Talk:Irving Crane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles Irving Crane has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Did You Know An entry from Irving Crane appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 November 2006.
Wikipedia

[edit] Passed as GA

Hi, I just passed this article as GA. Here the summary (WP:WIAGA):

  1. Well written - PASS. I am definitely more interested in Crane now.
  2. Verifiable - PASS. Very impressed how this article is perforated with references.
  3. Broad - PASS. I am not a pool fan at all, but it shows what impact he had on and off the table.
  4. NPOV - PASS.
  5. Stable - PASS. See history.
  6. Images - PASS. Offending image now fixed, I saw just now.
  7. Misc - to anyone who says the article is too short: less is sometimes more (See spoo, a FA)

Amendments: seperate Biography into "Professional career" and "Personal life". Also special (albeit alread wiki-linked) pool-specific terms ("run", "safety" etc.) should be explained briefly, as they are not immediately understandable by non-experts. But this article is definitely a GA. Keep up the good work! —Onomatopoeia 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the careful review and pass Onomatopoeia. Regarding defining terms, I'll think about how to do so without disturbing the flow. With regard the structural suggestion, I wrote this from a chronological standpoint, trying to seamlessly weave together his personal life and his professional career as they unfolded. Certainly all of our lives are messy and it's not so easy to keep them separate. While I don't dispute that separating them out into sections would also be a logical structure, to do so would involve a complete rewrite. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)