Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The peer review department of the Biography WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality. The process is intended to make marginal and good quality articles to excellent, encyclopedic ones. However, use of a peer review for articles assessed below the Biography WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewers' time.

Editors with article requests involving significant policy and/or POV concerns or edit wars should use Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and/or Noticeboards (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for living persons and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for others.) before a peer review.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Biography WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete. Please consider reviewing someone else's article too, if you request yours :-)

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 Requesting a review 1.2 Responding to a request 1.3 Archiving 2 Requests 2.1 Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan 2.2 Princess Elisabeth of Hesse 2.3 Robert Garran 2.4 Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia 2.4.1 Yannismarou 2.4.2 Bookworm857158367 2.5 Hayley Westenra 2.5.1 Yannismarou 2.5.1.1 Improvements baised upon comments 2.6 Allegra Byron 2.6.1 Yannismarou 2.7 Charles Edward Magoon 2.7.1 Yannismarou 2.8 Nina Simone 2.8.1 Yannismarou 2.8.2 Thanks + question 2.9 Elizabeth Clare Prophet 2.9.1 Yannismarou 2.10 Meher Baba 2.10.1 Content problems Townsend 2.10.2 Yannismarou 2.10.3 Thank you 2.11 Floyd M. Riddick 2.11.1 Yannismarou 2.12 William Shakespeare 2.12.1 Balloonman 2.12.2 Nat91 2.12.3 Yannismarou 2.12.4 Notes by Adam Cuerden talk 2.13 Sathya Sai Baba 2.13.1 Yannismarou 2.14 John McCain 2.14.1 Yannismarou 2.14.2 Schi 2.15 Hippocrates 2.15.1 Gzkn 2.15.2 Yannismarou 2.16 Jenna Jameson 2.16.1 Specific question: lead image? 2.16.2 Trebor 2.16.3 Yannismarou 2.16.4 MLilburne 2.16.5 Belated commentary from badlydrawnjeff 2.17 Romaine Brooks 2.17.1 Yannismarou 2.18 Oliver Cromwell 2.18.1 Yannismarou 2.19 Walter Abraham (town planner) 2.19.1 Yannismarou 2.20 Katherine Cross 2.20.1 MLilburne 2.21 El Greco 2.21.1 Plange 2.21.2 Celithemis 2.22 Aurelian 2.22.1 Yannismarou 3 Archives

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
4. Below it, write what you hope to gain from a peer review (what are your goals? FA? GA? etc) and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.
6. Add a link to your article to the beginning of the Peer Review announcement list.

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WPBiography}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.
3. Remove article from Peer review announcement list

[edit] Requests

[edit] Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan

This article has been significantly rewritten, and I would like it to be assessed and rated. I would also like to receive constructive comments on how it could be improved. Thanks - Cimm^[talk] 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Elisabeth of Hesse

I would like to submit this B class article for a peer review in hopes of bringing it up to good article status. Please suggest any needed changes.--Bookworm857158367 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Garran

Most of the prose here was written by myself, so I'm looking for some fresh eyes and some comments about the quality of the writing, as well as comments about the overall standard of the article, since I'm ultimately looking towards FAC for this one. There's also a regular peer review open at Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Garran, I hope it's not a problem submitting this in two places, I'm just hoping for plenty of comments. --bainer (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia

I'd like to bring the quality of this article up to featured article status. The subject of the article is fairly significant. I attempted to add references and sources, but considerable work still needs to be done. Please offer any suggestions to improve the article. Also look at the images included with the article to see if they are appropriate and included within the public domain. --Bookworm857158367 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Well-researched article and worked with devotion by its editor. My main problem is that sometimes the wording and the structuring become uncyclopedic. This is my review:

• "Robert K. Massie, The Romanovs: The Final Chapter, 1995 ISBN 0-6794-3572-7". Page is missing here.
• "Gilliard, Pierre (1970). "Thirteen Years at the Russian Court", Ayer Company Publishers Incorporated, ISBN 0-4050-3029-0" Page is also missing here.
• "Dehn, Lili, 1922. "The Real Tsaritsa", ISBN 5-3000-2285-3". And here!
• "Kurth, Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson, 1983." And here!!
• Cite properly the external link in note 15. Check also Template:Cite web.
• "But the unwelcome girl made herself noticed from the start with the vividness of her personality." Such assessments need citing. In any case, be careful with such wordings, so that you are not accused of POV.
• "Those who knew her remembered Anastasia as a vivacious and energetic young girl. " Those who knew her? Who knew her?! I think sometimes the writing gets uncyclopedic.
• "She was reportedly good at wicked impersonations of those around her, and possessed a sharp wit and appreciation for sarcastic jokes." Veribiable source is needed here.
• "(She) was very roguish ... her mother's friend Anna Vyrubova. [7]" This paragraph has so many quotes that I think the prose gets a bit problematic.
• Do not link sigle years like 1911; only full dates like May 2, 1911. Per WP:MoS.
• Get rid of "Older namesakes". If you want create a disambiguation page, but the place of this section is not in the article.
• Get also rid of "Trivia". Try to incorparate its content somewhere else in the prose. As it is now, it is stubby and trivia! Trivia sections are no more recommended.
• The first three paragraphs of "From Mystery to Legend" are uncited. Try to have at least one inline citation in each paragraph.
• "Historians have always assumed that Anastasia was murdered along with her father and the rest of her family during the early morning hours". If you do not cite, words like "historians" are weasel. What are your sources?
• "Historians have ... superiors after the execution". This paragraph looks to me like a repetition. You have already told us about her execution in the previous section. Do you have anything new to add? The next paragraph is again about her execution. Thinking again, I wonder if you would like to create a seperate section about her execution just before "From Mystery to Legend". In this way, I think you would avoid a sense of repetition and going back to something you have already described (In the current article, you tell the story of her execution, after you close her biography with her death).
• Do not repeat the same wikilinks. Anna Anderson is linked more than once for no obvious reason.
• "DNA testing confirmed these were the remains of the Imperial Family and their servants, although the fate of the two missing children remains a mystery." Avoid stubby paragraphs like this one.
• "low-key fanfare"? Can you explain this term?
• I do not think you should analyze with so many details Anastasia (1997 film). After all there is a seperate article.--Yannismarou 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bookworm857158367

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've made most of the changes suggested. Three of the books are actually on-line, so I couldn't list page numbers that aren't shown. One of the other editors must have looked up publication information for the print editions that I don't have. I changed the citation to go along with an on-line edition. I will wait to nominate it for a GA review until I find out the status of one of the photos. I'm not sure if the Beinecke Library permits its use. Any other suggestions?--Bookworm857158367 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hayley Westenra

From this peer review I am hoping to get this article up to the level of GA. Andrew D White 03:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference notation could be more informative - you have a through t on the main page of her official site? Has she been interviewed or had newspaper articles written about her? I'd suggest that you read other GA or FA singers' articles to get ideas about how the article should look. - Malkinann 05:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice start, but it needs some more work. These is my review:

• For the current length of the article the short lead is not a problem, but, if you expand the next sections, you should expand the lead as well. In any case, check WP:LEAD.
• I understood that she is succesful, but reading the article I did not understand why she is successful?! What is the nature of her talent? Is there something special with her voice? Are there any other factors that boosted her career?
• "The pair drew a large crowd, and one woman asked the girls if they had ever recorded anything. This woman turned out to be a journalist with CTV, and asked Hayley to appear on air." What is the name of this journalist? I think it is an important information.
• I think "International success" needs better writing. Many stubby paragraphs and a sense of trivia throughout this section. I think the flow of the prose there should be improved.
• "Philanthropy and Charity" is stubby. It would be nice if you could add some more infos.
• 20 citations of her official site?!!! Hmmmm! I think you need a better variety of sources. Some more research would be helpful.
• Why do you cite in "References" articles of Wikipedia?! This is obviously wrong. You can easily cite them in the prose. No reason to have them also cited in "References".
• In general, the formatting of "References" is not nice. Check Template:Cite web, in order to see what the reference of an external link should include.
• I think all your photos are fair-used tagged. If you ever submit the article in WP:FAC, this could be a problem.
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements baised upon comments

I have started to apply the improvements that you have suggested. I have started by revising the material which is already in the article before I add any of the possible topics that you indicated would be good to have. I have hopefully cleaned up the references section. I have gotten the webpages to use the Template:Cite web. I have hopefully found a few new sources which have taken out a bit of the excessive usage of the official web page, is that enough now or should I try to find more? I tried to located the name of the journalist with CTV but I could not find her name in any of the references which I found in my University's Library, they all just refer to her as a journalist with CTV (one of them refers to the reporter being female but that is it). I am hoping that someone else can find her name. I am not sure what you would like to see Alphabetized at the end of the article, can you elaborate a bit more? I shall work on the other suggestions as I get time. Thanks. Andrew D White 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegra Byron

I'd like to turn this into an article with a good article rating. Please make suggestions on how to improve the article.--Bookworm857158367 05:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice article. It mostly needs some formatting adjustments, in order to be GA and maybe even FA. These are my remarks:

• The lead should be a summary of the whole article. I'm not sure that this particular lead serves its role, because I see there important information not further analyzed in the main article. I suggest you take a look at WP:LEAD. Let me be clear: It is not a bad lead, but it may need some content revision and restructuring.
• The same revision of content and restructuring may be needed in the next section, "Resemblances to Byron". First of all, you should tell the story from the beginning. Forget the lead! The article starts now! Where was she born? Explain us a bit the background of the relation between Lord Byron and Claire Clairmont. What was Byron's reaction to the news of Cairmont's pregnancy? And Clairmont? Was the pregnancy and the birth of the child good news for her? I suggest you follow a lineal narration of Allegra's short life and of the relevant events. Reading the whole article, I felt I was going back and forward, back and forward and that I was losing the course of Allegra's life.
• Cite properly with footnotes. The research is good, but the formatting wrong. Read carefully WP:CITE, which is a part of WP:MoS. You can use either the Oxford or the Harvard system. The one in line citation you have is not properly written. Why don't you use the Template:Cite web?
• "However, Percy Bysshe Shelley, who visited the toddler Allegra while she was being boarded with a family chosen by Byron, had a different opinion of the child's living arrangements over the years." I do not think you should start a new section with "however".
• I think all your links in "See also" section are already linked within the main prose. So, I think you should get rid of this section. It is redundant.
• I see no bibliography? Why?! The printed sources you have used should be mentioned in detail either in "Footnotes" or in a seperate section ("References"). For instance, what is "Eisler 1999". Title? Full name of the writer? ISBN? Publisher? Check also Template:Cite book.
• In "Death, burial and a memorial" I see many stubby paragraphs. This is not nice for the prose.
• I don't know if you would like to add a biography infobox in your article.--Yannismarou 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Edward Magoon

I'm looking to improve the quality of my contributions to Wikipedia with more inline sourcing and more closely following the Biography guidelines. A review of this article will give me pointers that I can put towards other work, but I'd also like to eventually make it my first "GA". JRP 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

The article is well-written and well-referenced. I think it will easily go through GA and it can stand in FAC. Some minor remarks:

• Check carefully the prose and, if necessary, ask for an external copy-editing. I saw that another reviewer in the talk page of the article has done some accurate remarks concerning prose.
• "Death and afterward" is tooooo stubby, and the heading is inaccurate. We have the "death", but what about the "afterward"?!!
• I see you have a variety of printed sources; all of his era. Well-researched indeed! But If I was the editor of this article, I would also like to have some more modern analysis and assessments about the controversial events you point out and his tenure as Governor. In this way, you could enrich the article and make the research even more comprehensive.
• Minor: Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 08:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made some changes based on your suggestions. First, some copy-editing (though since it's my work, I should find someone else to do it). I also alphabetized the cats and reworked the stubby section. I don't yet have more recent resources, though I am working on that. Another editor on the talk page indicates that he may be able to help in that department also. How does these changes look so far? JRP 06:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nina Simone

Hello everybody, I have requested a review of this B-class article, because I think this artist deserves a good representation in the wiki-encyclopedia. I have been expanding and changing the article since september, as well as add almost Simone's total discography. But because I am a bit new to this, and not completely knowledgable about the more detailed underlying wiki do's and don'ts, I would really appreciate it to hear you comments so that the article can be made better in the future. Marcel flaubert 12:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

The article looks well-written to me (in terms of prose). These are the main problems I con point out:

• The article lacks inline citations. I fyou ever decide to nominate it for FAC, try to have at least one inline citation for each paragraph.
• The existing citations, mainly the external links need wikifying. Check any recently promoted FA to see what I mean. And check also Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web.
• When you cite a book, you should mention pages.
• Something more about the citations: they go after the quotation mark not before. I noticed some inconsistency.
• The lead could be further expanded per WP:LEAD.
• "Performing live" provides a nice summary of her unique style, but I would like some more infos and analysis.
• I'm not sure these bolded texts in "Well known songs" are in accord with WP:MoS.
• "Quotations" is a listy section like "Trivia". I think you should get rid of it and incoroporate the quotations there in the main prose if possible.--Yannismarou 08:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks + question

Hi Yannismarou, thanks for your comments, esspecially about the citations and stuff.

Do you mean by inline citations the naming of a source immediatley after the sentence, such as (Simone & Cleary, 1992)? Does this way of citating substitute for the 'automatic' references section that is created as you add references (like [1]), or is it appropriate to do them both together?

Thanks again, it really helps me to see where I need to patch up (or anyone else who wants to of course ;). Any other comments are very welcome!

It is recommended that inline citations follow the Harvard or the Oxford system. You can check any recently promoted FA (especially biography) and you will understand what I mean.--Yannismarou 07:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Clare Prophet

This is a request for peer review by scholars, Wikipedians, and other interested parties prior to nominating this article for GA status. BlackSun 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

The article looks to me comprehensive and informative, but there are several problems. Most importantly:

• There are no inline citations.
• Some sections are full of one-sentence paragraphs, like "Mark Prophet". In this case I recommend rewriting.
• You could create a seperate article about the doctrine, and have here a summary of it. The current section is too long and not strictly related to Prophet's life, but to her church as well.
• These red links in the lead are not so nice. Delink them or create stubs.
• Why 5 paragraphs in the lead? And why the last one is so stubby. Check WP:LEAD to see how a lead should be exactly.
• ISBNs and publshers in books?
• "Controversial Issues" are also more about the church and not about Prophet. I thnik that you should think what material should remain in this article and what should go to a sub-article or to the church's article.--Yannismarou 12:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meher Baba

The article is useful to most readers and covers the subject sufficiently to become class GA. One problem is that there are very few secondary sources available. Biographies exist by people who have lived for long close to Meher Baba and references are given. I am asking for a peer review to help locate the elements of the article that can be refined, rephrased, or changed for the upgrading. It is hard for me to locate POV or original research due to lack of experience. Also please note that there have been almost no conflicts. One somewhat disputed section about Peter Townsend can become better integrated, to please both "insiders" and readers in general (and Wikipedia standards). Hoverfish 12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content problems Townsend

Lets get the Townsend section to reflect actuality. Brutally edit it. That is, as a percentage of Baba's life and as a percentage of Baba followers he should have, no mention at all, and one line at best, respectively. Its just too stupid for words to have all this Townsend and Who material. Im a long term Baba lover and I find it pathetic to see this sort of quasi famous stuff here, as if it needs to be there to validate Baba. The inclusion of Townsend relects a lack of depth, breadth and academic rigour. When material is sourced and dislayed that does not match what occured in the persons life superficiality results. This is not a GA article. This article needs upgrading. Pete who? --Liam7 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait to hear what the peer reviewer has to say before we 'brutally edit' any part of the article. It is very possible he or she will agree. But let's all calm down until we hear from someone impartial. Such views about Townshend are well expressed and I'm sure the reviewer will take them under consideration and give some feedback. If necessary we can take this issue up with arbitration, but in the meantime let's remain civil and consider consensus. Chris 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• The lead could be a bit more expanded per WP:LEAD.
• "The events of Meher Baba's life are well documented". Such a declaration is redundant. Inline citations are needed. Bibliography or references are not enough.
• What exactly is a "Perfect Master"? The link takes me to an article with a variety of explanations.
• Avoid short one-sentence paragraphs.
• "Manzil-e-Meem and Meherabad" and "Prem ashram" are stubby. I would suggest merger or expansion.
• "I am never silent. I speak eternally. The voice that is heard deep within the soul is My voice...the voice of inspiration, of intuition, of guidance. To those who are receptive to this voice, I speak. [1]" Not the best way to link external links. After all quotes need inline citations (where you can cite an external link).
• For quotes, in general, check WP:MoS. Quotations (where you have "someone said:" and then the quote) should use <blockquote>s.
• You must think if the long quotes like the one in "The New Life" are absolutely necessary.
• I think the 5-6 last sub-sections of his biography should be rewritten. They are stubby and listy. Again think about what needs expansion, merger etc.
• I think you could create a sub-article about Baba's csmology and make a summary of it in this article. The cosmology section is quite long and could stand as an article itself.
• "For more information on Meher Baba's concept of the planes of consciousness, one may refer to his book God Speaks." You have already linke the book; this is unnecessary. You could also do somethin like that at the top of a section or sub-section.

.

• I read something about expanding "Influence on Pete Townshend". Is there more material? Could possibly a sub-article be created?
• "See also" looks long to me. If there are links made in the prose there is no reason to re-link them here. If you can incorporate some of these links in the main article, do it.
• Too many external links. Are they all necessary? In any case they should be better organized and categorized.--Yannismarou 10:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the peer review, Yannismarou, most appreciated by all concerned. Hoverfish 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floyd M. Riddick

I am trying to get this article upto GA status for now. Can you please provide me suggestions on improving it? --Ineffable3000 08:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

It is not there yet. It needs some work:

• Stylistically, I would like to underscore that we do not link single years, only full dates (November 24, 2006). I don't know why, but that is what WP:MoS demands.
• Bibliography is not enough (and you donot provide ISBNs). We need inline citations, which must be verifiable. And your references are not real references, before they are not cited in the text! As they are now, they look like additional, further external links.
• The article needs expansion. If "he was famous for discusses (you mean discussing?) the censures of Joseph McCarthy and Thomas Dodd, the contested election between John Durkin and Louis Wyman, and the preparations for a planned impeachment trial of Richard Nixon, and for advocating the change in the rules of cloture", you should elaborate on all these things and analyse. These could be seperate sections, analysing his activities and the importance of his role.
• Don't have stubby sections, like your last one which is one line. Expand or merge.

I'll be happy to review an improved version of the current article.--Yannismarou 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Shakespeare

Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balloonman

It would be hycritical of me to ask for help, but not offer any in return so here are some thoughts on this article...

• I don't like the opening sentence. It turns me off "greatest writer... greatest in Western Literature ... preeminent dramatist." Those may be true statements, but it reads like propaganda.

• I've fixed the opening a bit. That look better? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• "about 37 plays" immediates makes me wonder why "about." I suspect that you go into more detail later on, but without an explaination, it raises questions that you don't want to have raised. I'd leave the numbers out and go into more details later on.
  • I've tried leaving them in, but giving a link to an article about the doubtful attributions. If this is too awkward, I'll cut 'em. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've tried "wrote [[Shakespeare Apocrypha|about]] 38 plays" as a way of keeping the sentence uncluttered but also providing a reader who cares with detailed info on why we say have to say "about". Does that work? Broken edit by AndyJones, fixed by Adam Cuerden. Watch the closing of nowiki tags.
• I'm not a fan of long sentences. While it may be gramatically correct, I'd break break the sent about his fame starting during his lifetime into two.
• Wordy, for example: He is counted among the very few playwrights who have excelled in both tragedy and comedy can be shortened to He is considered one of the few playwrights who excelled at both tragedy and comedy. "Counted among", "very few" and "have" don't add much to the article. "Very few?" How many is that? Who else is considered among the "very few?" Who makes this determination? "living language" another case of wordiness, people will assume living languages, youd don't need the word "living"
• The translation in to every language also needs to be cited.
• put the details about the number of articles after the last sentence in the intro or move that sentence up. It explains why the exact number of plays can't be known.
• The first 3 sentences in the Early life start off with probably... probably... and presumably, without any sources/citations this looks like OR.

• I've tweaked this, and asked for an attribution on the talk page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Shakespeare's last two plays, play1 and play2, were written in 1613."
  • Is this sentence still there? It refers the two collaborations with John Fletcher, namely The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. Actually, trying to source this it's difficult to say with any certainty that they were written in 1613. The Arden Henry VIII points out that the first recorded performance was at the Globe in 1613 (when it was described as a new play) but also speculates that it may have been performed at Blackfriars earlier. The matter is contentious, as you can see from the wikipedia page where an Oxfordian user is edit warring to suggest a far earlier date (Oxford died 1604). Sorry to clutter Balloonman's contributions with this guff, by the way: if I knew how best to fix this I'd do it myself rather than blathering here! AndyJones 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV.Balloonman 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nat91

I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source. In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference. I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." Nat91 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

• "William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language,[2] and the world's preeminent dramatist." The world's preeminent dramatist? Are we sure about that? Better than Aeschylus and Sophocles? And if yes why? I may be wrong but I don't feel comfortable with the superlative.
• "(see Shakespeare Apocrypha for plays uncertainly attributed to Shakespeare)". My opinion is that this link should be somewhere in "Plays" and not in the lead.
• By the way, do you have in mind the issue of Time devoted to the "bard" ("Will power")? There were 2-3 excellent articles there? And one comparing him with ... I don't remember ... Wait ... I'll find him ... Yes ... With Middleton! A very interesting assessment about the Bard's talent.
• "Early life" is undercited. In the next section I see a ^{[citation needed]} .
• "He appears to have moved across the Thames River to Southwark sometime around 1599. " ource here?
• "Later years". No citations here. I see the article is overall undercited, so from now own I'll name seperate sections.
• In "Other poems" both paragraphs start with "In addition". Repetion of the smae forms of prose.
• For a playwright like Shakespeare "Style" is under-analyzed. I expect here some modern assessments, further analysis, and comparaisons with other important playwrights (contemporaries of him or of the near centuries). Another suggestion is to keep the section concise and, instead, to create a sub-article.
• Reading "Reputation" I thought again about this issue of TIME and an aricle named "Shakespeare Inc." I think. What I mean is that the modern aspects of the bard's reputations and the commercial success and effect of his name should be treated in this or in a subarticle.
• "Identity" needs better referencing and some modern assessments by modern scholars.
• Wow! "See also" is huge. And most of the links there are already linked above!
• In "Further Reading" we should have the ISBNs.
• Are all "External links" links necessary? Could they be better organized?
• You know my obsession with inboxes! I think you could think about adding some here from the Bard's work, if you can relate them to specific sections and analyses.--Yannismarou 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes by Adam Cuerden ^talk

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sathya Sai Baba

Has has an old peer review to which nobody ever responded. Neverending disputes between editors for which multiple RFCs, one mediation, and multiple request for arbcom verdicts, but with only one arbcom verdict helped only to some extent. Nevertheless, I think that peer review may help to improve at least some of the few uncontroversial aspects of this article. I will announce the peer review clearly on the talk page and will request warring contributors not to attack the reviewers. May be the very closely related article Prema Sai Baba can be included in the peer review too. See also the failed FA nomination in April 2004. Andries 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

1. You could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
2. Something is wrong with note 63.
3. "Sathya Sai Baba in popular culture" is too stubby. Expand it or just get rid of it.
4. Get rid of the "See also" section. Incorporate the only link there somewhere in the main article.
5. Is all this long further reading necessary?
6. Categories at the end of the article are not correctly alphabetized.
7. "Sathya Sai Baba (born Sathya Narayana Raju on November 23, 1926 — or later than 1927[1] — with the family name of "Ratnakaram" [2]) is a controversial[3] South Indian guru often described as a Godman[4][5] and a miracle worker.[6]" Many inline citations in the middle of the sentence. Try to cite at the end of the sentence. Cite in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary.
8. The number of Sathya Sai Baba adherents is estimated between 6 million to 100 million.[8][9][10] Stylistically, it is not nice to have more than 2 citations in a row. There are ways to combine them. Check, for instance, the Tourette syndrome for ideas.
9. "It was said that instruments played on their own accord in his household when he was born [11]." Said by whom? Be more specific with such disputed assessments. And everybody believes that?! Aren't there any critics of this assertion.
10. Inline citation go straight after the punctuation markk, not before. Check WP:MoS.
11. "Since he was born after the Sri Sathyanarayana puja, he was named after the deity." I don't think this is a nice sentence. Think about an overall copy-editing.
12. Is "History and origins" the whole biography section? If yes, it is short, undercited (there are ^{[citation needed]} and a whole paragraph is uncited) and POV. We learn only what Baba and his biographer say. What about others? We need a more comprehensive presentation of his life and a more comprehensive analysis of the disputed elements of his life.
13. "Though the exact year on which he started his mission full-time is uncertain, it is a fact that in the 1940s he took the fakir's name." If it is a "fact" provide citation.
14. "The last paragraphs of the above section are a bit trivia and mixed. Personal information, something about an accident without coherence with the previous information.
15. What are ashrams and mandirs. Provide some information. The links are not enough.
16. Three paragraphs in "Ashrams and mandirs" are uncited.
17. "Daily, he is observed to allegedly manifest vibuthi (holy ash), food and small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches." Citation needed.
18. Are Baranowski's claims undisputed?
19. In general, since there is a main article for "Beliefs and practices", this section could be a bit more concise. Too many details, especially in "Miracles"!
20. The presentation with bullets of the primary teachings is a bit listy for me. Personally, I'd prefer prose.
21. "Organizations" is undercited and with some red links. Why don't you create stubs for these links, if they are important?
22. "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" is tagged for POV. I don't want to express an opinion for the disputed issues, but before an article goes for GAC or FAC such issues should br resolved.
23. "The Indian President Abdul Kalam and the former Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, as well as other Indian dignitaries, visit the ashram and pay their respects to Sathya Sai Baba." This paragraph is uncited and not well-incorporated in the prose of its section.
24. In general, the article has to be moe coherent; possibly the creation of sub-articles would help you to construct a better structure.--Yannismarou 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. I agree. The lead used to be longer but was truncated only a few weeks ago. Andries 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

ad 2. Corrected. Andries 11:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ad 6. corrected. Andries 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ad 7. I will change this, but I am not fully convinced that you are right in this case. It has been my experience in editing controversial articles that citation are requested for almost every word. In this sentence the birth date in particular is controversial. I expect that if I place all the references at the end then citations will be requested again for words within the sentence. Of course then this can all be explained in the talk page but this is all quite tedious. On second thoughts I think that using references at the end of the sentences decreases WP:Verifiability because it deprives the reader of information what sourced is used for each word in the sentence.Andries 09:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) amended. 09:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

ad 12. There are no independent reputable sources for a detailed biography. The hagiography by Kasturi is al there is. Almost all other sources are based on the hagiography. Andries 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

ad 17. Will provide citations for these uncontroversial assertions, but the priority for providing citations has been on controversial assertions. Andries 12:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ad 18. I am not aware of any reputable source that disputes Baranowski's claims. I do not believe that it Baranowski's claim belongs in the article, because it is somewhat obscure. Andries 08:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

ad 24. I think more coherence could be given by stating what the relationship is between SSB and the organizations that use his name. Is he a figurehead, spiritual leader, founder, de facto leader, de jure leader? In many cases I do not know and I doubt if reputable sources for this are available. What could be done is renaming the article Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement into Sathya Sai Baba movement and move some of the organizational stuff from the article Sathya Sai Baba to the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries 13:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou, Andries is the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website attacking Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. He is wholly inflexible with other editors and thinks the article should read and look as he sees it. Kasturi was the official biographer for Sathya Sai Baba and Kasturi is often cited in reliable and reputable books that discuss SSB and his life. Although Andries is willing to selectively cite Kasturi, he refuses to allow other information from Kasturi in relation to Baba's biography. There are no non-devotee biographies on Sathya Sai Baba. So where are we supposed to get the information from? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How can a poorly researched hagiography serve as the basis for a serious biography? It cannot. The hagiography is fine to describe the beliefs and practices of the SSB movement because stories about his life form a significant part about the beliefs and practices. Andries 11:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, Again, I am not the webmaster. Your own defamatory website identifies the real webmaster. Andries 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Poorly researched" is your POV. The fact remains that Kasturi has been cited by numerous reliable and reputable sources. I don't know how many times I am going to have to repeat myself to your redundant comments that is it okay to cite Kasturi in the Beliefs and Practices section when Kasturi's hagiography is not about beliefs and practices in the Sai Baba Movement. I have told you this numerous times before. Furthermore, on the main page, you selectively cite Kasturi's "poorly researched" hagiography when it suits your Anti-Sai agenda. You selectively choose what you want from Kasturi's books and then go around objecting and throwing your weight around saying Kasturi can't be cited on the main page because he has written a "poorly researched" hagiography, etc.

Regarding my webmaster comments, it is an indisputed fact that you were listed for years as the webmaster for the exbaba site. You changed your title only when it became an issue on Wikipedia. I even provided an evidence page regarding this issue for ArbCom. If you are saying the webmaster information is wrong, then one is left to wonder why you would put such blatant disinformation on your website to begin with? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The webmaster wrote it there, not me. It was left there mainly due to neglect. Andries

Andries, you never complained or disputed your webmaster status. You never refuted your webmaster status when Kazlev pointed it out. Only when your webmaster status became an issue on Wikipedia did you change your webmaster status to being a "contact". Then you changed your position again to being the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact". You admitted your site was threatened with legal action (which proves whose site is truly "defamatory"). You can attempt to refute this all you like. It won't change the fact that you allowed your name to be broadcast on the main index page as the "webmaster" for 3 years. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

True, I only started complaining about it when it was used in the article which was in perfect correspondence with the guidelines for talk pages i.e. that the discussion on the article talk page should be confined to improving the article. Andries 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the reason to omit material from a published biography, even if some editors consider it to be a hagiography. That is what attribution is for. There is no harm is saying "according to a biography written by XYZ, this and that happened". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, that is exactly what Andries does with Kasturi when it suits whatever POV he is trying to include in the article. However, when it comes to other information, he says it cannot be included on the main page but is okay on the Beliefs and Practices page. This is wholly contradictory and one is left to wonder why Andries behaves like this. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, it is not just my opinion that Kasturi's biography is a hagiography. This opinion was also voiced by the journalist Mick Brown in the Telegraph. And if you read Kasturi's books then you will see yourself that it fits the literal definition of a hagiograpy. I do not understand why Kasturi's hagiography meets the very high standards for BLPs. Andries 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, for the very same reason you cite Kasturi to push whatever agenda you are trying to push. When it argues in your favor, you selectively cite Kasturi as a reliable source. When it does not suit your favor, Kasturi's "hagiography" is poorly researched and does not meet high standards, etc. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Shall we then move all information sourced to Kasturi that is uncorroborated by independent sources? Andries 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are the one making the argument against Kasturi and then cite him according to your whims. The fact of the matter is that Kasturi is a reliable source and has been cited by numerous references in relation to Sathya Sai Baba. Therefore, citing him in relation to Sathya Sai Baba's early life would be entirely justified. SSS108 ^talk-email

[edit] John McCain

I think this is a good article that needs a little work. I hope that this will eventually be FA caliber. I think the article is well written but maybe could be organized better, a longer lead and some sections expanded. What do others think? Jasper23 10:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Hmmmm! One of the most intriguing political personalities around the globe! Definitely, an article about McCain in a challenge, especially for its editors but also for a reviewer (especially if the last one has watched carefully the political career of the senator as I have been doing during the last years!). These are my remarks:

• The prospect of FA status may be difficult for this article, because of a major inherent difficulty: McCain is in the centre of the ongoing poilitical events in USA; his expected participation in the Republican primaries and his (probable) ensuing candidacy for the US presidency. What I mean is that there may be a problem with criterion 1e: "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day. I'm afraid that during the next months we are going to have here "day to day significan changes". It seems inevitable.
• I think the lead could be a bit longer per WP:LEAD.
• I see many ^{[citation needed]} . They need fixing.
• "Both his father and grandfather were famous U.S. Navy admirals." How do you define "famous". Who assesses that and why?
• In "Personal Life" I would like to have some more information about his first marriage.
• The same section ("Personal life") needs rewriting. The prose in incoherent and the paragraphs are stubby.
• Second paragraph in "Vietnam" is uncited.
• "He was then tortured by Vietnamese soldiers, who bayonetted him in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton." Prose repetitions! What about an overall copy-editing?
• I don't like the two last stubby paragrpahs in "Prisoner of war". They are stubby and they are mal-connected with the rest of the paragraph.
• You give almost no information for his political career from 1982 to 1997. This is a huge deficiency! 3 lines for such an important career, and then straight to the 2000 primaries! What he did as a senator? How did he win? A comprehensive article must answer such questions.
• Because of this deficiencies the introduction to "2000 Presidential Primary" is seamless and steep.
• "He made over 200 stops, talking in every town in New Hampshire in an example of "retail politics" that overcame Bush's famous name. He won by a 60-40 landslide, and suddenly was the celebrity of the hour. Analysts predicted that a McCain victory in the South Carolina primary would give him unstoppable momentum. However, McCain lost the crucial state of South Carolina. Bush now regained the momentum." Choose a tense, stick on it and further improve the prose!
• "However, McCain made serious mistakes that negated any momentum he may have regained with the Michigan victory." Hmmmm! Tricky assertion. Possibly POV. It would be better if you provided sources and rephrased like that: "According to X, McCain made serious ... "
• "In mid-November 2006 early polls showed him leading Hillary Clinton." I think current polls show the opposite, but I'm not absolutely sure.
• Can you explain to the ignorants what a "maverick" is? I had also read it in the Economist for McCain, but I'm still not sure about its meaning (and I think I'm not the only one).
• In "Political views" you have some stubby sub-sections. Merge or expand. Or create a sub-article and summarize it here. This could be even better. Whatever you decide you certainly have to say more (in the main article or the sub-article you'll create) about his environmenal views, which are contradictory to the Bush adm and the neocon indifference towards these issues. I think McCain and Schwarzenenger are the most environmentally friendly conservative politicians, and this deserves some analysis.
• Before going into details about his various POVs (environment, immigration etc.), I'd like to have some general assessments about his political presence. The fact that he is regarded as a "moderate conservative" should be stressed and analysed. And is he mainly a "realist" or an "idealist". After Rumsfeld's deposition, this division is again discussed. I was reading an article in TIME discussing whethere McCain will now prefer the support of the realists (such as the associates of the elder Bush) of his party or of the idealists (the neocons, and some close associated of Bush junior).
• "McCain has consistently shown himself to be a prominent "hawk" on foreign policy." Again possibly POV. I recommend rephrasing like above and citing. Are there different opinions? Does he accept that he is a "hawk"?
• In "Social issues" you go from gay marriages to abortions seamlessly. Again a problem of article flow!
• What are McCain's views concerning natural selection and the opposite Evangelist theories?
• I think that "Presidential Election 2004" should go to "Political career" and not "Political views". And the two last paragraphs there are stubby.
• "Such restraint should come from Hezbollah and the nations sponsoring it, notably Iran, McCain said in remarks that became a freewheeling, far-reaching speech on foreign policy, including his views on matters involving North Korea, Iraq and the U.S. war on terrorism." I don't understand this phrase. Bad structure.
• "McCain's brother, Joe McCain, has written a popular speech on Israel, Jews and anti-Semitism." Why is this important? And if it is important connect with the senator's views and provide more information. What does his brother say?
• ""Gang of 14" and Senate filibuster" is uncited. I also suggest that you provide some further clarifications for those not familiar with the American constitution and the operation of the Congress.
• "McCain argues that American military and intelligence personnel in future wars will suffer for abuses committed in 2006 by the US in the name of fighting terrorism. He fears the administration's policy will put American prisoners at risk of torture, summary executions and other atrocities by chipping away at Geneva Convention. He argues that his rival bill to Bush’s plan gives defendants access to classified evidence being used to convict them and will set tight limits on use of testimony obtained by coercion. Furthermore it offers CIA interrogators some legal protections from charges of abuse, but rejects the administration’s plan to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions’ standards for humane treatment of prisoners. McCain insists this issue overrides politics." This paragraph begs for citations!
• "Keating Five controversy" is stubby.
• Turn "Other Controversies" into prose.
• "Appearances on radio, television and in movies" also needs rewriting. It is listy.
• Get rid of "Trivia" and "See also".
• I'd suggest that you keep only the external links you regard as absolutely necessary.--Yannismarou 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Quite an in depth review. I agree with all of your points and when I have time I will start checking off the list. Thanks again for all your work. And I agree that FA status will be unattainable until after the primary. Jasper23 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schi

A bit late, but if you're still interested, style concerns, mostly:

• Non-initial, non-proper words in headings should be lowercase. So, "Other Controversies" should be "Other controversies", and "Presidential Election 2004" should be "Presidential election 2004", except that isn't very good English - how about "2004 presidential election"?

Done. -- Satori Son 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Excessive use of titles. You don't need to keep referring to McCain as "Senator McCain" - "McCain" is just fine.

Done. -- Satori Son 16:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• There are several citations with improper punctuation/extra spaces, for example "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [41]" - it should be "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[41]" Likewise, "American Conservative Union rating is 83 percent[34]." should be "American Conservative Union rating is 83 percent.[34]"

Done. -- Satori Son 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I know it's a pain, but wikilinking complete dates is a good thing to do for readers' date preferences.
• The section "Middle-East" should be "Middle East".

Done. -- Satori Son 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• If it's at all possible, I think it's best to avoid "Controversies" sections. In this case, would it be possible to incorporate those items into the chronological, narrative accounts of his career/personal life?
• The 13th cite needs to have its ref tag closed!

Done. -- Satori Son 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• In the "Vietnam" section, this bit: The Saints squadron and its parent Air Wing 16 suffered the highest loss rate of any Navy flying unit during the entire Vietnam War. This was due to the perilous missions assigned to it and to the aggressiveness of its aviators. needs citations for the POV characterizations and should also be re-worded, it's rather clunky. schi ^talk 00:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippocrates

I've been away from this article for a few weeks and would like some feedback to help me further improve it. I hope to make it an FAC soon... -- Rmrfstar 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

After a few hours of deliberation, I have finally split the article into "Hippocrates" and "Hippocratic Corpus"... or I am about to: the articles-to-be are in my workspaces. If no one has any objections, I shall complete the procedure soon. -- Rmrfstar 02:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unmerge complete! How does it look? -- Rmrfstar 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with the unmerge.--Yannismarou 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gzkn

Well researched and comprehensive with respect to the Hippocratic Corpus. However, I came away from this article knowing much more about the Hippocratic Corpus than Hippocrates. I would recommend separating them into two different articles. The prose needs some major polishing before it meets FA's 1a criteria. I would suggest trying to find someone more familiar with this topic than me to give it a run through and extensive copy edit. Specific comments:

• Why not use "prominent" instead of "outstanding", as one of the other common definitions of the word would violate NPOV?

I like "outstanding" better, but if it's a big deal, I'd agree to change it to "prominent" or "eminent".

• since it wasn't compiled until around A.D. 200 Avoid contractions in articles.
• Wikilink "Askleipion" in the caption.
• "however unreliable, on Hippocrates's person" Weird use of the possessive there. Why not just "on Hippocrates's life" or "on Hippocrates"?

Neither of those would have the intended meaning. I believe this is correct English: see definition 3 at http://www.answers.com/person&r=67.

• "but Polybus was Hippocrates’ true successor according to Galen," Who's Galen? Give some context here instead of defining later.
• "Soranus says Hippocrates was taught medicine..." Abruptly switches to present tense, when in the previous para, the equivalent was "Soranus stated that Hippocrates's father...".
• "Herodicus of Selymbria: Plato" Is that supposed to be a semicolon instead?

No.

• Avoid passive tense (which riddles this article).
  • There was the Knidian school of medicine which was focused towards diagnosis --> "The Knidian school of medicine focused on diagnosis" (note also that towards is not the right preposition there) Also, "dependent upon" is probably not the best phrase. Try "because of".
  • The focus of Hippocratic medicine was on --> "Hippocratic medicine focused on"
  • In the Hippocratic work On the physician, it is recommended that physicians --> "The Hippocratic work, On the physician, recommended that physicians "
• The Hippocratic school, the Koan school, however, was more successful. Because of the commas, "however" would be better at the beginning of the sentence here, no matter what Strunk and White say.
• It could effectively treat many diseases, yet it allowed for a great development in clinical practice... What's that "yet" doing there? The latter half of the sentence isn't contradicting the first...
• ...he held many pseudo-scientific convictions based on bad anatomy and physiology such as Humorism. Ambiguous use of "such as" (do you see why?). The "such as Humorism" should be placed immediately after "convictions". --> "pseudo-scientific convictions, such as Humorism, which were based on bad anatomy and physiology." Also, there are more descriptive words than "bad" out there.
• On a similar note: result of an imbalance of the four humours in the body, fluids which were naturally equal in proportion (pepsis) --> "result of an imbalance in the body of the four humours, fluids which were naturally equal in proportion (pepsis)"
• Hippocratic medicine was, humbly, very kind to the patient, sterile and gentle whenever possible. Humbly? What's that doing there?

Better?

• Despite all of its advancements in medical theory, it was truly in discipline, strict professionalism and rigorous practice that Hippocratic medicine excelled. Weasely: "it was truly". Also needs a cite.

I don't think this is weasly, though I did include a citation.

• The second paragraph of Professionalism changes tenses three times.
• "To him medicine owes the art of clinical inspection and observation"[4] For this reason, he may termed only the "Father of Clinical Medicine". What's going on here?

This passage looks fine to me.

• textbooks, lectures, research, notes and even philosophical essays "even" is not necessary.
• There are a number of case-histories in the Hippocratic Corpus, 42 to be exact. --> "There are 42 case-histories in the Hippocratic Corpus."
• It must be taken into account that the Corpus is very large, and was written by many authors. It makes sense that not all of it is of this “laconic” style... but most of it is. Phrases such as "it must be taken into account" and "it makes sense that" should be avoided. Second sentence is not encyclopedic, especially with the ellipsis.
• It is notable that <-- GAH! Not another!
• This was in Latin... Ambiguous "this".
• This was scholarly, yet sometimes inaccurate and awkward. More ambiguous "this". Also, without a cite, the sentence violates NPOV.
• Hippocrates was the first great physician, and for a long time, the last While many people might agree, this statement violates NPOV.
• And yet, Hippocratic medicine is far removed from modern medicine. "And yet" is not necessary.
• Hippocrates and his followers identified many diseases and medical conditions for the first time. Such as?

Such as those listed below it.

• Hippocrates is in his description of the symptomology, physical findings, surgical treatment... Huh?
• Much of what he said is very useful to students of pulmonary medicine and surgery today. --> "His teachings remain relevant to contemporary students of pulmonary medicine and surgery."
• old doctor is reinforced by our busts of him Avoid first person.
• He, and the beliefs that he embodied, are considered medical ideals. "He is, above all, the exemplar of that flexible, critical, well-poised attitude of mind, ever on the lookout for sources of error, which is the very essence of the scientific spirit."[4] "His figure... stands for all time as that of the ideal physician”, inspiring the medical profession since his death. Don't list quotes without specifying who said them.
• This account is very much in conflict with unfinished sentence.
• With this legendary figure, comes a legendary genealogy... NPOV violation. Gzkn 09:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have dealt with all of these, except those that I have commented on. -- Rmrfstar 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

I've already reviewed this article, which is obviously good. I may sound repetitive, but some of my current remarks are exactly the same with the previous ones I had made:

• "is commonly regarded as one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine". I'm afraid this could be regarded as POV.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the first definition of outstanding is, "Standing out among others of its kind; prominent. See synonyms at noticeable."[1] Hippocrates is undeniably this.

If you say so! I just have noticed that Wikipedia is sometimes weird with POV. But your argument sounds convincing!--Yannismarou 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• The "biography" is short. It is also short in Britannica and I also know that most details about his life are unknown. But it would be nice if we had some more things about him (if there is anything more available!).

Wouldn't it be nice! I haven't been able to find any more information, though I have recognized this as an issue. A reader must take into account, however, the "Legends" section which details some highly unreliable stories of his life.

• Again the red links! I know it is not a prerequisite for FA status, but they are not nice. And in FAC I read more and more critical comments about them.

Better?

• In "Methods of Treatment" I see a ^[specify]. Why?

I shall fix this.

• "The Oath" is stubby. And I think that some other sub-sections could also be expanded a bit.

I agree. "The Oath" itself is one of the most important topics of the article and should be expanded.

• "Medical practitioners who followed him sometimes moved backwards. For instance, "after the Hippocratic period, the practice of taking clinical case-histories died out..."" I don't like the way the quote is inserted here. I'd prefer to know who says these things in the text, because it is an assessment of some importance.

Fixed?

• I think these stubby paragraphs in "Legends" should be restructured (merged or expanded).

Have dealt with.

• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.

Done!

• For me, the "See also" section is long. The tendency is not to use so much now "see also" sections. And I also see there red links! Do you intend to create these articles? Otherwise, I think you should move them to external links.--Yannismarou 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the entire See also was a list of his namesakes (after I removed the redundant "ancient greek medicine"), I renamed the section to "Namesakes"... how does this work? Let me try to create these redlinks. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna Jameson

This may be controversial, but hopefully won't be boring!

A few months ago, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team came to WP:P* and asked what our key articles were. We listed a few, and this was one of the most important ones, being about probably the most famous currently active porn star in the world.

She is unique in that she has actually gotten a lot of coverage from impressive sources: New York Times, Forbes Magazine, Rolling Stone. Also she has written a best selling autobiography. So unlike the other, poorly sourced porn star articles that so many see as a blight on the Wikipedia, this article actually has a chance of getting somewhere. (I think I've cited it ... just a bit. :-) )

Eventually I'm aiming high, hopefully eventually Wikipedia:Featured articles - but not quite yet, especially as this would be my first WP:FAC. Can we start with a review? Even if it doesn't get to so such lofty heights, at least we can make it of a standard for other porn star articles to aim for, and maybe indirectly help clean up an area that needs a bit of that.

Thank you very much. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
  • There are many links, but I can't see any that are repeated within the same section, or don't add much to the article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Checked all. Months only linked when with day of month, per WP:MOSDATE, no days of week in article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • Done, I think. All are a short sentence fragment. Short enough? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 48 foot, use 48 foot, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 48&nbsp;foot.^[1]
  • Only units I can see in infobox. Done there. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Don't see any. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
  • Done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: color (A) (British: colour), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), aging (A) (British: ageing), kerb (B) (American: curb), program (A) (British: programme).
  • Can't find any British spellings in article.AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Tightened. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Emx 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific question: lead image?

Maybe I'll get more feedback if I ask specific questions? The lead image on the article is all right, but it was taken at the same time as the one of Jameson and Jay Grdina, lower. This is obvious from her costume and background. Due to the efforts of User:Tabercil and User:Kamui99, and the kind donations of semi-professional photographers, we have other high resolution completely free (Creative Commons 2.5) images of Jenna Jameson, on commons. Would one of them be better, to avoid the repetition? Specifically, I'm thinking of this headshot (left), which had appeared on the article earlier, or this rather more dramatic three-quarters figure (right). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• For the pictures, I'd probably use the headshot to avoid the repetition. Trebor 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the picture on the left is very representative, as she's usually blonde isn't she? --kingboyk 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh - leaving until there is more consensus one way or the other. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trebor

(breakdown into points by AnonEMouse, also moved picture comment up to that section.)

The article starts well and is well-cited

• (although I question whether any sentence really needs 5 cites, 2 or maybe 3 would suffice even if the issue is controversial),
  • Reduced to no more than 3 everywhere.
• but there's too many 1-2 sentence paragraphs.
  • Got them all, I think. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• I personally dislike direct external links within the article itself, e.g. to ClubThrust, and they aren't used on featured articles.
  • Moved to External links section.
• The Mainstream Appearances section I'm unsure about. It's just a list of things she has been in, and "mainstream" is a fairly debatable term. It definitely shouldn't be kept in its current form - either transformed into prose with decent sized paragraphs (if you are able to group the appearances into sensible sections) or made into a list. A lot of it is then listed again in Mainstream Work which makes it redundant.
  • It's a list of "appearances outside pornography", which is generally considered difficult to achieve: Ginger Lynn, Traci Lords, R. Bolla, etc., spend a lot of effort on it. Will work on expanding, and sorting.
  • There. I stuck some of the items together in paragraphs by decade, expanded a few, and added a bit of an overarching theme for the section, of her trying to break into mainstream fame from solely pornography. Better? I know it's still a bit choppy, but don't really know how to improve it further without just throwing interesting information away. It wasn't even all mine, so I'd feel especially guilty throwing away others' contributions. Any specific help will be welcome. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Also for the filmography, "important" is a bit POV - who says it's important and why? Trebor 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The porn films are the ones unusually important to her career - first film, and award winners. I can put a line by each film saying so, but would that then be redundant with the Awards section?
    • Yeah, it'll probably be fine as it is. There's a part of me that wants to say "no, every assertion of importance must be sourced", vying with the less policy-obsessed part that thinks "well, it's pretty obvious which are most important and justifying each one is a waste of time". In this case, the latter probably wins. Trebor 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nicely done! These are my remarks:

• "She was born ... ". When you start a new section, I recommend not to start with "she". I think it would be better "Jameson was born ... ".
  • Jameson is her stage name, she was born Massoli. Wrote that.
• "Biography" needs more coherent writing. For instance, these stubby paragraphs are not nice. Merge or expand them.
  • Done, I think. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think that you could also add more sub-sections in "Biography", such as "Early life and family", "Early career" etc. This might also help you better organizing your material.
  • Done.
• Before "Autobiography" there is an uncited paragraph.
  • Cited, expanded, moved down to Business (as it is a Club Jenna thing).
• There is a paradox with "Autobiography": The section of this article is bigger that the main article about the book! The opposite is more usual! I'd suggest that you expand the main article and then see what you want to include of the main article here. You could also link to the main article straight after the heading like that:

• That's because I didn't write the other article. :-). No excuse, I know. Expanded the other one, more work left.

• "Mainstream appearances" is poorly written. There are so many stubby paragraphs that it looks almost listy.
  • Right, Trebor said as much. Will work on.
    • Redone, see #Trebor's section, above. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• I read in the article about her awards, here achievements ("best renting pornographic title") etc. (there is also a long listy, which I am not sure if it is absolutely necessary, but let's see what other reviewers will say about that), but if she really is a controversial person, then there must be somewhere some controversy! Some critics, opponents etc. criticizing her style, her work etc. I think this should be further analysed.--Yannismarou 17:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant controversy in the sense of expecting clones of User:Brian G. Crawford showing up and demanding that all pornography articles be expunged from the Wikipedia, and their authors defenestrated. She's not particularly controversial among porn stars as such, she doesn't do anything particularly extreme, she's more revered or envied for her success. There's a bit where she criticised Suze Randall and Suze criticised back, I'll see if I can find that.

Thank you both! I did the quick things, others might take a bit longer. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLilburne

So far I've only had a chance to look at the "Biography" section, but I've noticed a couple examples awkward writing that could stand to be edited.

In October 1990, while the family was living in a cattle ranch in Fromberg, Montana, she was gang raped by four boys after a football game. Later she would be raped a second time, by her boyfriend's uncle. She would later provide graphic details in her autobiography. In the book she writes...

There's an awkward use of passive voice, "later she would." The reader also wonders how much later. Then it sounds a bit repetitive when you continue with "She would later". There is another repetition when you have "in her autobiography" immediately followed by "in the book...".

Rephrased. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Immediately after the second rape, at age 16, Jenna left her home and moved in with her boyfriend, Jack, a tattoo artist, her first serious relationship. He gave her what would become her trademark tattoo, double hearts on her right buttock, which her brother, who would become a tattoo artist himself, later enscribed "HEART BREAKER".

Way too many commas and clauses in a row. I don't have a specific suggestion, but you need to break up those sentences somehow, and vary their rhythm a little more.

Broke up. Better?

Later in 1991, she chose the name "Jenna Jameson" from scrolling through the phone book for a last name that matched her first name, and finally deciding on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks.

Also a bit of a run-on sentence.

Broke up.

While in high school, she began taking drugs, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines, again accompanied by her brother, who was addicted to heroin.

Either you need to set the names of the drugs apart with something other than commas, or you need to start the list with "such as" or something similar.

Done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1992 Jack left her, and a friend put her in a wheelchair, and sent her to her father, then living in California, to detox.

Another one of these strings of commas and clauses.

Done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

She has also avoided interracial intercourse.

This is not a stylistic point, but rather one of curiosity. Do we know why? It would be interesting to mention the reason, if so.

That's tough. Here's the thing - she's actually been called racist for this on several talk boards, but there isn't that much discussion in reliable sources. There is plenty of reliable writing about the fact she doesn't do other activities, but less for this particular one. I'm personally somewhat amused by the fact that someone can be called racist for restricting whom she has sex with, but that's beside the point.

Best of luck with the article. Hope that my suggestions will be of some use, even though they are rather nit-picky ones. MLilburne 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank all three of you very much for your excellent comments. I will try to implement them, but it could take a number of days to respond to them all - I do intend to repond to them all, and actually implement the suggestions in almost all, since they are very good, justified comments. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated commentary from badlydrawnjeff

(copied here from User talk:AnonEMouse to keep in one place)

Since we both got sidetracked a bit, you had asked for commentary on Jenna Jameson. My one issue with it is the pseudo-bullet-pointedness of the prose from the "business" section down. I'm not sure if there's plans to expand it further or not, but it feels very stilted. I'm also unsure about the mainstream appearances section, I'd personally either keep it all there and eliminate the list or eliminate the prose and keep the list, not necessarily both. It's off to a pretty good start, though - I never thought I'd find her interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's basically what the other reviewers wrote. I'll add it to the review. However, I've noticed that it's a lot harder for me to actually put the reviewer comments into practice than it was for you - with Babb, I would write something, and you would do it, while with Jameson, it's taking many days for me to make better paragraphs out of the broken points. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream section redone a bit, see #Trebor's section, above. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Business section down expanded, merged, reflowed. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the listy sections could do with conversion into prose. LuciferMorgan 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, I think. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The "Awards" section could do with conversion from being a list into prose also, even though most articles fail to do so. If it did it'd make the article more fluent as a whole, as it could say "Jenna has won the blah blah award X times..." etc. I think it'd be more encyclopaedic that way. LuciferMorgan 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In some sections it reads "who would" etc. as though in future tense, which can become grating. It's up to you, but I'd personally suggest changing it to past tense consistently throughout. LuciferMorgan 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romaine Brooks

I've been working on this artist bio off and on for a few months and have undoubtedly lost all ability to tell whether I'm being clear. I haven't put it through the GA process yet, but I'm interested in finding out what it will take to bring it all the way to FA.

I'm working on a short article about Gluck (that dashing young artist who inexplicably chose a name that sounds like a chicken noise) so the one remaining redlink will be gone soon. —Celithemis 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Great! And what an interesting personality! And that is exactly the succcess of a good article: to reveal the intriguing aspects of a personality. This is one of the cases I believe a reviewer is mainly redundant. Some minor and possibly trivia things:

• "When a fellow student left a book open on her stool with pornographic passages underlined, she picked it up and hit him in the face with it. She had no further difficulties." No difficulties with what? Further sexual harassments? I just don't like so much this little phrase.
• "hated the constant socializing on which Barney thrived". I think "hated" is a very strong verb. But if you think it is definitely the right word and you can verify its accuracy ...
• I'd like the photo captions a bit more informative (some comments, whereabouts of the painting etc.). But it seems we have a different philosophy in this issue. I usually transfer information in the captions and do not over-analyze a painting in the text. You, on the other hand, incorporate analyses of significant paintings within your prose and keep the captions laconic.
• And do not forget to alphabetize the categories at the end of the article.

In general, I think the article has a good chance in FAC. About the prose I'm not the best to comment, but it looked to me fine. And the research is definitely more than fine (25+ references when more FACs have not more than 5-6).--Yannismarou 08:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Cromwell

Self-nomination - I have been doing a lot of work with this article and hopefully have improved, but am far too immersed in it now to be objective. My aim is to get it to GA status and then beyond. I would really value any comments. Greycap 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Cromwell is a historical figure who always intrigued me, especially for the way he imposed his will on the people and the way he treated the royal tradition of England. But, anyway, this is not our subject here. I don't think you'll have any problems with GA. My remarks have mostly to do with a future attempt for FA status. These are my remarks for this nice article:

• I think you say twice in the lead that Cromwell was regarded by some scholars as a dictator. I think once is enough! For me this is a repetition. And be careful, because the lead is the mirror of your article.
• "He was a regicide who debated whether to accept the crown himself and decided not – though ironically he had more power than Charles I. He was a parliamentarian who ordered his soldiers to dissolve parliaments. He was devoted to Christian values yet his conquests of Scotland and Ireland were brutal. He advocated religious liberty of conscience but allowed blasphemers to be tortured. He advocated equitable justice but imprisoned those who criticized his raising taxation outside the agreement of Parliament." I also don't like the prose here. Many "he". Two "advocated" in a row. You say "He was a regicide" and a few words after "He was a parliamentarian". A better variety of expression would be welcomed. What about "As a parliamentarian he ... " or something else. If you are a native English speaker, you can definitely have better ideas than me!
• "Family" is stubby. Expand it or merge it with "Early Years" (I'd also suggest that for GAC).
• "He then studied at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, which was then a recently founded college with a strong puritan ethos". Again the prose! You see the "thens"? I'd suggest a copy-edit (not absolutely necessary for GAC; definitely necessary for FAC!).
• "At this stage, however, there is little evidence of Cromwell’s own religion. His letter in 1626 to Henry Downhall – an Arminian minister – suggests that before this point Cromwell had yet to be influenced by radical puritanism.[3] However, there is evidence ..." Again prose. I think these two "howevers" are too close one to the other. A better variety of expression is needed.
• Try to avoid red links as much as possible. If necessary, create stub-articles. And check if your red links are really red! For instance, although there is Portrait miniature you had a wrong and useless red link miniature portrait (I fixed that).
• "In May 1641, for example, it was Cromwell who put forward the second reading of the Annual Parliaments Bill, and who later took a role in drafting the Root and Branch Bill for the abolition of episcopacy". Citation needed.
• It'd be nice if you could tell us with 3-4 words or a short sentence what is the Long Parliament and not just wikilink us.
• Who is John Lilburne? Again the wikilink is not enough. Persons and institutions come and go, but you don't explain us what they are exactly.
• "Irish Campaign: 1649-50" needs more citations.
• Last paragraph in "Politics: 1647-1649" is uncited.
• "One of his major victories in Ireland was diplomatic rather than military - persuading, with the help of Roger Boyle, 1st Earl of Orrery - the Protestant Royalist troops in Cork to change sides and fight with the Parliament." Is this phrase OK? Especially the use of dashes. I'm not sure if the syntax is Ok here and that is why I'm asking!
• The first paragraph of "Debate over Cromwell's actions in Ireland" is full of assessments but has no citations. Don't have such assessments uncited! And, at least, try to have one citation for ech sentence (have in mind this rule for GAC).
• "Scottish Campaign: 1650-1651" also needs more citations.
• Don't wikilink more than once. For instance, Presbyterianism.
• "Death and posthumous execution" is also uncited.
• "Posthumous reputation" is excellent. Very nicely researched! Nevertheless, personally I'd create two seperate sections: one with the assessments and one with the films, songs etc. (last two paragraphs of the current section). But I suppose this is up to you!
• Just a question: You have a "References" section. Is this really a "References" section? What do I mean? I see in Footnotes more ISBNS. So, I wonder have you used the books from "References" in "Footnotes" or the "References" section is really a "Further Reading" section? There are three ways to have references: 1) In just one section (Notes or Footnotes), 2) In two sections (Footnotes and References [citations in Notes are analysed in detail with ISBNs etc. in References]), 3) In three sections (Citations, Notes [here we have a division of the previous Footnotes or Notes section] and References). Pick the form you prefer, check the current References section and rename it or create a "Further Reading" section if you feel that you need it.
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Abraham (town planner)

Hoping this article may qualify for GA or A status. It has already been nominated (very shortly after its creation) by an admin (User:GeeJo) for inclusion on the 4 November 2006 "Do You Know" section of the Main Page.. so maybe even FA status might be a possibility.. Bezapt 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice start. The article can be GA. These are my remarks:

• The lead is too short. It could be expanded per WP:LEAD.
• Further information could be added in some sections. For instance, I think "Early life" could be further expanded. We don't learn much about his early life.
• Speaking of "Early life", I don't see the nameds of his parents mentioned.
• More photos would also be welcomed.
• "Other career highlights" is stubby. Try to expand it a bit.
• I would also like to have a few more assessments of his work (analysis of innovations, artistic aspects etc.).--Yannismarou 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Cross

I would like to see what needs to be done to get at least a B on this article. Please keep in mind that there are no known photo's of this person. I know that it would be helpful to have a photo of her but I can not provide one. T. White 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLilburne

Firstly, you really, really need to clarify the copyright status of the text, because it looks like it was copied wholesale from that "Find a Grave" website. I have listed it on the page for possible copyright problems, and left a note on your talk page. When this has been cleared up, let me know, and I will be happy to come back with other suggestions. MLilburne 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been taken to the article's talk page, as the article is now on notice for copyright problems, and a draft replacement is being discussed. MLilburne 21:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Greco

First of all, I want to make clear that this is not yet the final form of the article. Regard it as an incomplete effort. But I request this peer-review, in order to receive feedback and proceed with the adequate improvements. My obvious goal is to submit this article in FAC. Please, any suggestion, contribution, idea is welcomed. I want to highlight my major concerns:

• Possible prose defficiencies.
• Factual accuracy.
• Possible ommissions in the content.
• Artistic assessments and comparaisons.

Thank you!--Yannismarou 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plange

I will definitely review this for you this weekend! --plange 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my thoughts:

• "These works would come to impose themselves" impose on whom? the artworld, the king?

Rephrased.

• the quote from Pachero leaves me hanging: "If I say that Domenico Greco sets his hand to his canvases many and many times over, that he worked upon them again and again, but to leave the colors crude and unblent in great blots as a boastful display of his dexterity?" Usually "if's" are followed by "then's"?

Rephrased.

• This sentence is pretty convoluted: "The same scholar asserts that Platonism and Neo-Platonism (not that of the Renaissance but the ancient one), Plotinus and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (who was included in his library), texts of the Church fathers and liturgical texts offer the keys to the understanding of El Greco's style"

Tried to simplify it.

• I see you're using {{cquote}} for your inline quotations, and while they look pretty, they're really not in keeping with WP:MOS. Inline quotations (where you have "someone said:" and then the quote) should just use <blockquote>s. cquote template is for "pull quotes" that are outside of the flow of the prose, like you do with your nice blue ones (which I use as an example, BTW, when I try to show people what a pull quote is)

I rearranged the quotes and inserted also the use of <blockquote>s. I hope it is now better.--Yannismarou 20:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job!! --plange 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will work on your proposals. I've already done some tweaks.--Yannismarou 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celithemis

I'm surprised you say this isn't in its final form -- it seems extremely thorough and well-organized. Mostly a matter of copyediting, I think.

Some miscellaneous notes:

• "Fodele or Candia (or Chandax, the present day Herakleion)": this sounds as if it refers to three different places rather than only two.

• Rephrased.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "English teacher Janet Sethre": is she really a primary or secondary school teacher, rather than a professor? If so, it's not clear why she is a source worth quoting on a question of interpretation. Does she have another claim to authority that isn't mentioned?

• Removed claims of Sethre, because I did not find any other source supporting them and just kept a reference to another art historian and El Greco's critic.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "According to Harold E. Wethey, professor of the History of Art at the University of Michigan" -- I think the name would be enough here. In general, if someone quoted is some kind of art historian or professor, including their job title doesn't seem necessary.

• I changed it to "According to professor Harold E. Wethey ... ".--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Could all the discussion of exactly when El Greco went to Venice be summed up as "around 1567", and the full explanation moved to an explanatory footnote? The research and care are impressive, but there's a risk of losing the important points in all this detail. Also, it's unclear whether this paragraph means to say that his works were greatly esteemed in Venice or in Crete.

• I totally agree! I overanalyzed the whole issue. More analysis shifted to note e.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "the hostility of certain artistic cycles" -- this phrase doesn't make sense.

• Rephrased. I hope it is clear now.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "The inventory of the household goods does not mention, however, a large house." What?

• I know! I thought the same thing seeing it! It was copy-edited. The intial phrasing was: "The inventory of the household goods does not retain, however, the memory of a wealthy mansion" and I now made it "The inventory of the household goods does not retain, however, the memory of a large house". What do you think?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Under Re-evaluation of his art, there's a repetition: "Future generations found little appreciation..." and then "The master was disdained by the next generations after his death".

• Re-organized the paragraph per your suggestion.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Referring to El Greco as "the master", "the Cretan painter", "the Cretan master", etc. rather than by his sobriquet is an awkward way of avoiding repetition.

• I'll have more of his sobriquet! I was also thinking about this matter.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "grace is the supreme quest of the artistic form": "the supreme quest of art" would make more sense (unless "the artistic form" refers to painting?)

• Corrected.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "turn this use of light into a detonating force": "detonating" doesn't seem like quite the right metaphor here.

• Tried to rephrase. It is difficult however to exactly translate the Greek word as it is in my source and as I understand it.

• "the interweaving between form and space": can you unpack this a bit more?

• Well, I tried to. I added one more explanatory sentence.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The heading "supposed Byzantinism" is POV (implying that the supposition is incorrect).

• What about "Suggested Byzantine Affinities" I wrote?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, though, it looks really good. —Celithemis 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I should mention I made a printout to read earlier today, so if you already changed some of the things I mention here, don't mind me. I'll try to do a bit of copyediting based on the notes I scribbled, as well. —Celithemis 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One more I noticed while copyediting:

Acislo Antonio Palomino de Castro y Velasco, a Spanish painter and writer on art, described his mature work as "contemptible and ridiculous".^[2] Some of these commentators, such as Céan Bermúdez, argued that El Greco made his works so eccentric that he became ridiculous and worthy of scorn.^[3]

This seems repetitive: "contemptible and ridiculous" is virtually the same thing as "ridiculous and worthy of scorn." Maybe consolidate the two sentences? Or even just say "also argued". —Celithemis 06:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merged.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, I should have copyedited BEFORE posting here. Just a few more things:

• "the structural code in the morphology of the mature El Greco": this could use more explanation.

• I tried to offer some further explanation.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "he visited his friend Ignacio Zuloaga": it's not made clear why this is relevant to Picasso's interest in El Greco.

• Because Zuloaga was the owner of the Fifth Seal. I'll clarify that.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "he declared that color had primacy over drawing": does this mean primacy over *line*?

• Well, by "drawing" I want to say design. Is "line" saying the same thing?--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Under Further assessments, there's some repetitive phrasing: "typically Mannerist" and then "a typical representative of Mannerism."

• I tried to fix it.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The section on his Byzantinism is confusingly organized; it's hard to work out what the progression of views over time has been. —Celithemis 08:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to restructure the section and make this progression through time more obvious. But it is such the complexity of the various opinions that this is not an easy task!--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank for all your comments. I tried to address your concerns and I'll keep working on your detailed remarks. If you wish to do any further copy-edit, please feel free to proceed.--Yannismarou 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The changes completely resolved nearly all my concerns, so rather than go point by point I'll just drop down here....

I'm actually still confused about the house. Is the sentence saying that he never had a large house? Or that he did have one, and the inventory of household goods doesn't reflect that because he got rid of the furnishings?

Re "color over drawing" -- in that case, maybe form is the right word? Or possibly composition. It's not usual to refer to drawing in a painting in English, and I think line is probably more specific than what you mean.

Your revisions to the Byzantinism section definitely make things clearer (despite the welter of critical opinions on the subject!) The first sentence winds up being a bit vague, though. Perhaps something like "Since the beginning of the twentieth century, scholars have debated whether El Greco's style had Byzantine origins."? —Celithemis 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I removed this confusing sentence about the inventory. After all it did not add everything important. I'll implement your proposal and replace the first sentence according to your proposal.--Yannismarou 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aurelian

I would like to know what are the weak points of this article, and how to improve it.--Panarjedde 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nice start! Some remarks:

• The article needs inline citations.
• In the lead you have a whole seperate paragraph with its full name. I don't know if this is definitely necessary.
• You don't have any information about his early years. Isn't there any available?
• What was the "Palmyrene Empire", the "Gallic Empire" and the "Sassanid Empire". You should offer us some explanations I think.
• After adding inline citations, you should reorganize "References and further reading". You put the sources you used in "References" and further material in "Further reading". "External links" is usually a seperate section.
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
• I think you could add a section with assessments about Aurelian or with an analysis of his legacy, if the sources offer such a possibility.--Yannismarou 09:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Articles archived - 2006