Talk:Jean Keene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Jean Keene has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
July 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Alaska Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Alaska-related articles to a feature-quality standard. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Biography assessment rating comment 2 References to Major publications about Jean 3 Controversy section 4 Replaced footnote detail about birthdate 5 GA nomination review

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yksin 07:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to Major publications about Jean

Is there a way we can provide links to the Life, People, Ripley, and other major publications that have written about Jean? So far I thinks we only have the Reader's Digest and National Geographic ones. Wrad 05:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

Anon, you are quite welcome to provide your input to this section. However, erasing cited material and adding uncited material is not really making the article better. May I recommend creating a second paragraph in which you rebut the argument in the first one, and then cite the sources used? I'm interested in hearing the other side, but this just isn't the way to do it. Wrad 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that. I reverted this same edit, same source, a few days ago. --Yksin 00:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced footnote detail about birthdate

Someone just removed the detail from a footnote about one source's alternative date for her date of birth. I've replaced it because (1) it's in a footnote & thus does not interfere with the flow of the main text; and more importantly (2) if someone else came along depending on that source as their only source, they might thing this article has her birthdate wrong; the detail in the footnote informs any future editors that the discrepancy is being paid attention to. This is a pretty standard way to deal with discrepancies in sources. Rather than simply choosing one source as being more reliable than another when in fact it might not be, the discrepancies are instead mentioned & dealt with. -- Yksin 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Actually, what 209 is saying is that there was no discrepancy between sources. But I recall checking the date in Anderson's book twice, because of the discrepancy. I'm in Spokane now & can't check against the book -- I'll go back to 209's edit for now, & check the book when I return to Anchorage next week. --Yksin 23:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Upon reviewing this article against the good article criteria, I have decided to put the nomination on hold for no more than seven days while the issues listed below are addressed. Overall, I believe this is a good article. I found and fixed a few minor issues myself, others I have listed below.

• The lead should summarize the article. Therefore, the lead should state that she was born in Minnesota while the article expands on what city. Currently, it's the opposite. It also does not include information from the criticism or public attention sections.

Y Done Both issues here addressed, I think. --Yksin 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikification seems odd in this article. Words need not be wikified multiple times in an article of this length; only in their first appearance. It seems odd, also, that words like axe and chainsaw are wikified, but not words like herding and horse breaker. I recommend the wikification of additional words throughout the article.

Y Done just went through and did a lot of linking. Wrad 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• "...when her head hit against the arena wall." - "Against" seems unnecessary. Also, does ref 2 cover everything in this paragraph?

Y Done and yes, the ref does cover it all. Wrad 21:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• The external links section doesn't really include what is considered external links. This should be added to the further reading section and the EL section removed.

Y Done agree. Wrad 21:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll check back soon. Drop a line on my talk page or here if you have any questions. LaraLove 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work. The article has been promoted. Regards, LaraLove 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went to add it to the GA list, but I'm not sure where to put it. Any suggestions? LaraLove 04:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got me... good grief. There's no biography category. Looks like there's a whole lotta bios that are uncategorized good articles too, no doubt because of that lack. I certainly can't find an existing good article category that truly fits. --Yksin 11:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be. I'll look into it. I'm so sorry it's not listed yet. I promise I won't forget. I'm leaving for work now, but I'll sort it out when I get home tonight. Even if that means creating a new category. Regards, LaraLove 20:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been listed as GA under the following category: History > World History > Historical figures > Other.

Regards, LaraLove 04:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah good job! Thanks for your persistence in finding a good category. --Yksin 04:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

However, at the bottom of this talk page, this article still shows up as being as uncategorized. --Yksin 05:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's automatically generated. It should update in a few hours. LaraLove 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The uncategorized tag arises from the lack of "Category=" being included in the article history or, in this case, the GA template. I'm in the process of creating a task force to improve this problem, as there are 1,500+ articles with this problem. I'll correct it for this article tomorrow. I have to determine what categories are listed for the template and pick the right one for this article. Regards, LaraLove 08:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I thought there were way too many uncategorized GA articles listed; now we know why. --Yksin 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)