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

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)

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

Decoding the Exodus?

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

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

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

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

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

 ( Decoding of the Exodus )?

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

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

In my opinion this is worthy of an A-class, so I have reassessed it. MLilburne 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

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

Done, thanks to Onomatopoeia. Quadzilla99 15:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Boone is recognized by many as the "founder of Kentucky", and as such, merits the Top importance designation. This article has passed a featured article review. Acdixon 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

The article is indeed quote-heavy, and I also see many one-sentence paragraphs. I think the B-Class rating is correct, because of the amount of infos that the article contains, and of the quite good level of referencing. I can't go higher than B, because the article has not gone through a GAC review.--Yannismarou 18:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Will edit accordingly. Kmzundel 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Per your comments, incorporated many of the quotes into the prose and combined paragraphs. Not done by any means, but making progress. Kmzundel 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Inline citations have been and are being added. The lead seems leady to me... Any hints as to what precisely you mean? I wouldn't want to create a cumbersome intro by adding more... Pinkville 01:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

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

[edit] Assessment by the Football WikiProject

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

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

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

Rating B: the article borders on hagiographyBernardL 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

````JJ```` (edit comment)

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan has just been promoted to a Featured Article. Therefore, I have updated the WPBiography rating to match. Cimm^[talk] 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

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

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

[edit] Needs work on effect of Revolution Settlement on Scots

Heading says it

-- TimNelson 13:31, 28 March 2007 (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)

As for importance, she is the Robert Moses of modern fashion. 'Nuff said. Daniel Case 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

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

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

• Concert performances looks stubby. You could expand on that or include it in the rest of the article. Done. AppleJuggler 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Miscellanea could be added to other sections of the article. Done. AppleJuggler 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Partial discography is too long. They don't seem to like that in FAC. Done. AppleJuggler 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• The article looks profeesional at the introduction but is not in a physical or mental attractive way for the audience to carry on reading. Dealt with. AppleJuggler 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• The discography looks shabby and needs sharpening up. Done. AppleJuggler 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• It was a close call between Start and B, but I decided to be harsh on your request. No worries. AppleJuggler 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I rated this as "A" class, but I felt like making it an "FA" unilaterally. I'm still newish and I'm not sure how the process runs, but this article should be on an FA track, either through Bio Peer Review or elsewhere. Excellent. Informative, concise, well sourced, illustrated, organized. I think it's a model article all around.

I did enter "yes" to "needs infobox" in the template. I think perhaps an infobox would be useful, though looking around I can't find any pre-baroque composers who have one. The design of Infobox musical artist template is much better suited for Mariah Carey than great composers of any era. I did notice that Hildegard of Bingen uses Infobox Biography. I'll leave it to those who have made this article as good as it is, to decide if an infobox would actually help it. [copying this to regular talk page]--Turangalila (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

I think it's the lack of citations that's stopping the article from reaching GA status. I should try helping out on this at some stage. The article on my other favourite band, Can, suffers from the same problem.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

• current POV disputes need to be settled plange 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Who rated it GA? It is not a good article. Happily ever after 23:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Why? Although the article does provide good background information and is written in a way that the scientific information is understandable to a lay person, it does have a definite tone or bent that was very noticeable. Reading this article, I got the sense it was written as a response to other articles rather than as a stand-alone source of information.

I am aware of criticisms of the treatment Franklin received as a woman in the field of science. From this article I get the sense that she faced no undeserved difficulties at any time and all controversies regarding her work are due to posthumous speculation on the part of other authors. There is also the addition of the funeral card for the double helix, for which I could find no context for the joke, other than the caption "she was wrong!". Information on the nomination and awarding procedures for the Nobel Prize are included with reasons for her ineligibility, but I didn't see a clear topic statement: there is a controversy in which some people feel she was denied inclusion in the Nobel Prize unjustly.

I am coming away from the article with the feeling that Rosalind Franklin was a minor figure who did limited work in genetics, and controversies regarding her recognition are unfounded. Since Franklin is not an example of scientist whose work has been discredited, I don't feel that is an appropriate final impression. I wonder if some simple clarifying statements might be enough to give the article a more balanced feel. Diggnity 04:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

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

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

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)