Talk:Irving Crane/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Chalk stub.png This internal Wikipedia page is part of WikiProject Cue sports, a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of pool, carom billiards and other cue sports. If you would like to participate, you can edit the content page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Passed as GA

Hi, I just passed this article as GA. Here the summary (WP:WIAGA):

  1. Well written - PASS. I am definitely more interested in Crane now.
  2. Verifiable - PASS. Very impressed how this article is perforated with references.
  3. Broad - PASS. I am not a pool fan at all, but it shows what impact he had on and off the table.
  4. NPOV - PASS.
  5. Stable - PASS. See history.
  6. Images - PASS. Offending image now fixed, I saw just now.
  7. Misc - to anyone who says the article is too short: less is sometimes more (See spoo, a FA)

Amendments: seperate Biography into "Professional career" and "Personal life". Also special (albeit alread wiki-linked) pool-specific terms ("run", "safety" etc.) should be explained briefly, as they are not immediately understandable by non-experts. But this article is definitely a GA. Keep up the good work! —Onomatopoeia 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the careful review and pass Onomatopoeia. Regarding defining terms, I'll think about how to do so without disturbing the flow. With regard the structural suggestion, I wrote this from a chronological standpoint, trying to seamlessly weave together his personal life and his professional career as they unfolded. Certainly all of our lives are messy and it's not so easy to keep them separate. While I don't dispute that separating them out into sections would also be a logical structure, to do so would involve a complete rewrite. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Have to concur strongly with Fuhghettaboutit. There is no compelling reason to split an article up into personal vs. professional sections if the article is well written chronologically (indeed, I think doing so would make the article lesser rather than better), especially if there isn't anything especially notable about the subject's personal life. For an article like Anna Nicole Smith, I think such sectioning would be important, but not for a non-scandalous pool player. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: If it grows to such a point that it needs sections, they should be chronological, not topical, e.g. "Early years", "Professional years", "Later years", or something to that effect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Peacock language

There are some slight WP:PEACOCK issues, I think (this flaw is shared with a number of other articles on BCA Hall of Famers; I'm not picking on this one in particular). Claims of emminence are hard to source as bare claims; the two sources cited for the claim here probably need to be detailed in the article prose as to what they actually say. See this edit to the Steve Davis article for an example of how to fix this sort of thing. I don't think this is a WP:GA problem for this article, but very probably would be a WP:FA problem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)