Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality/5

• B Class

I rate this article as B-Class article. Article is well written and has broad coverage. It is well comprehensive but requires large amount of work and copy-editing. The article's priority is top. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Needs copyedit (edit comment)

A very good article, and a very decent one. And an honest and well-balanced account at that. It might be a suprise to find out how many people here in Russia had sympathized with Mr. Pinochet even in the Communist days, to say nothing of his numerous mourners today. V.V., Moscow, Russia (edit comment)

Those people who made previous request for peer review didnt take note of review made by me and were absent for a long gap,so I updated article on my own to a substantial amount.Made more balanced ,diluted POVs wherever possible.

I would request one more peer review to bring article to F.A. level

Mahitgar 08:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

This article reads like a list of Democrat talking points. It has a huge section entitled "Controversies" with details about everything she's ever done wrong, but not a single word about her accomplishments. NCdave 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

This article is shy of a GA rating because it needs citations and other details such as an appropriate infobox.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

I do not change the rating, until the GAC review is over. The article is informative, but not thoroughly referenced. Let's see what the GAC reviewers will say, and then or even now a review could be helpful.--Yannismarou 09:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

As to the B-Class, my feeling is that while basic information is presented accurately, and generally well enough cited, the whole article has a bit too chatty tone, and the overall flow is somewhat weak. It is informative, but it's definitely not writing that sparkles. It would also be nice to have more detailed descriptions of hook's concrete theoretical work—if not book-by-book, than at least with more specificity on individual concepts and trends. LotLE×talk 17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

1. Butler's two Corps commanders (Gillmore & Smith) were veteran West Pointers who failed to follow Butler's orders (again consult the OR)at Drewry's Bluff, Swift Creek and two attempts (one by Gilmore & the other by Smith) to capture Petersburg. Their failures came very close to insubordination; 2. Grant's original orders were for Butler to march on Richmond, never Petersburg, and link up south and west of Richmond. This with an army of 30k while maintaining a strong supply base at the Hundred; 3. Butler not Grant, nor Gilmore/Smith saw opportunity at Petersburg and made two attemps to seize the city. Smith actually had large sections of the trenches and failed to sweep into the city! 4. Grant did not suffer fools well (ex: Banks)and would have relieve Butler had there been cause. In fact, both Gillmore and Smith were dismissed due to poor performance & insubordination. (Smith claimed Grant maintained Butler due to Butler seeing Grant drunk - I do not believe Grant drank while on active campaign); 5. Historians (Catton amoung the leaders)have a biased view of Butler because Butler was not martial in appearance or behavior. These prejudices can be traced from the last days of the war; 6. Give the confederates some credit- Beauregard, Evander Law, and other veteran combat commanders led veteran combat units from the Army of N. VA that certainly played a roll in disrupting the operations both north and south of the James River.

I would recommend Robertson's book "Back Door to Richmond" and Edward Longacre's study on the Army of the James for more information on the complex issues surounding the Bermuda Hundred operations. (edit comment)

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

Narrowly a B-Class - This could use citations and more references, not to mention further expansion.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

I've rated this article as B-class quality as of 20 January 2007. The ministry and history section needs to be fleshed out a bit more and the controversies section is still a little bit messy and contains a number of weasel words.

This article tends to attract vandalism and soapboxing every few days or so, so it needs to be monitored for POV issues and the like creeping in.

Mid-importance for the Charismatic Christianity WikiProject: Benny Hinn is a fairly major character in the Charismatic movement. I'm not involved in the Biography WikiProject so I'll leave others to decide on how it should be rated there. — jammycakes (t) 00:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Needs more info on his life, versus his views. The quotes section needs to be trimmed. And if it's possible to put some sort of objective assessment of how accepted his work is among various academic populations (which it might not be), that would be very helpful. Kalkin 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Yannismarou, thank you for your comments. I agree B is a generous rating. The prose is very good if it can be sourced. For now, all I could do is add the infobox, and take care of the red link and the citation template (so at least the article is no longer in the category for unsourced statements). Maybe others who are familiar with the subject and subject matter will be able to go from there. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 16:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC). minor edit at :26 (edit comment)

I've just done that.--HisSpaceResearch 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

I think this page is really solid. Deserves some kind of kudo. --217.40.26.169 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. No editors involved in the writing of an article should self-assess their article at this level. Best venue for achieving this class is to request a Peer review.

RPrinter 03:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Good start needs some copy editing, a photo, and a couple of more citations for statements. I know basketball is his favorite sport but I doubt he is considered a guru. Guru implies genius or renowned teacher of the sport like Pete Newell or Tex Winter. The citations that are there are in very good shape. Quadzilla99 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Rating 12th Feb 2007

I've rated this B class as it seems to meet the standard as of the 12th of Feb 2007. Some notes though

• Lead is too short and needs to summarise the article better
• a bit of an minor issue in the references. Walker 1994, P.xx is more usually formatted Walker C. (1994) p.xx . AC/DC - Bonfire needs an ISBN
• Needs editing for flow and conciseness.

After the Valentines broke up in 1970, Scott joined the band, Fraternity. Fraternity released two albums and some singles, gaining moderate success, but the group went into hiatus in 1973.

could be

When the Valentines broke up in 1970 Scott joined the band Fraternity, who had moderate success releasing two albums and some singles before going into hiatus in 1973.

and

• full dates eg:July 9 1946 should be wikilinked for date preferences to work
• a few too many sentences/paragraphs starting In <date> x happenned - these don't tend to read well after the first few.

Apart from those issues well done - a great read - Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

SHADOW arts minister Boris Johnson was sacked by Conservative party leader Michael Howard last night amid fresh allegations about his private life. The flamboyant MP, who dovetailed his political career with his post as editor of the Spectator, had spent the last week dismissing claims of an extra-marital affair with Petronella Wyatt, a columnist on the magazine. But with Sunday newspapers preparing to publish further details of their relationship today - including claims that Wyatt had aborted their child - Johnson was told by Howard to go.

this is from an old news paper article. (edit comment)