "Musical style". They could possibly be under different subheadings, but then a new structure would be required. Otherwise I like the article: it's properly referenced, it has a clear structure, the prose is readable and to the point and essentially all relevant information is presented. It's not a very long article, but the band hasn't been around for a very long time, som that's to be expected. - Duribald 19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? I've merged the two, Influences is now a sub-section of the Musical style. Gocsa 20:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't see much to oppose, although I admit to being less than expert on articles about bands. The sentence in the main body referencing where the video of the crash can be seen probably should be moved into the "external links" section though. John Carter 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd still like to see an expansion of the muscial style section and more references in the same section, for an A grade. - Duribald 18:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per comment above AND 'd like to see more paper version sources. Right now it depends very much on sources like Blabbermouth.net and interviews with the band. - Duribald 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in a few days, I'll add references to the musical style section and try to find more info. But I don't see why is it a problem that the references are from Blabbermouth or interviews. Because, who else knows things better about the band than band members themselves.. Besides, I don't think there are significant paper version sources, because it is not such an old band, and not really mainstream, there are no books obviously about Bleeding Through, so the only sources can be metal magazines, and while I don't have any, I highly doubt that they have any additional info.

I've added references to the musical style section. Gocsa 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth belongs to a record company, i.e. it is a self-published source. That means that there is a bias and probably little or no fact-checking and no editorial oversight. This violates WP:V. An A-class article must have the best kind of sources for most of it's contents. It's a very good article, considering the lack of third party sources, but I have to vote "oppose" on this one. -Duribald 17:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is stupid, none of the Blabbermouth.net references reflect Blabbermouth.net's editors' point of view, or anything like that, and most of their news articles are from other sources, e.g. MTV News, VH1, etc. Every Blabbermouth reference to this article is either an interview with the band, or a tour date announcement, or maybe a coverage of their van accident, or a Billboard chart result, which is also - as you might guess - from another site, or source, i.e. Billboard magazine's site. I could change all these references to "more reliable" ones (more reliable, i.e. according to you), but why bother, and suffer with all the searching, rewriting, when these sources are as reliable as others.. Also, the fact that it has Blabbermouth.net references doesn't seem to make e.g. Slayer not a FA. And I'm only trying to get an A-Class... Gocsa 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point. And if the FA people have no problem this type of source, then I of course bow to that precedent. Besides, there are plenty of other sources in the article. It is a very well written article, especially for a band that hasn't been around for that long and that haven't had a score of books written about it. So, ok, Support. -Duribald 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was pass. MrPrada 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Cooley

[edit]

I have been building this article slowly with great help from other editors, and I think it is stable now. It just passed a GA-Review and I would like to have some ideas on how to improve it to A-Class (eventually FA).--Legionarius 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Article would benefit from having an image of the subject in the article. "Early life" section is too short. I acknowledge little may be known, but a bit clearer indication by what qualifies as "early life" (seemingly up until 1813?) could be included. Also, if there is generally accepted speculation about his early life (did or did not graduate school, etc.), it could reasonably be included. I've seen people say generally at least one reference citation per paragraph is desirable; there is at least one paragraph (the 1st paragraph of "Politician") with none. If more relevant data is available about any times of the subject's life (I don't know) it could clearly be added as well. Last paragraph should not be separated, as all paragraphs should be at least two or more sentences. Maybe merge it into the earlier paragraph? John Carter 15:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, thanks for your time reviewing the article. Unfortunately, there isn't any information (speculation or not) about how his early life went. Primary sources (census) and the fact that he was born in Maryland in 1783 to a father with the same name may indicate he was born to William Cooley Sr. Articles only mention that he may have been in the Tennessee military force, although primary sources (military records/letter) give credit to the fact he actually came from Georgia, but this is 1813 already. Other than that, his early life was ignored by the articles.
Cooley is a minor historical figure, and literature about him is notably scarce. I would dare to say that everything that is known about Cooley is in the article, and even more than was published before, with addition of primary sources, the information about his Georgia military past, the name of his wife, land patents, Tampa council tenure, Homosassa past...
I restored the citation on the politician part, lost during rewriting, and merged the last paragraph. About pictures, there aren't any surviving pictures, not even a sketch, available anywhere. Requests to Tampa and Broward historians came back unfulfilled.--Legionarius 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Understood. Certainly, statements to the effect of "No data is available on the subject before (x), when (Y)" wouldn't be inappropriate, and would indicate that the lack of information is legitimate and recognized by the writer. Also, maybe adding an image of the Broward county flag or something might work in the infobox. I note several articles on popes have the papal image in their infoboxes, like Pope Anterus, use official symbols as images. Maybe something like that would work here as well. John Carter 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a picture of the massacre to the infobox; after all, it is the fact that he is primarily known for. There is a sentence explaining that there are not references about him before 1813. --Legionarius 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is promoted.

Karmichael Hunt

[edit]
previous WikiProject Biography A-class review

I am renominating this for A-class status because

  1. It did not pass the Featured article status
  2. The infoboxes described as being messy, have been moved.

SpecialWindler talk 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am sorry if I was rude to any previous reviewer of this article. SpecialWindler talk 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - most of these reservations probably aren't enough to withhold A-Class, one might be. 21 references to the Brisbane Bronco News could be seen as problematic, considering it is not an independent source. Other than that:
    • Doing It seemed to be a problem in the FAC, so I will start switching them, it may take me a while. SpecialWindler 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing Still, 7 to go, which are proving to be a bit of a problem. SpecialWindler talk 07:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Just a few notes. On the current version (as of 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
          • Number 19, is merley using a quote and none of the other material. Maybe the information is biased, but the quote is shown on the reference, it can't be biased if he said it.
          • Number 50, same as above
          • Number 43, I cannot find another source for this. Now I can remove the information if you like, but preferabbly I wouldn't. SpecialWindler talk 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References to (start italics) Brisbane Bronco News & ... (end italics) should probably be (start italics) Brisbane Bronco News (end italics) & (start italics) ... (end italics).
  • I can't tell if the fee site referenced to indicate he was one of the best players in 2005 explicitly says that or not, but I'll assume it does.
  • The quote from Wayne Bennett would make a lot more sense if the relevant part were included in quotation marks, so that there would be less question about the odd phrasing.
  • The second-to-last sentence of "Allegiance" might be reworded to say "...Hunt intended to change his allegiance and play for the New Zealand team, but Hunt put the speculation to rest when he confirmed he would play for Australia" or something similar, to remove the repetition of the word "allegiance".
  • The use of the word "excellent" in the start of the second paragraph could be removed by rewording the sentence "Hunt's debut in 2004 was good enough to have him named the Daily M rookie of the year", although I would personally prefer a reference directly after the sentence.
  • All the above, though, with the possible exception of the 21 references to an almost certainly biased source, are probably at best minor. I don't know enough to say whether they would be sufficient in and of themselves, though. John Carter 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Done, (you may want to check my comment under the 21 reference thing. I hope you change to support. SpecialWindler talk 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is promoted.

Bhagat Singh

[edit]

Recently assessed as A-class. Errabee 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is: has reached FA-status, A-class not necessary anymore.

Ælle of Sussex

[edit]

Already promoted to GA outside Wikiproject Biography. -- Most complete review of a person mentioned barely half a dozen times in the historical records.

A-class review requested at WikiProject Biography to get final opinions on Aelle's legendary or historical status, while general FA review is ongoing. -- Yamara 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by determining status. I'm guessing you're trying to decide how the subject should be categorized and/or described. Given the at least decent probability of his having been a historical figure, I would say he qualifies as a historical figure. Lots of other people from early history, like some of the old Pharoahs are of kind of dubious likelihood as well. I acknwoledge that trying to have us determine whether he was or wan't historical might be original research, but I have no problem personally based on the extant sources in seeing him described as a historical figure. Not sure if that's what your asking, though. John Carter 17:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't sure if there were guidelines for how Wikiproject Biography decides if a figure of questionable historicity deserves acknowledgment as a real human, and therefore would be within the scope of the Project. (As opposed to Lancelot du Lac, or Pikachu.) Also, while have not worked on it myself, I believe the work on Ælle of Sussex is excellent. I believe an A rating at least is warranted, which I feel will help the editor(s) working on it with their ongoing nomination for FA.
So my questions are...
1) Is Ælle of Sussex historic enough to be part of Wikiproject Biography? And if so...
2) Is it an A-class Biography, given the thorough treatment of the scant evidence? -- Yamara 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose. Ælle of Sussex ought to be in scope, I think, but an A-class review combined with a FA-review is counterproductive imho. As it seems it will pass FA, it won't be of much use to grant A-class status now. If it fails FA, please feel free to nominate again. I was inclined to snowball this, but decided against to give the nominator and other reviewers a chance to comment on my feelings. Errabee 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concede to table/procedural oppose - The FA was more in doubt a couple days ago. I will pass along the comments on Aelle of Sussex being within the scope of Wikiproject Biography... and submit my support for the FA. -- Yamara 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review request withdrawn - Ælle of Sussex has passed its FA review, making an A-rating moot. Thanks for everyone's attention and comments. -- Yamara 12:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is A-class approved

Anna Wintour

[edit]

Article about powerful Vogue editor was rated A-class by someone with this project back in March, which led me to accelerate timetable on PR. Then another editor nominated it for GA, and it was recently approved (see comments here and here). I have done considerable research on this; I believe it merits the original rating (which I have kept for the other two projects). Daniel Case 12:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Generally I feel this article has more than enough info, free images, references, infobox, PERSONDATA etc. I worry about some of the text, which appears to be odd in some places. Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but the following could imho be approved:
Sorry it's taken me a while to at least acknowledge your comments. I may not yet be able to fix everything, but I'll respond here.
  • how to better make the newspaper appealing to the youth of mid-1960s London
Remaining text from a first draft. Can definitely be improved.
 Done
  • Wintour had four siblings, three of whom survive: Why this last add-on? That should be obvious from the rest. The choice for survive also seems odd to me, as if it were such an ordeal being a sibling of Anna Wintour that one is expected to die early?
So some people would say :-). That's text that survives from prior to my involvement with the article. It will be changed.
 Done
  • Remove any links to Wiktionary. If you feel the word is too difficult, try a synonym. Once you start linking to Wiktionary, you could link almost any word.
Someone else put those in. This seems to be a trend with some people ... I don't know who started it, but I'd appreciate some MoS clarity on it.
  • The assertion that she wears sunglasses indoors to hide she really is Satan could use a reference.
It's the one that comes at the end of the graf, but I could certainly move it up a bit.
 Done
  • Several stub sections in Personal Life.
Will combine.
 Done I also removed the section heds.
  • The start of The Devil Wears Prada worries me a bit. I think it should definitely start with a comparison between Miranda Priestly and Anna Wintour, and expand on that. The point of view of the novel is totally irrelevant here, and belongs in the article about the book and film.
Well, there are separate articles for both of them ... I think you mean the novel article. I put that bit about the POV of the novel so the reader understands how close it was to Lauren Weisberger's personal situation for many readers to take it as "what Anna Wintour is really like". Perhaps that could be clearer.
 Done
I hope this helps. Errabee 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It did. Daniel Case 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with some serious reservations regarding the occasionally odd language and possibly excessive linkages. Specific comments include one in "Early life", where we find the phrase "As London began to swing..." Somehow, this conjures up in my mind images of London at the end of a pendulum. More direct language might be preferable. Beyond that the number of almost pointless links is apparent. Do we really need to have links for, by order of appearance, "sunglasses", "bestselling", "film", "bicycling", "skirts", "Dedicated follower of fashion" (a link to a Kinks single, of all things?), "personal assistant" (linked at least three times), "elitism", "teenage suicide", "jeans", "T-shirt", "townhouse", "pregnant", "steak", "smoked salmon," "scrambled eggs", "skirts" (again), "tyrant" (probably inappropriate usage), "affair", "insurance", "suits", "palate", and others? Most of these things seem at least to me to be things which are generally known by anyone who might read this English-language article as things you learn during your first three or four years on the planet. The link to "palate" (the last one I found) is at least one which strikes me as being more than a bit unusual. I think the article could definitely benefit from having a couple of these, dare I say obvious links removed or maybe clarified, like in the case of the Kinks single. John Carter 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points! Errabee 16:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is promoted to A-class

Gwen Stefani

[edit]

Currently listed as a GA. Recently had a peer review. If the article is listed as A-class, I'm hoping to take it to take it to FAC once Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) is done with its FAC. ShadowHalo 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - not entirely sure what "FA" status entails, but concerns from GA and peer review seem to have been met. A few more details where available might be good, but I can't be sure they really exist. John Carter 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this article is well written and has what is requires.Nothing more,nothing less.Whatever few changes were requested to be done in the article have been catered to and the article is fit for even FAC.User: luxurious.gaurav
  • Support. I think the discography section should be prose rather than a list, and definitely doesn't need to mention all recordings. Other than that, I feel comfortable enough to promote to A-class. Errabee 13:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is A-class approved. I'll promote this article to A-class, assuming this won't stop the editors from tracking down the missing citations.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

[edit]

Quite a number of changes have been made to this article since it received a B-class rating. I would like to know what further changes might be made for the article to be upgraded to an A-class rating. I realize there are still some citations that need to be tracked down and am hoping to find these so that the quotes and specific information involved doesn't need to be removed from the article. I also realize that the material contained in the section discussing Stanton's position on the 14th and 15th amendments and the schism in the women's rights movement is questioned by some editors. All the information is, however, cited and documented in a number of scholarly sources, and to leave it out would be to omit a major aspect of Stanton's life, work, and effect. I would like to know how others feel about this section in particular. Thanks so much for your time and input! Jancarhart 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article has a good structure, it is well written, it covers most of the information that you would expect (as far as I can tell - I know nothing about the subject as such), it meets all formal requirements I can think of, it has persondata, it has an infobox with all the basic info. What I do miss is a good list of her most important writings in chronological order. I assume that most of her work for female suffrage was done in writing; the "Stanton's writings and publications" could probably be expanded somewhat and a little more could be said about her skills as a speaker. Also there are som "citations needed" tags that need to be filled with...citations! - Duribald 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • list of writings cleaned up and organized with publication dates added for ECS books; added discussion of her speaking to article. All citations filled in -- save a couple that are still in process.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the review is approved for A-class.

Auguste Rodin

[edit]

Currently a Good Article I stumbled upon, and I was very much impressed. Errabee 23:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the review is A-grade approved

Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery

[edit]

As it looks we need a new example for an A-class article, I have been looking for a suitable candidate. Errabee 10:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not need an info-box! They are ugly, unnecessary and contain only information which should be in the lead. Giano 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An A-class article that needs no boxes: Giano inter al. work pretty hard on their articles to set their formatting and presentation just-so, and a box would disrupt the page considerably. It is A-class, but let's leave the formatting like boxes and tags out of the consideration, please. Geogre 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I agree with Giano en Geogre, because infoboxes are considered to be standard practice. Some attempt at uniformity is desperately needed on an encyclopedia where everybody can apply their own style. Nevertheless, the article is so good, I think it deserves A-class status even without an infobox, as A-class articles are allowed to have some omissions from the agreed upon style. Therefore Support as nominator. Errabee 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they are not "considered to be standard practice" at all, but left as a matter of preference to those editors who generally write and maintain a page - this does not signify ownership just an understanding that those who know the subject best are in a better position to form an opinion on the necessity of a box. In the above instance, not only would a box be out of keeping, all the information that would be in the box is in the first few lines of the lead - as it should be! Giano 08:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "persondata" (and more) is already explained at the begining of the lead. Giano 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • persondata (Click the link!) is a form of metadata that is added before the categories at the end of the article. It should be added to all biographies. It does not show in the article, but is used for other applications. - Duribald 13:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - would also make a good "template" article, as both of its major "faults" are fairly obvious and easily described, the lack of infobox and persondata. I don't think the article stands much of a chance of FA status without them, though. John Carter 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true - the fact it can never be an FA is a major delight to me - as it was deliberatly written in such a way as it can never ne an FA - No, not because it does not have an info box. Neither am I bothered if it become "A Class", I long ago gave up on seeking Wikipedia's easily obtained but fickle prizes. It was written with the intention of being (so far) the world's only detailed biography of the subject. No biographer has yet "done" her - so at the moment it is unique. Neither of its "faults" matter a jot as neither are obligatory as dictated by the manual of style. Giano 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To somebody used to the mysteries of Persondata, as I assume the people are who're deploring its absence in this article, wouldn't it be simpler to just add it yourself? I assume there's a real point to it, though I'm a little hazy on what ("is used for other applications"; ok...), and not merely some formal requirement for some formal status? Nobody will object, in any case, to something that doesn't show up on the page, surely. But please no infobox. No, they're not standard practice in "developed bios". There are highly developed FA bios doing extremely well without the box. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 25 April 2007(UTC).
  • In truth I don't really want it to be "A Class" as it will just be one more thing for peole to knit-pick about when the criteria changes in three weeks time. No I don't own it, nor can I stop it, but I am sick of trying to maintain numerous pages to meet ever changing whims of the moment. It will still be the same page of the same use to the researcher if it is A, B or Z - FA or not. Giano 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and enthusiastic support. Wow! What a great article! Giano, I warn you: nominate it for FA or I will do it! Seriously now, this is one of the most well-written articles I've ever read in Wikipedia. I don't know if some inconsistencies with MoS and some other minor issues (definitely not the lack of an infobox - I like them, but they are not a pre-condition for FA status) may prevent it from reaching FA status, but what matters is that this article is the definition of a "Great Article", which is much more important IMO from typical promotions. And articles like this one remind us from time to time that our true goals in Wikipedia is not to write "GAs" and "FAs" but "GrA"s.--Yannismarou 11:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is promote to A-class.

Leonard Orban

[edit]

I believe this article can be assessed as an A-Class by the biography project, because it meets all the A-Class criteria (discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#criteria_for_A-class)

  • at least 1 picture; no copyright issues; fair use should is explained for use on that specific page
  • an infobox
  • a lead section of at least two paragraphs
  • the article is structured in such a way that at least a ToC appears, and no section is a stub
  • all statements is referenced using in-line references
  • it is well written (but the rules are not as strict as for FA)
  • it contains WP:PERSONDATA

I have to mention that I am the main contributor in this article. --Michkalas 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Though the article is nice (and that is why I don't oppose), I still have some concerns. Especially
  • "Compared to former enlargements of the European Union, the Accession Treaty for Bulgaria and Romania, for the first time, explicitly foresees the consultation of the European Parliament and constitutes the formal legal basis for the new Commissioners’ appointment procedure." Mmmmm... OK, but the actual legal basis for the appointment of the Commissioners (all of them-not just the new members') and the consultation of the European Parliament is not the Accession Treaty, but the Treaty of the European Community, as it has been amended by the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. This should be clarified.
  • In "Views on multilingualism" you quote the Commissioner without citing your sources. All these quotes need citing.
Apart from that, I think the article has no other significant flaws for A-Class status.--Yannismarou 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
Many thanks for your -immediate- review!
  • I have clarified the point on the Accession Treaty for Bulgaria and Romania and I have added a special ref to the European Parliament website.
  • I have specified from which reference every quote and fact is taken. --Michkalas 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall Support. I do have some concerns though:
  • The picture on his oath is better placed in the Appointment procedure section. In its current place, Views on multilingualism, it has no function.
  • I find the fair use rationales rather general. I would like some more detail on what point is clarified by adding a particular picture.
  • The first paragraph of Portfolio as European Commissioner could be enhanced somewhat. If the post was previously held by a Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism, it is fairly obvious that if multilingualism was split off, Orban would be the first to hold this specific portfolio. It is not clear to me if multilingualism was first identified by Barroso, or that it existed before his commission. Some detail to that end would be appreciated. Errabee 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
Thank you for your review and your vote.
  • The picture on his oath has been moved to the appointment procedure section.
  • I have tried to make the fair use rationale mere concrete in most pictures.
  • I have added a few details on the history of the portfolio of multilingualism in the European Commission. --Michkalas 12:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me all points have been addressed. Errabee 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Three minor points:
  • (1) The words "remit" and "portfolio" are used frequently without any sort of linkage to indicate what their specific meaning as used here is. This might be significant as portfolio has multiple meanings, and isn't necessarily used in the most frequently used sense here.
  • (2) I find it somewhat amusing that the name of one of his former employers seems to be Tractor Manufacturing Company Miercurea Ciuc, at least in translation. If that's accurate, well and good. If not, maybe drop the capitals on the first three words, or whatever words aren't in the company's official name?
  • (3) At least in my experience, salaries tend to be expressed in terms of annual, not monthly, pay, as is done here, at the end of the "Portfolio as European Commissioner" section.
  • Those are the only real reservations I have, and none are significant enough to withhold A-class status, in my opinion anyway. Good work. John Carter 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
First of all, I would like to thank you too for your review and for your vote.
  • (1) I have wikilinked portfolio to the specific meaning it has here. Interestingly enough, the political meaning was not included in the article and I had to copy something from the Wiktionary. There is no article on "remit" -which seems reasonable to me as this would be an entry more for a dictionary than for an encyclopedia.
  • (2) The translation is accurate. It is from his official CV in English.
  • (3) Well, I have avoided calculating and I have included the information as I have found it. I do not know how these things work in the EU institutions, but, in Greece at least, the annual pay includes not only 12 salaries, but also extra money for Christmas, Easter and summer holidays (so, in total, the annual pay is 14 salaries). "Annual pay" may imply also not just salaries, but also extras for traveling and so on. Anyway, because I haven't found anything about these things, I have prefer to write only about what I am sure is precise and verifiable. --Michkalas 15:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the rapid response. The answers above address all the questions I had. The article has my basically unqualified support now. John Carter 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was pass. MrPrada 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

[edit]

Listed as A by other projects. -- Avi 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was pass. MrPrada 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

[edit]

I recently reviewed this article for GA-class. Outside of stability options and a few POV-concerns about representing all views (both positive and negative) of Congresman Paul, I think this is an example of some of Wikipedia's best work. MrPrada 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was pass. MrPrada 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Simone

[edit]

Lot's of work has been done on this article since the last projectreview. The article recently passed GA. I think that the article in its current state has potential to be an A-class Biography-article. examples of edits since latest review (december 2006):

  • expansion of the introduction, which now sufficiently reflects the article's subject in compact size.
  • notes are wikified, a seperate reference section makes it easy to view the literature used.
  • and lots more. Marcel flaubert 08:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are a few problems, but only one major major one which keeps it from getting my approval: More reference citations would definitely be in order. Many statements, particular statements regarding opinions, are currently unreferenced, and should be referenced. All paragraphs should have at least one, generally two or more, reference citations. "Quotes" should be referenced as well. Other than that, a few minor qualms:
  • "seems all the more appropriate" in 1st paragraph doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article. "interesting" would work just as well.
  • African-American should only be linked once for the article. Links in general should only be used once per page linked to per article, at the first usage of the word.
  • Sentence on "Strange Fruit" could be structured better, like maybe "She covered Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit",, a song about the lynching of black men in the South, on Pastel Blues. John Carter 18:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the edits performed as a reaction to comments above sufficient? Marcel flaubert 12:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's probably a problem with the image in the infobox, as its status as free content isn't clearly established. By wikipedia rules at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy #9, only free content, including images, can be used in any template, including an infobox. If there are any other images out there that are even remotely acceptable, one of them should be placed there instead. Sorry for having not caught that earlier. :( John Carter 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yikes, i guess your right, the image in the template was fair use. I think I solved the problem now, though I particularly dislike the image now used in the template. Thanks for your advice so far, even though it means I had to remove that lovely album cover, sob sob :( Marcel flaubert 10:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Performing live" is still unreferenced. Some reference for the end of the second paragraph of "Youth (1933-1954) would be advisable. The last sentence in particular, at least to me, doesn't seem really encyclopedic, although that's a comparatively minor matter. Also could use a reference in the last sentence of "Later life" regarding her daughter. "Best-known work" might not be the best title for that section. Section also definitely needs more reference citations. The "see also" last paragraph isn't particularly necessary for a reference to the same article. "Legacy" first paragraph needs at least one citation. Most of these are comparatively minor, except for the reference citations. I share your regrets about not being able to use the album cover, though. John Carter 14:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • edits done: added references to "Legacy", "Performing Live", to the end of "Youth" (deleted un-wiki-ish sentence), added reference daugther, and finally added references to the Best-Known section, changed its title to Simone Standards (it cant be called greatest hits for a number of reasons which i will not go into right now, if you know a better title, feel free to edit. are these edits adequate? Marcel flaubert 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Aren't some periods of her life missing? '59-'64, for example? The "Performing Live", "Being difficult" and "Honors" sections seem a little out of place in the biography. The "Quotations" sections is a bit ridiculous - there's only one quote and furthermore this isn't Wikiquote. Put the quotation in a suitable place somewhere in the rest of the article. - Duribald 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, they have been adressed. As for the period "59-64", that was Nina's Colpix Records period there's not that much to say about that period without going very much into detail, she just made a lot of records, and laid down the roots of what was to come.Marcel flaubert 12:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Duribald 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with changes. John Carter 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. MrPrada 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was: Promoted. - Duribald 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Falk

[edit]

I think this article is now comprehensive enough to warrant an A-class review. Only possible problems I see are:

  • Three of the images claim "fair use." Two of these (the Nike logo and the Space Jam picture) are not crucial to the article, and can be removed without too much fuss if their rationales are deemed too weak. The third, however, is the photo of Falk himself in the page's infobox. This is the only photo of the subject of the article on the page, and its removal will significantly hurt its chances of an A-Class rating.
  • Information on Falk's personal life is a little slim. This lack of info isn't by choice... the information simply isn't out there (trust me, I've looked). Exact birth date is not present, although birth year has been attained.

Otherwise the article is well-written, comprehensive, and heavily referenced. In my opinion, it is A-Class material. Joseph Petek 04:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article has been expanded significantly since the GA rating, and it now has, essentially, all components required of an A class article. And I don't think you did a bad job on the personal life section. I support the A class rating and leave it to others to udge the fair use rationale. - Duribald 05:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good stuff. Chensiyuan 08:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several sentences which have 5-6 refs en bloc. I find this a bit overkilly, but this is just my opinion: IMHO just pick out the 2-3 best ones, 6 loosk awkward. While this is not per se something bad, I also would prefer them realigned like this:
  • BEFORE: so Falk's client list, with Michael Jordan its centerpiece, made him one of the primary movers and shakers in the NBA, able to leverage teams into agreeing to his terms on contracts and trades.[50][51][52][2][13][20][22][28]
  • AFTER: so Falk's client list, with Michael Jordan its centerpiece, made him one of the primary movers and shakers in the NBA, able to leverage teams into agreeing to his terms on contracts and trades.[2][13][20][22][28][50][51][52]

But all in all, good stuff. —Onomatopoeia 08:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you're talking about, and I partially agree with you on both issues. It does look a little strange to have 8 references lined up in a row. I just felt that the more more far-reaching the claim, the more references would be needed (in particular, the claim about him being as powerful as David Stern defineteley needed a lot of back-up). There are also sentences with, say, four facts that come from four different articles, and in that case I oftentimes elected to put all four references at the end of the sentence, as placing them all separately within the sentence would probably look even worse.
As to the order of references above, there is a rhyme and reason to it: I decided to put new references (first time they had appeared in the article) first, and then put the ones that had already appeared earlier second. Hence, in the above example, 50-51-52 were first used for that sentence, while the others had been used previously.
Those are my reasons. Doesn't mean I'm right, and that one you point out where I have 8 references in one place probably could stand to be toned down. Joseph Petek 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A-class articles aren't necessarily perfect, and a little overkill on references isn't really the worst problem an article could have. But maybe instead of the multiple references they could all be combined into a single citation after each sentence? Like, for instance, "See (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E)". John Carter 15:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting suggestion, and it's true that it would make the article look cleaner. However, I fear it would make the references section itself very unwieldy: the article currently has 29 references which are used 4 or more times, with a few used as many as 20 times. If refs were split up as you suggest, there would be countless repetition of refs in the ref list.
Currently there are 8 instances where 4 or more refences are used in one place. I'm going to look at those 8 places today and see if I can't eliminate some stuff. Joseph Petek 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have now pared down the references in the article to where there are no more than four together in a block. I intentionally kept four references in six different places to back up the article's most controversial/far-reaching statements, with two of the six actually being simple repeat-sentences that use the same refs. A summary of these statements is below.
  • (Falk) is generally considered to be the most influential player agent the NBA has seen. (Section: Lead section)
  • (Falk) was often considered the second-most powerful person in the NBA behind Commissioner David Stern. (Section: Lead section)
    • (Falk) was often considered the second-most powerful man in basketball behind NBA Commissioner David Stern. (Section: Role in facilitating NBA trades)
  • Falk was often described as the "invisible hand" that guided union negotiations. (Section: 1998 lockout)
    • ...and many saw Falk as the controlling influence in the union's negotiations. (Section: 1998 lockout)
  • Falk's client list, with Michael Jordan its centerpiece, made him one of the primary movers and shakers in the NBA, able to leverage teams into agreeing to his terms on contracts and trades. (Section: Role in facilitating NBA trades)
My feeling is that these sentences needed as much substantiation as they could get. Hopefully the references have now been curbed enough so that it doesn't look quite so unwieldy as it did. Joseph Petek 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is promoted.

James Milner

[edit]

Hoping to get this FA status at some piont. Thought I'd see what eles is needed to do that by getting it to A class. Buc 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I question the prominence of the separated quotes. I'm not sure it's particularly common to do so, and it does to a degree, at least in my eyes, maybe detract from the neutrality of the article. John Carter 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The quotes are an ornament, and not really a problem. Minor style/editing issues are not an obstacle to A class promotion. Most sources seem to be good. The article is readable, it makes good use of pictures, the infobox is filled out, an anonymous hero added persondata, its been previously peer reviewed and it's made GA. I say it qualifies. -Duribald 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was wondering why there are no ref's in the lead at all? For instance it says As a child Milner was recognised as a talent in football, cricket and a long distance runner representing his school in each. I think that needs ref'ing personally. My only comment part from that think its a very good article Everlast1910 20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not unusual for the intro to lack refs, since the info in it is just a summary of the contents of the article. -Duribald 08:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Duribald above. John Carter 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion is promoted.

Cillian Murphy

[edit]

This comprehensive, carefully sourced article was recently improved upon via the GAC (passed) and peer review processes. As sole major contributor, I am seeking to get additional feedback, because I'd like to move the article towards FAC. I believe the article is very strong, but this is the first one I've ever worked on to this degree, so I am hoping to continue to learn from experienced editors about top quality at Wikipedia. Thanks, Melty girl 06:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the number and diversity of references impresses me, as well as the formatting of the article. My preference would be to turn red links to black. You may wish to include a link to Portal:Ireland. You have been diligent to maintain alphabetic and chronological ordering. Featured Article status will come with maintaining adherence to the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the prose being credited as "brilliant". Just as you've mastered how to combine multiple footnotes into the one reference I will now approach to do the same with Mumia Abu-Jamal.AboveTheClub 09:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: removed red links. Where would you put the Portal:Ireland link? Thanks for the positive feedback. I will have to check out Mumia Abu-Jamal when I'm not at work. Must have a been a tricky article to navigate. --Melty girl 16:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "with changes", which changes are you referring to? The removal of red links ( Done) and the addition of Portal:Ireland? I don't think that the latter change is appropriate. I have carefully read many FA actor articles and have not noticed similar links. For example, the FA article Eric Bana does not contain a link to Portal:Australia, and Jackie Chan doesn't have Portal:Hong Kong. And should every biography page for a person born in the United States have a link to Portal:United States, or does including a link in the phrase "born in the United States" suffice? (Obviously, I would suggest the latter.) Murphy no longer lives in Ireland, and he works internationally, portraying characters of many nationalities. WikiProject Ireland rates Cillian Murphy of low importance. And the Portal:Ireland page doesn't offer links that are of particular "See also" relevance to Cillian Murphy that aren't already offered in the article itself. For these reasons, I don't see a need to add a link to Portal:Ireland. --Melty girl 16:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The removel of red links, which seriously detract from any article. Linkage to any portal is always optional. Personally, I prefer those links on the banners on the talk pages, but links to portals are a matter of personal preference, not quality. John Carter 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/A-class_review/2007/Promoted&oldid=915877736"