Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biographies

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

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

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

Done. Quadzilla99 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Achievements list is excessive. Kaldari 07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Achievements list is now a separate page. Quadzilla99 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Article isn't accurate. Gambling problems need to be mentioned. BallingOutFull 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Quadzilla99 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

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

Needs to be copyedited for spelling. (edit comment)

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

I'm keeping this article at Start-class for the moment. The lead section doesn't summarise the article. The general characteristics of Aeschylus' works are treated very briefly, and there's nothing on their reception or influence.

Also, referencing is very problematic at the moment. Important statements are uncited; e.g., that the Prometheus Bound "considered by modern scholars to be the work of an unknown playwright". The sources cited by inline citations in the "Life" section are mostly very old or otherwise of dubious reliability. There are two separate sets of footnotes, and those under "Notes" aren't connected to the body of the article. Most of the "References" aren't even cited in the article.

Thank you to the editors for their work so far. EALacey 11:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

• formatting is awful
• pictures tagged with wrong tags
• Add in line citations Errabee 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Changed rating to B. This is great writing and a great subject. Well done. Maybe there is a good Internet biography that would complement the art in the external links? Maybe more categories to add? Biography peer review would be an optional next step, then GA and then FAC. -Susanlesch 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to leave feedback, but none of your suggestions relate to the assignment of a "B" rating, as opposed to any other rating. I hope you will understand that I find "B" inaccurate and offensive, given the substantial work I've put in here, and I would prefer the rating was simply left off the article until it is submitted to GAC or FAC. Thanks! –Outriggr § 02:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Another user submitted this article for assessment which I tried to do. I thought another source or two from the Internet might be good but they aren't a requirement. If the stub section tag is removed when you are ready, then I think that an A rating is in order. Would that help or not? I would think it would also be ok to revert the B back to Start. -Susanlesch 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for getting so excited about it. My plans for the article are to finish the lead (always the last thing to be done), expand the section-stub, and fill out any years that are glossed over in the bio. Also, if I was to submit to FAC, I want to find a "core" biography on Rodin to use as a source. I would be exceedingly happy with an "A" when the section-stub is completed, but I don't want the article to have it because I whined. :) I'm also not clear on whether an "A" can only be assigned by a more formal review. Basically, I am aware of the article ratings system in place - and I find it wanting - so if "B" is most appropriate within that system, that's OK. I will not "remove" it again. :) –Outriggr § 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• An A before GA is unusual but not unprecedented. Whatever works best for you and others is all right. I typed (and cut) "tempted to say 'A'" the first time and now wish it was there to show you in the edit history. Again sorry and best wishes for this project. -Susanlesch 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I bet it's easier to review articles that nobody is currently attached to. :) –Outriggr § 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

I've upgraded the rating to B. This should be submitted for a GA review. --Bookworm857158367 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

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

   2. Factually accurate?: The article is factually accurate based on the references shown.
   3. Broad in coverage?: Though the article is somewhat short, thoroughness of content is evident.
   4. Neutral point of view?: The biases expressed in the sources are all expressed in the article.
   5. Article stability?: Stability evident.
   6. Images?: The article only has one image, which is more than enough for now.

The article "Thucydides" is a well-written and well-sourced article. Though the article does need a few more citations in order to become an A-class article, it is still good content-wise. Deucalionite 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

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

Needs better everything. Needs to be completely reorganized from top to bottom. It is way too long. Parts of some sections literally repeat other sections. Prose is often ungrammatical, awkward and prolix. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I upgraded this article to B, because it clearly rates it. I think it does continue to need better referencing (and inline citations for every paragrah) before it could be passed for good article status. Right now it looks like it's a good candidate for GA, however.--Bookworm857158367 13:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

• From this article, it never becomes clear why the Brothers Grimm should be a core biography. Indeed, any significance section is lacking.
• needs in-line references
• Large list, needs to be replaced by a paragraph about their most important fairy tales.
• No fair use rationale for the bank note. This picture might not be eligible in this case, as the article is not on the bank note. (cf Fair Use guide line for the Barry Bonds baseball card example. Errabee 20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

I agree. The discussion/archive pages are quite irritating and depressing to read. I have expanded and amended another Presley article (the '68 Comeback Special), my first major edit. In the absence of any criticism, I find myself actually thinking about making major, much needed revisions to this article, in this case condensing it and possibly creating extra links. However I am put off by the thought of the time it will take, and the inevitable interference that will come from those who have already made this article as bad as it is. I think Mr. Presley deserves better... Rikstar 09:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are non-existant in GA's let alone Featured Articles. There also several fact tags, unproperly cited sources, and an overall opressive length. Quadzilla99 03:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Also, I think the article is too lengthy. I think it would be more readable if it were edited down a bit. As of this comment, the article stands at 82K and more than 10,000 words. Kaldari 03:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Fairly short, I'd say. But it lacks structure, perhaps that is what you mean? Errabee 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

After reading the article and footnotes I find this request is not necessary. Amerindianarts 14:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone care to check the sections of this article "Kant's moral philosophy" and "Aesthetic philosophy" and see if this is acceptable according to the project? Amerindianarts 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How responsible is it for project members to tag the article and not reply? Efforts to comply are being disrupted by user Spinoza1111 who's additions continually do not comply, despite warnings. Amerindianarts 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Needs more inline citations. Some of the lists need to be converted to prose. Kaldari 23:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Stalin was born in 1879, not 1878 (edit comment)

• in-line references
• Yasnaya Polyana was not only home to the Tolstoyans, but also a gathering place for all kinds of artists. Many of the Peredvizhniki stayed there for shorter or longer periods, most notably Ilya Yefimovich Repin and Nikolai Ge.

Errabee 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

There is no way this article is a "B" class. It is barely a skeleton of article with a lot of "fluff", it's a C at best and should not be included in a CD-ROM version. The biography section is nearly non-existent, that section should be 5 to 10 times as long. The biography is the main point of the article. Also the "career overview" is largely original research and un-sourced and missing a lot of material. -- Stbalbach 15:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If true, that still doesn't mean it's not a B, but rather why it's not an A. To be a Start, it just has to have one of the following:

• a particularly useful picture or graphic
• multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
• a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
• multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article

To be a B:

Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.

--plange 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a subjective call, I just don't see this as being a B article. There is basically no Biography section (what is there is poor and should probably be removed). Considering this is a Biography article. -- Stbalbach

Yep, and I would call that a "significant gap" that is defined under B. In fact I'm the one that noted on the to-do list that it needed such info. I'm not saying your doing this, but keep in mind that the scale is just meant to give a ballpark of where the article is so that WP:WPBIO can know where it stands and prioritize when it should focus attention on it, and not to make a WP:POINT. This article has already been identified by our group (WPBIO) as needing help and is our first collaboration under the core biographies sub-project. So, let's dig in and help improve the article :-) --plange 15:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Heavy vandalism has occured in mid to late September 2006. Check on any remaining vandalism.
• Several sections contain only the stub template. These need to be expanded (d'oh).
• in-line references must be added Errabee 02:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• A-class While there needs to be some refinement of the article, I think this article could be a featured article with a little work. I disagree with Matthead since I do not see any sigificant gaps in the article's material. --chemica 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Article is comprehensive but only has 3 inline citiations. It would not be suitable for FA, but could possibly clear GA. Setting quality to B-class for now. I would recommend nominating this article for GA and see how it does. Kaldari 07:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Major copyright problems with the images. Many paintings have been tagged as fair use, but the rationale is missing (this is easily solved). I have more problems with the Life magazine cover, as this would certainly not be fair use (as per the counterexample of the Barry Bonds baseball card). And the photograph of Picasso and his friends does not state who the photograoher is, so the claim of PD can not be verified.
• In line references are too few.
• The intro lists several periods. A logical structure of the article would then be according to these periods, but alas. Errabee 10:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Picasso's full name is actually Pablo Diego José Santiago Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno Crispín Crispiniano de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz Picasso, otherwise known as Pablo Picasso. I think they missed out Santiago and Cipriano. (edit comment)

Intro is short. Needs info about controversy between Hobbes and Locke. Only 1 inline citation. Kaldari 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Quotations section is probably too long. Kaldari 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is too long and boring need more pages some color

Need to grow more ideas from Voltaire that affected deism

[edit] Factual contradiction-Voltaire articles

I notice there is a factual contradiction on the English version of the Voltaire article and the version francaise. On the English page, it suggests that Voltaire made much profit from the slave trade, although he disapproved of the abuse of slaves.

The French portal states that (my rough translation) "Many think he profited from the slave trade and cite a letter to a slaver in support of this..." "But he was adamantly opposed to slavery..." and discusses citations to support this view.

Did he accept slavery, but argue against maltreatment of slaves? Or did he disapprove of slavery in general?

It would be nice to see these articles corrected and made consistent with each other.

(I am a senior at university, and this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia discussion forums. I apologize for any mistakes or misunderstandings on my part in advance! Thanks!) Katt Muskuna 17:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Start class was a bit harsh given the amount of content, i'm upgrading it to B. Tom 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• add much more about his painting, and his influences upon other painters
• add in-line citations

Errabee 12:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Part of the reason why the so-called Rutherford experiment is not mentioned as prominently as it could be is that, from Geiger-Marsden experiment, it was "an experiment done by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden in 1909, under the direction of Ernest Rutherford". Carcharoth 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rutherford model of the atom is only mentioned as a "See also". This, along with the experiment, should also be expanded. I suggest adding sections that summarise what already exists at these articles, but focussing on what Rutherford did. Carcharoth 17:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

And better structure.--Yannismarou 08:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)