Talk:James Robert Baker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star James Robert Baker is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia CD Selection James Robert Baker is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Jeffpw (talk ยท contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] GA on hold

I've put this article's nomination on hold. Several issues:

  • The lead is not long enough. This is one of the criteria for a good article (1 (b)).
  • The external links are not in a standard format. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) (1 (c)).
  • Also, the article is just one long biography (failing 1 (b)). Could you include a legacy section for example? I'm sure there's some discussion of his legacy in the biography section already.
  • The infobox could have more information. What was his magnum opus?

I've put the article on hold, so alert me when you feel the changes suggested have been made and I'll rereview. CloudNine 16:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, CloudNine. I actually *shortened* the lead, because the auto suggestions said it was too long. I will do what I can to lengthen it without repeating the info in the body.
  • As to his Magnum Opus, I had that listed in the info box, but there is some controversy about using that section of the box now, and someone deleted it (see the history for more info).
  • I can rework the last part of the bio into a "legacy section", if you feel that is necessary to "wikify" the article.Jeffpw 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the lead *should* be repeating the info in the body of the article; it should represent a short summary of the article's content. See WP:LEAD. MLilburne 16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Good. It reads a lot better now. However, the lead section I feel should have another paragraph describing his legacy (which is a fairly large section), and you need to add fair use rationale for the picture. Other than that, it's a good good article.
A tip for improvement is to include a picture of one of his books in the biography, if only to make the text easier to read (with some criticism of the book to justify fair use of course). Just a suggestion. CloudNine 17:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've passed it as a good article. One more tip, for the book images, use a caption like so: [[Book name]] (year) - it makes it easier to quickly figure out what the image is about. Also, fair use rationale is needed on all those images. Look at other author articles (Douglas Adams perhaps?) for more tips. I tend to look at FAs when writing new content - they're a great help (for example, I got tips from Pink Floyd while writing Pixies). CloudNine 19:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

Why is the controversy section in the Biography section? It's not biographical, and would make much more sense as a seperate section. CloudNine 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The controversy (as I see it) *is* biographical, in that it is what led to his publishing difficulties. As it is now ordered, it goes from his screenwriting and first book (writer)to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th (controversy), to his difficulties and suicide (death). It has a natural progression. To put controversy after Legacy would (IMO) lead to confusion on the reader's part as to why he committed suicide. Jeffpw 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that the article follows a logical order at the moment, and that to move the controversy section would be confusing. One partial solution might be to simply remove the overarching "biography" heading, and simply have the headings run "early life," "writer," "controversy," "death," "legacy". MLilburne 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • What a simple fix, MLilburne! It's done now, and I think it eliminates any confusion that might possibly have arisen. Thanks for a creative solution. Jeffpw 20:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inadequate references

Sorry I didn't get a chance to review this article when it was at FAC: many (most) of the references are inadequate. It should be easy to clean these up so the article won't require a Featured article review.. Here are some examples:

  • (specify this site in the references, with a consistent bibliographic style - I see it is listed as an External link, which isn't where it belongs if it was used as a source) Robertson's official Baker website
    • DONE
  • (This article needs a title or an author - is Roy Riverburg the author or the name of the article - one or the other is missing.) Roy Rivenburg, Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1993; Page E-1,
    • DONE
  • (This article has no title, how is a reader supposed to find it without knowing the name of the article?) New York Times, November 24, 1997; Section B; Page 7; Column 2
    • DONE
  • (Ditto - no name for the article here.) L.A. Times, November 15, 1997, page A-20
    • DONE
  • (This doesn't include author, title, publication date, etc.) L.A. Times, November 15, 1997, page A-20
    • DONE
  • These are not full sources - readers need to know author, publication dated, and article title - a reader has no means of locating the articles:
    • Daily Variety, December 11, 1997.
      • DONE
    • New York Times, September 4, 1988
      • DONE
    • Press release of clippings from Baker's agent
      • DONE
    • Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1993, Monday, Home Edition, View; Part E; Page 2; Column 1
      • This one is just letters to the editor--should I type "letters section"?
        • Under author - but that raises a problem of reliable sources, as letters to the editor can be considered "self published" - double check what you were referencing with that, and see if it needs a better source. Sandy (Talk) 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: What I was referencing with that was the public reaction, specifically the letters to the editor. I cited that as an example. Jeffpw 05:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And so on: I could keep going, but there is just about not a single reference which satisfies WP:V. Sources must be verifiable. Please work on these so the article won't need to be reviewed at WP:FAR. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, a lot of these are coming out wrong because you're using cite web for news sources - for those, you need to use cite news. I hate the cite templates anyway: I just manually type out the info, since the cite templates often mess up formatting. On the ones I'm correcting, I'm just entering the info manually - you may find that easier. Sandy (Talk) 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doublecheck this one: it does not point to the title that was previously indicated. Sandy (Talk) 22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find this in the Chronicle archives - is the title correct? Up-Front or Undercover?; Dan Levy, The San Francisco Chronicle, June 20, 1993; Section: Sunday Review; Pg. 9 Sandy (Talk) 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, that is correct, according to my files. I got it on a LexisNexis search. The San Francisco Chronicle

JUNE 20, 1993, SUNDAY, SUNDAY EDITION

Up-Front or Undercover?

BYLINE: REVIEWED BY, DAN LEVY

SECTION: SUNDAY REVIEW; Pg. 9; GAY/LESBIAN BOOKS

LENGTH: 711 words

  • If you open the link to the article you think is improperly titled, and the look at the top of your browser window, you'll see the original title as I had referenced it"James Robert Baker: The Last Angry Gay Man?". I don't know why the article itself has a different title--I never even noticed it, to be honest. Jeffpw 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • ah, I see - in that case, I'm not sure which to use ? One is the title of the webpage, the other is supposedly the actual article. Sandy (Talk) 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The name of the site (a sub-site, actually) Is The Last Angry Gay Man. The article title is as you referenced it. Please let me know if there is any more that needs to be done. I have got to go to sleep now. It's after midnight and I have to be up at 5am for work. Jeffpw 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One last thing: I can't get ref #24 to format correctly. I will try to get it done properly tomorrow. Right now it is clickable, but looks a hash. Jeffpw 23:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll finish up, and leave a note here of anything remaining. Get some zzzz. Sandy (Talk) 23:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mostly done

  • Still missing - Daily Variety, December 11, 1997.
    • DONE
  • Not sure what this is - If it's a book, it needs a publisher; if it's a magazine, it needs an article title. Pegrum, Mark. Mots pluriels; Vol.1. no 3. 1997
    • DONE

Much better now, but this should not have passed FA in the condition it was in before. I'm also not thrilled with the quality of some of the sources, but I was traveling when it was at FAC, and didn't review. If you can improve the sources (removing self-published and tabloid sources where possible and adding more sources like LA Times and NY Times), it would be good. Sandy (Talk) 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I am not sure what you mean by tabloid sources. Can you give an example? I didn't knowingly use any tabloids as references. As to self published, the TrashFiction website is from an established British writer with several books to his name. Christian Suave is also a published author who reviews cinema and books for Solaris (magazine). The axiongrafix.com site, though self-published, is an interview with Baker himself. Thus I assume (though I cannot prove) that it was originally published elsewhere. The problem I had is that Baker is a minor writer who died 10 years ago. Very little information is available--I had to pay to get most of the articles I found, as they were not freely available on the internet or at the library here in Amsterdam. I would love to have had better sources, but ultimately I had to work with what I could find. In any event, thank you very much for your help last night. I was working several hours on this, and I could see you working along side me the whole time....and longer. It is appreciated more than you could know. Jeffpw 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds good - I just noticed when I was running through the refs, that Wiki says (for example) that the Herald Sun is a tabloid. Anyway, it looks MUCH better now ! I'm unwatching this now, so ping me if you need any help in the future. Sandy (Talk) 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herald Sun

From my understanding, the term tabloid in relation to this paper has more to do with the format than the content, since it is a merging of a conservative morning tabloid newspaper with an afternoon broadsheet. I have never read the paper myself (except for the one article I used for research here), but their website says it's Australia's largest selling newspaper. Jeffpw 11:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)