Talk:William Gillette
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
William Gillette has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
|
William Gillette has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Contents |
[edit] Identity of the subject
Is this the same "William Gillette" that invented the modern safety razor? According to this article from the BBC, the safety razor was invented in 1895 by an American named "William Gillette", which fits this guy's description. Any ideas? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:42, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but it was invented by King C. Gillette. --webkid 08:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Quality of the article
Much of this article is not written in english or anything that even resembles english. It needs to be carefully worked over by someone who at least has a basic command of the written language! Cokerwr 17:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- As opposed to someone who doesn't know how to properly capitalize proper nouns or proper adjectives? Compared to the condition that the article was in, back in early April, it's quite readable now. --JohnDBuell 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:) --AndresArce 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)AndresArce
[edit] Fresh, cursory look
- Hello! I saw your request for additional peer reviews on this article, and I thought I might throw in a comment. I have not "READ" the article yet, I only looked over it for layout. I think the section 3.1 etc could use indenting - this is something that actually irritates me about wikipedia, subsections don't have indenting. I will look over the article a little more thoroughly right away. Em3rald 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- A second look, slightly less cursory. First, the language is a little bit clumsy. It's definitely readable, no question, but there is just something odd, perhaps forced, about the way the article reads. I can make some suggestions (and fix some myself) later. Two other points: First, red links = no good (in my opinion). The easy way to fix this is to create stub articles about those subjects (such as actors, etc) which would induce others to contribute. Second, wikification. This article is in dire need of additional wikification (links, and possibly some templates) to give it a more overall professional appeal. I don't know if there are any Wikiprojects that apply, but that would be a logical approach. I'll post more in the next few days. Em3rald 11:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can't say I've ever heard of anyone indenting subsections on Wikipedia before. I can think of three FAs where this does not take place. There's not really anything on the subject in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just don't think that such an idea has been addressed, and current practice is not to indent, as you noticed. Second, I agree some of the language may still require rewriting. The article was largely originally written by a non-native speaker of English, and has been greatly revised by two native speakers of English, but at some point you just need to have someone else take a fresh look. Third, "to red link or not to red link" has been pretty hotly debated, at least over the last year or so (and some people have felt strongly against them even longer). I see them as "calls to action" - I don't know how much information can be found about everything with a red link in this article - I have a feeling that some real research in a library will be needed to provide proper references, which the article does still lack. The other alternative is to just remove the wikilinks altogether. Thanks for your comments! --JohnDBuell 11:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gillette Castle
I removed the link to "Robert the Devil," since neither in Wikipedia nor elsewhere online can I find a reference to a Norman fortress by this name. The link within Wikipedia points to the story of an individual, not a fortress. If someone can provide a reference to this fortress, please do so. Septegram 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
