Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality/1

It has passed, and received FA status. Badbilltucker 18:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

needs inline citations --plange 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Television appearances too long and full of cruft (consider seperate article)
• Trivia the same
• The same goes for the lower part of Biography
• All in all the structure is a bit confused, with those short seperate entries for UHF and Directing career, and Television appearances after the Discography and other lists Eixo 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Decoding the Exodus?

Is the Hebrew translation of Ahmose really (Brother of Moses)?

What is the hebrew translation of Kamose , Ahmose's older brother and was his name changed?

Where might I be able to see a picture of the golden artifact in the greek museum depicting the ark of the covenant?

I have found pictures showing the parting of the sea there,National Archaeological Museum of Athens Greece.(online)

Will most of the text of this dynasty need changed to reflect the findings found in the

 ( Decoding of the Exodus )?

Um, no it won't, since that's not a particularly good source... for anything... Thanatosimii 17:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

By whom and why was this article rated B-class exactely? Sloan21 11:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Plange, Thanks for your helpful comment. I've just completed some more fixing. Do the quotes look OK now? Other suggestions for improvements? --HailFire 14:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Has "qualities" (pictures, links, and many subheadings), and an infobox. However, the article should be expanded. Green caterpillar 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment by the Football WikiProject

Hi! What I meant with my comment was that it needs much work to go higher than GA-class, I expressed myself a little bit unclear. I saw it was up on GA nomination, but I am not very good at judging which articles are GA-class and which are not, so we'll have to see if it is good enough already. However, to be rated even higher, that is, A- or FA-class, it needs a lot of work, more text, incorporation of the trivia and court cases in the main text body, and just general fixes. See Denis Law for an example of a FA-class player article. Hope this helps a little. – Elisson • Talk 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• The featured article candidacy, opened 3 May 2006, closed 13 May 2006 (edit comment)

and lead should conform to WP:LEAD --plange 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

needs inline citations --plange 20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Biography criteria are unclear. If I read rightly, Top, but not "Core" for Biographies in general. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• currently in FAR --plange 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

--Meno25 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Needs to be copyedited for spelling. (edit comment)

Has recently won Wikipedia:Good Articles recognion. Badbilltucker 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Okay. Will do that. Subject being out of the public eye for almost 50 years, research material is scant, at best; however, will do more research.

trezjr 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Inline citations would be nice to help the reader go straight to books to get a more global view. There is no need for more IC for NPOV,V or OR as the text talks about down-to-earth facts. Lincher 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Excellent article, an "A", for me! Ramirez 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Concert performances looks stubby. You could expand on that or include it in the rest of the article.
• Miscellanea could be added to other sections of the article.
• Partial discography is too long. They don't seem to like that in FAC.

These are just some comments. If you desire a review, please use the peer review process. Nat91 03:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article looks profeesional at the introduction but is not in a physical or mental attractive way for the audience to carry on reading.
• The discography looks shabby and needs sharpening up.
• It was a close call between Start and B, but I decided to be harsh on your request.

These are just some comments. If you desire a review, please use the peer review process. Thamizhan 10:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

It seems reasonable to put in A (slightly above GA and below FA).--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Let the revision and discussion continue, but let there be no doubt... good job, Wikipedians. Good article on Mr. Kennedy. Kghusker 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

How did this article get rated as A class without any rationale or discussion here. The article lacks citations and is somewhat verbose. I have reverted it to B class. 194.46.237.210 08:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Most of the article is biography with links to more detailed biographical sections which name their sources. For example, to a large extent my contributions have drawn on Desmond and Moore's Darwin which is cited as a reference both on this page and on the relevant main articles. Footnotes for inline citations were less well developed at the time these pages were put together, and since the books listed have been used as a major source, the present citation of the books at the end of each main article with additional inline links for particular points from other sources seems appropriate. While it would theoretically be possible to go over the points and try to work out which sentence refers to which book, the result would be a mass of links to these volumes. However if there are specific points where inline citations are particularly important, please say so. ...dave souza, talk 15:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, inline citations are needed regardless if the cite is given in a See also link... --plange 17:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

I think I've done the latter. See what you think. I've also done quite a bit of copyediting but there is loads more to do, especially towards the end of the article. I'm going to wait until the editing activity has died down a bit and then do a copyedit. --Jim (Talk) 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• • Has been allowed to expand and lose its focus. Needs reorganisation and inline citations. Recently lost FA status. --kingboyk 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

As of this edit, I would categorize Anne Hathaway (actress) as a B-class article. Some of its strengths include moderate referencing, images containing fair use rationale, and good writing. On the other hand, some weaknesses include the lead section, which does not summarize the article as a whole and the lack of images and information. In my opinion it is approaching Good Article status, but still requires some work. Never Mystic (tc) 02:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Sorry, I missed this post; the phrase "none of the judges was" is correct. Please see this edit. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

This article was given GA status through GA review. I have since revised the biography rating. (edit comment)