Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/2007

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Mendy Rudolph

The result of the discussion was:

promoted.

This biography is well sourced and has a good amount of content. It doesn't quite have the length to be a WP:FA, so I thought I would see if it meets the A-class requirements. RyguyMN 06:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Length per se isn't really a factor, completeness is. I wish I knew whether the article could be said to be complete, but I can't. I think that it would be reasonable and probably expected to add information about when he married Susan, at the very least. Also, any other details, about perhaps children (if any), maybe a bit more detail regarding his early life and his service in the Air Force, if it's available, would definitely be appropriate for a biographical article, and if nothing else give a greater impression that the article is complete. If however that information isn't available, it can't be added. Are there sources which go into greater detail on these aspects of his life available? John Carter 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for the comments, John Carter. Unfortunately, I've exhaused all my resources finding additional information about his personal life. RyguyMN 02:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Following up on my earlier comment that I have been able to obtain some additional information on his early years now that the New York Times archives are free to access. I'll be updating the article some more over the course of the next several days. RyguyMN 23:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - with additional information. I still wish a bit more information regarding his early life were included, like the names of his first wife and children, but I can understand how that particularly information might not be reported. John Carter 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Support per John Carter. There is not enough information for this to be a Featured Article, but it is definitely an A-class article as it is. Good work by Ry on this article. I would love to see it become a featured article soon enough. FamicomJL 05:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was: promoted.

[edit] John Knox

This article has passed GA and has gone through a Biography Peer Review. Considerable work has been done based on the very helpful peer review comments (see article's talk page). I would like to know if this is now A-class, but even more importantly I would appreciate your comments and suggestions on improving the article. --RelHistBuff 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - "From a priest to a defender of reformers" isn't the clearest phrase possible, as the specific definition of "priest" is open to question. Maybe something else could be put in its place. That's about the only thing I can see right off, though. John Carter 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support A very well formmated article. Content is good aswell--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support An excellent encyclopedia article. Wikipedia should be proud of articles like this. Very well written and structured clear FA material with some possible copy editing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was: promoted.

[edit] Preity Zinta

Support This article has had considerable development even since its promotion to GA status. It is well written, structured and informative and is an excellent source for encyclopedic information. It covers every aspect of her career and life and has over 100 references which are correctly filled out and professional. For me this is already A-class standard and with some minor improvements I believe is up to FA quality. It is better in my view than some of the actor articles which are already FA. Please could you review as soon as possible thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - My only really remarkable reservation is the number of comparatively short paragraphs. Paragraphs should preferably contain at least three sentences, and several of these contain only one. That's the only real reservation I see, though. John Carter 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Thanks! Can you give examples please? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph indicates that she is one of the most popular people in the industry. That might require either referencing or some indication that the "Indian cinema industry" or whatever is being referred to. 4th paragraph of the introduction is only one sentence. 3rd and 5th paragraphs of "Personal life" are only one sentence apiece. 2nd paragraph of "Humanitarian work", first paragraph of "Controversies", and first paragraph of "Alleged affair" are also all single sentences. John Carter 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I'll take care of it, but tell me please, are paragraphs of one sentence not permitted at all? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the intro sentence can be re-written, removed or attached to the previous paragraph, as it deals with distinct description. And the intro of the controversy section is just like it has to be, it's a little introduction. Don't you agree with me? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They're clearly permitted, as there is no official policy or guideline prohibiting them. But there are guidelines that any such very short paragraphs either be removed or be merged into another paragraph, which stand in the way of articles with such paragraphs getting A or FA status. John Carter 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See it now, please. What do you think now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - I took the liberty of making some minor changes to the format of some of the content, which I hope no one minds. If they do, they can revert them. I personally have reservations about including footnotes in the middle of sentences, rather than perhaps breaking up the sentences so that the footnotes do come at the end, but that is really more a personal preference. Other than that, I can see no real problems. John Carter 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support I haven't read through it completely but I've had a quick scan and read some of it. It looks good and al the info seems accurate. Could be an FA if there are no grammar or spelling errors--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great job! It would be nice if the table in the Filmography section was fixed (some of the lines aren't presented in a standard manner), but it isn't a big deal. With that fix it would make FA easily. - Francis Tyers · 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well written and researched article Tovojolo 13:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice one. - Darwinek 09:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support This article looks good. I only have one suggestion - The section header "Commitments" looks a little odd to my eye. It is not something that I have seen on any other biography pages, which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist it just means that I haven't seen it. Also not everything in this section quite fits this wording. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better title at this moment for this section so I am only throwing this out there in case someone can come up with one. Otherwise it should stay and this should be given its FA. MarnetteD | Talk 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is:

promoted.

An important and quite popular band of today's metalcore scene. It has been passed as a Good Article, and the GA reviewer suggested it should get an A-class peer review by the article's relevant wikiproject. Gocsa 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think the "Musical style" section needs more referencing and could do with a bit of expansion. The "Influences" section should probably be merged with "Musical style". It seems odd that to so closely related topics are in different sections, especially since influences are explicitly discussed under "Musical style". They could possibly be under different subheadings, but then a new structure would be required. Otherwise I like the article: it's properly referenced, it has a clear structure, the prose is readable and to the point and essentially all relevant information is presented. It's not a very long article, but the band hasn't been around for a very long time, som that's to be expected. - Duribald 19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it now? I've merged the two, Influences is now a sub-section of the Musical style. Gocsa 20:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see much to oppose, although I admit to being less than expert on articles about bands. The sentence in the main body referencing where the video of the crash can be seen probably should be moved into the "external links" section though. John Carter 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd still like to see an expansion of the muscial style section and more references in the same section, for an A grade. - Duribald 18:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per comment above AND 'd like to see more paper version sources. Right now it depends very much on sources like Blabbermouth.net and interviews with the band. - Duribald 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in a few days, I'll add references to the musical style section and try to find more info. But I don't see why is it a problem that the references are from Blabbermouth or interviews. Because, who else knows things better about the band than band members themselves.. Besides, I don't think there are significant paper version sources, because it is not such an old band, and not really mainstream, there are no books obviously about Bleeding Through, so the only sources can be metal magazines, and while I don't have any, I highly doubt that they have any additional info.

I've added references to the musical style section. Gocsa 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Blabbermouth belongs to a record company, i.e. it is a self-published source. That means that there is a bias and probably little or no fact-checking and no editorial oversight. This violates WP:V. An A-class article must have the best kind of sources for most of it's contents. It's a very good article, considering the lack of third party sources, but I have to vote "oppose" on this one. -Duribald 17:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is stupid, none of the Blabbermouth.net references reflect Blabbermouth.net's editors' point of view, or anything like that, and most of their news articles are from other sources, e.g. MTV News, VH1, etc. Every Blabbermouth reference to this article is either an interview with the band, or a tour date announcement, or maybe a coverage of their van accident, or a Billboard chart result, which is also - as you might guess - from another site, or source, i.e. Billboard magazine's site. I could change all these references to "more reliable" ones (more reliable, i.e. according to you), but why bother, and suffer with all the searching, rewriting, when these sources are as reliable as others.. Also, the fact that it has Blabbermouth.net references doesn't seem to make e.g. Slayer not a FA. And I'm only trying to get an A-Class... Gocsa 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point. And if the FA people have no problem this type of source, then I of course bow to that precedent. Besides, there are plenty of other sources in the article. It is a very well written article, especially for a band that hasn't been around for that long and that haven't had a score of books written about it. So, ok, Support. -Duribald 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support based on above. John Carter 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is:

promoted.

[edit] Karmichael Hunt

previous WikiProject Biography A-class review

I am renominating this for A-class status because

1. It did not pass the Featured article status
2. The infoboxes described as being messy, have been moved.

SpecialWindler talk 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I am sorry if I was rude to any previous reviewer of this article. SpecialWindler talk 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - most of these reservations probably aren't enough to withhold A-Class, one might be. 21 references to the Brisbane Bronco News could be seen as problematic, considering it is not an independent source. Other than that:
  • Doing It seemed to be a problem in the FAC, so I will start switching them, it may take me a while. SpecialWindler 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Doing Still, 7 to go, which are proving to be a bit of a problem. SpecialWindler talk 07:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Y Done Just a few notes. On the current version (as of 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
        • Number 19, is merley using a quote and none of the other material. Maybe the information is biased, but the quote is shown on the reference, it can't be biased if he said it.
        • Number 50, same as above
        • Number 43, I cannot find another source for this. Now I can remove the information if you like, but preferabbly I wouldn't. SpecialWindler talk 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• References to (start italics) Brisbane Bronco News & ... (end italics) should probably be (start italics) Brisbane Bronco News (end italics) & (start italics) ... (end italics).
  • Y Done SpecialWindler 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• I can't tell if the fee site referenced to indicate he was one of the best players in 2005 explicitly says that or not, but I'll assume it does.
  • I never paid for them, while I was trying to find articles using Google News Search, I found them, in the little summary on the Google page, was the information I needed, so I clicked on the article and I needed a fee, but the information is there. SpecialWindler 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• The quote from Wayne Bennett would make a lot more sense if the relevant part were included in quotation marks, so that there would be less question about the odd phrasing.
  • Not Done Where are you talking about. SpecialWindler 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The statement in "2005" about advising Hunt to "be a teenager ...". The sentence before refernce 35 in the current version. Alternately, if it were reworded to something like "Bennett advised Hunt to have fun and enjoy himself, like any other teenager", the odd and slightly ambiguous phrasing "be a teenager" would be gone. John Carter 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Y Done SpecialWindler talk 07:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• The second-to-last sentence of "Allegiance" might be reworded to say "...Hunt intended to change his allegiance and play for the New Zealand team, but Hunt put the speculation to rest when he confirmed he would play for Australia" or something similar, to remove the repetition of the word "allegiance".
  • Y Done SpecialWindler 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• The use of the word "excellent" in the start of the second paragraph could be removed by rewording the sentence "Hunt's debut in 2004 was good enough to have him named the Daily M rookie of the year", although I would personally prefer a reference directly after the sentence.
  • Y Done, not exactly as you said, but there is reference to that in the article, so it doesn't need to be referenced in the LEAD. SpecialWindler 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• All the above, though, with the possible exception of the 21 references to an almost certainly biased source, are probably at best minor. I don't know enough to say whether they would be sufficient in and of themselves, though. John Carter 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All Done, (you may want to check my comment under the 21 reference thing. I hope you change to support. SpecialWindler talk 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support - with changes. Good work! John Carter 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Carter above. - Duribald 14:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: promoted.

[edit] Bhagat Singh

Recently assessed as A-class. Errabee 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Qualified support - Lacks WP:PERSONDATA, which should be included. Am withholding full support until such is included, but don't see any other major weaknesses. John Carter 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I added persondata. -Duribald 16:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support with changes. John Carter 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: has reached FA-status, A-class not necessary anymore.

Already promoted to GA outside Wikiproject Biography. -- Most complete review of a person mentioned barely half a dozen times in the historical records.

A-class review requested at WikiProject Biography to get final opinions on Aelle's legendary or historical status, while general FA review is ongoing. -- Yamara 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by determining status. I'm guessing you're trying to decide how the subject should be categorized and/or described. Given the at least decent probability of his having been a historical figure, I would say he qualifies as a historical figure. Lots of other people from early history, like some of the old Pharoahs are of kind of dubious likelihood as well. I acknwoledge that trying to have us determine whether he was or wan't historical might be original research, but I have no problem personally based on the extant sources in seeing him described as a historical figure. Not sure if that's what your asking, though. John Carter 17:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure if there were guidelines for how Wikiproject Biography decides if a figure of questionable historicity deserves acknowledgment as a real human, and therefore would be within the scope of the Project. (As opposed to Lancelot du Lac, or Pikachu.) Also, while have not worked on it myself, I believe the work on Ælle of Sussex is excellent. I believe an A rating at least is warranted, which I feel will help the editor(s) working on it with their ongoing nomination for FA.

So my questions are...

1) Is Ælle of Sussex historic enough to be part of Wikiproject Biography? And if so...

2) Is it an A-class Biography, given the thorough treatment of the scant evidence? -- Yamara 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Procedural oppose. Ælle of Sussex ought to be in scope, I think, but an A-class review combined with a FA-review is counterproductive imho. As it seems it will pass FA, it won't be of much use to grant A-class status now. If it fails FA, please feel free to nominate again. I was inclined to snowball this, but decided against to give the nominator and other reviewers a chance to comment on my feelings. Errabee 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Concede to table/procedural oppose - The FA was more in doubt a couple days ago. I will pass along the comments on Aelle of Sussex being within the scope of Wikiproject Biography... and submit my support for the FA. -- Yamara 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Review request withdrawn - Ælle of Sussex has passed its FA review, making an A-rating moot. Thanks for everyone's attention and comments. -- Yamara 12:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: A-class approved

Article about powerful Vogue editor was rated A-class by someone with this project back in March, which led me to accelerate timetable on PR. Then another editor nominated it for GA, and it was recently approved (see comments here and here). I have done considerable research on this; I believe it merits the original rating (which I have kept for the other two projects). Daniel Case 12:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak support. Generally I feel this article has more than enough info, free images, references, infobox, PERSONDATA etc. I worry about some of the text, which appears to be odd in some places. Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but the following could imho be approved:

Sorry it's taken me a while to at least acknowledge your comments. I may not yet be able to fix everything, but I'll respond here.

• how to better make the newspaper appealing to the youth of mid-1960s London

Remaining text from a first draft. Can definitely be improved.

Y Done

• Wintour had four siblings, three of whom survive: Why this last add-on? That should be obvious from the rest. The choice for survive also seems odd to me, as if it were such an ordeal being a sibling of Anna Wintour that one is expected to die early?

So some people would say :-). That's text that survives from prior to my involvement with the article. It will be changed.

Y Done

• Remove any links to Wiktionary. If you feel the word is too difficult, try a synonym. Once you start linking to Wiktionary, you could link almost any word.

Someone else put those in. This seems to be a trend with some people ... I don't know who started it, but I'd appreciate some MoS clarity on it.

• The assertion that she wears sunglasses indoors to hide she really is Satan could use a reference.

It's the one that comes at the end of the graf, but I could certainly move it up a bit.

Y Done

• Several stub sections in Personal Life.

Will combine.

Y Done I also removed the section heds.

• The start of The Devil Wears Prada worries me a bit. I think it should definitely start with a comparison between Miranda Priestly and Anna Wintour, and expand on that. The point of view of the novel is totally irrelevant here, and belongs in the article about the book and film.

Well, there are separate articles for both of them ... I think you mean the novel article. I put that bit about the POV of the novel so the reader understands how close it was to Lauren Weisberger's personal situation for many readers to take it as "what Anna Wintour is really like". Perhaps that could be clearer.

Y Done

I hope this helps. Errabee 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It did. Daniel Case 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - with some serious reservations regarding the occasionally odd language and possibly excessive linkages. Specific comments include one in "Early life", where we find the phrase "As London began to swing..." Somehow, this conjures up in my mind images of London at the end of a pendulum. More direct language might be preferable. Beyond that the number of almost pointless links is apparent. Do we really need to have links for, by order of appearance, "sunglasses", "bestselling", "film", "bicycling", "skirts", "Dedicated follower of fashion" (a link to a Kinks single, of all things?), "personal assistant" (linked at least three times), "elitism", "teenage suicide", "jeans", "T-shirt", "townhouse", "pregnant", "steak", "smoked salmon," "scrambled eggs", "skirts" (again), "tyrant" (probably inappropriate usage), "affair", "insurance", "suits", "palate", and others? Most of these things seem at least to me to be things which are generally known by anyone who might read this English-language article as things you learn during your first three or four years on the planet. The link to "palate" (the last one I found) is at least one which strikes me as being more than a bit unusual. I think the article could definitely benefit from having a couple of these, dare I say obvious links removed or maybe clarified, like in the case of the Kinks single. John Carter 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Good points! Errabee 16:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: promoted to A-class

Currently listed as a GA. Recently had a peer review. If the article is listed as A-class, I'm hoping to take it to take it to FAC once Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) is done with its FAC. ShadowHalo 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - not entirely sure what "FA" status entails, but concerns from GA and peer review seem to have been met. A few more details where available might be good, but I can't be sure they really exist. John Carter 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - this article is well written and has what is requires.Nothing more,nothing less.Whatever few changes were requested to be done in the article have been catered to and the article is fit for even FAC.User: luxurious.gaurav

• Support. I think the discography section should be prose rather than a list, and definitely doesn't need to mention all recordings. Other than that, I feel comfortable enough to promote to A-class. Errabee 13:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: A-class approved.

I'll promote this article to A-class, assuming this won't stop the editors from tracking down the missing citations

Quite a number of changes have been made to this article since it received a B-class rating. I would like to know what further changes might be made for the article to be upgraded to an A-class rating. I realize there are still some citations that need to be tracked down and am hoping to find these so that the quotes and specific information involved doesn't need to be removed from the article. I also realize that the material contained in the section discussing Stanton's position on the 14th and 15th amendments and the schism in the women's rights movement is questioned by some editors. All the information is, however, cited and documented in a number of scholarly sources, and to leave it out would be to omit a major aspect of Stanton's life, work, and effect. I would like to know how others feel about this section in particular. Thanks so much for your time and input! Jancarhart 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article has a good structure, it is well written, it covers most of the information that you would expect (as far as I can tell - I know nothing about the subject as such), it meets all formal requirements I can think of, it has persondata, it has an infobox with all the basic info. What I do miss is a good list of her most important writings in chronological order. I assume that most of her work for female suffrage was done in writing; the "Stanton's writings and publications" could probably be expanded somewhat and a little more could be said about her skills as a speaker. Also there are som "citations needed" tags that need to be filled with...citations! - Duribald 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• list of writings cleaned up and organized with publication dates added for ECS books; added discussion of her speaking to article. All citations filled in -- save a couple that are still in process.

• Support, but please work on the missing citations. Errabee 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The ^{[citation needed]} tags should be fixed, and I would suggest the fixing of online sources used in citation with the use of Template:cite web or Template:cite news. Apart from that, the article is worthy of A-Class status.--Yannismarou 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• All but 2 of the missing citations have been found & referenced. Last 2 (quotes pertaining to ECS position on abortion) are in process of being tracked down. Jancarhart 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article has been greatly improved in recent weeks and would benefit from a review and upgrade. WBardwin 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the review is: approved for A-class.

Currently a Good Article I stumbled upon, and I was very much impressed. Errabee 23:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nominator support. Perhaps an infobox could be added, but overall definitely A-class. Errabee 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support It's even got persondata. I'm in love! ;-) -Duribald 10:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support: I agree that an info box would make a good addition, but was pleased to find such a strong, general, well-cited discussion of not only Rodin's life and work but of the history of critical reaction to his work as well. Jancarhart 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support.--Yannismarou 10:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the review is: A-grade approved

As it looks we need a new example for an A-class article, I have been looking for a suitable candidate. Errabee 10:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Article needs infobox and persondata, but otherwise I'm really impressed. - Duribald 12:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not need an info-box! They are ugly, unnecessary and contain only information which should be in the lead. Giano 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• An A-class article that needs no boxes: Giano inter al. work pretty hard on their articles to set their formatting and presentation just-so, and a box would disrupt the page considerably. It is A-class, but let's leave the formatting like boxes and tags out of the consideration, please. Geogre 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if I agree with Giano en Geogre, because infoboxes are considered to be standard practice. Some attempt at uniformity is desperately needed on an encyclopedia where everybody can apply their own style. Nevertheless, the article is so good, I think it deserves A-class status even without an infobox, as A-class articles are allowed to have some omissions from the agreed upon style. Therefore Support as nominator. Errabee 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, they are not "considered to be standard practice" at all, but left as a matter of preference to those editors who generally write and maintain a page - this does not signify ownership just an understanding that those who know the subject best are in a better position to form an opinion on the necessity of a box. In the above instance, not only would a box be out of keeping, all the information that would be in the box is in the first few lines of the lead - as it should be! Giano 08:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• In developed bios they're standard practice. But I'm ready to support an A class rating anyway. You, should, however, include persondata in the article. - Duribald 10:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The "persondata" (and more) is already explained at the begining of the lead. Giano 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• persondata (Click the link!) is a form of metadata that is added before the categories at the end of the article. It should be added to all biographies. It does not show in the article, but is used for other applications. - Duribald 13:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - would also make a good "template" article, as both of its major "faults" are fairly obvious and easily described, the lack of infobox and persondata. I don't think the article stands much of a chance of FA status without them, though. John Carter 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is true - the fact it can never be an FA is a major delight to me - as it was deliberatly written in such a way as it can never ne an FA - No, not because it does not have an info box. Neither am I bothered if it become "A Class", I long ago gave up on seeking Wikipedia's easily obtained but fickle prizes. It was written with the intention of being (so far) the world's only detailed biography of the subject. No biographer has yet "done" her - so at the moment it is unique. Neither of its "faults" matter a jot as neither are obligatory as dictated by the manual of style. Giano 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To somebody used to the mysteries of Persondata, as I assume the people are who're deploring its absence in this article, wouldn't it be simpler to just add it yourself? I assume there's a real point to it, though I'm a little hazy on what ("is used for other applications"; ok...), and not merely some formal requirement for some formal status? Nobody will object, in any case, to something that doesn't show up on the page, surely. But please no infobox. No, they're not standard practice in "developed bios". There are highly developed FA bios doing extremely well without the box. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 25 April 2007(UTC).

• In truth I don't really want it to be "A Class" as it will just be one more thing for peole to knit-pick about when the criteria changes in three weeks time. No I don't own it, nor can I stop it, but I am sick of trying to maintain numerous pages to meet ever changing whims of the moment. It will still be the same page of the same use to the researcher if it is A, B or Z - FA or not. Giano 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong and enthusiastic support. Wow! What a great article! Giano, I warn you: nominate it for FA or I will do it! Seriously now, this is one of the most well-written articles I've ever read in Wikipedia. I don't know if some inconsistencies with MoS and some other minor issues (definitely not the lack of an infobox - I like them, but they are not a pre-condition for FA status) may prevent it from reaching FA status, but what matters is that this article is the definition of a "Great Article", which is much more important IMO from typical promotions. And articles like this one remind us from time to time that our true goals in Wikipedia is not to write "GAs" and "FAs" but "GrA"s.--Yannismarou 11:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: promote to A-class.

I believe this article can be assessed as an A-Class by the biography project, because it meets all the A-Class criteria (discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#criteria_for_A-class)

• at least 1 picture; no copyright issues; fair use should is explained for use on that specific page
• an infobox
• a lead section of at least two paragraphs
• the article is structured in such a way that at least a ToC appears, and no section is a stub
• all statements is referenced using in-line references
• it is well written (but the rules are not as strict as for FA)
• it contains WP:PERSONDATA

I have to mention that I am the main contributor in this article. --Michkalas 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Though the article is nice (and that is why I don't oppose), I still have some concerns. Especially

• "Compared to former enlargements of the European Union, the Accession Treaty for Bulgaria and Romania, for the first time, explicitly foresees the consultation of the European Parliament and constitutes the formal legal basis for the new Commissioners’ appointment procedure." Mmmmm... OK, but the actual legal basis for the appointment of the Commissioners (all of them-not just the new members') and the consultation of the European Parliament is not the Accession Treaty, but the Treaty of the European Community, as it has been amended by the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. This should be clarified.
• In "Views on multilingualism" you quote the Commissioner without citing your sources. All these quotes need citing.

Apart from that, I think the article has no other significant flaws for A-Class status.--Yannismarou 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Many thanks for your -immediate- review!

• I have clarified the point on the Accession Treaty for Bulgaria and Romania and I have added a special ref to the European Parliament website.
• I have specified from which reference every quote and fact is taken. --Michkalas 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overall Support. I do have some concerns though:

• The picture on his oath is better placed in the Appointment procedure section. In its current place, Views on multilingualism, it has no function.
• I find the fair use rationales rather general. I would like some more detail on what point is clarified by adding a particular picture.
• The first paragraph of Portfolio as European Commissioner could be enhanced somewhat. If the post was previously held by a Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism, it is fairly obvious that if multilingualism was split off, Orban would be the first to hold this specific portfolio. It is not clear to me if multilingualism was first identified by Barroso, or that it existed before his commission. Some detail to that end would be appreciated. Errabee 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Thank you for your review and your vote.

• The picture on his oath has been moved to the appointment procedure section.
• I have tried to make the fair use rationale mere concrete in most pictures.
• I have added a few details on the history of the portfolio of multilingualism in the European Commission. --Michkalas 12:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me all points have been addressed. Errabee 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Three minor points:

• (1) The words "remit" and "portfolio" are used frequently without any sort of linkage to indicate what their specific meaning as used here is. This might be significant as portfolio has multiple meanings, and isn't necessarily used in the most frequently used sense here.
• (2) I find it somewhat amusing that the name of one of his former employers seems to be Tractor Manufacturing Company Miercurea Ciuc, at least in translation. If that's accurate, well and good. If not, maybe drop the capitals on the first three words, or whatever words aren't in the company's official name?
• (3) At least in my experience, salaries tend to be expressed in terms of annual, not monthly, pay, as is done here, at the end of the "Portfolio as European Commissioner" section.
• Those are the only real reservations I have, and none are significant enough to withhold A-class status, in my opinion anyway. Good work. John Carter 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:

First of all, I would like to thank you too for your review and for your vote.

• (1) I have wikilinked portfolio to the specific meaning it has here. Interestingly enough, the political meaning was not included in the article and I had to copy something from the Wiktionary. There is no article on "remit" -which seems reasonable to me as this would be an entry more for a dictionary than for an encyclopedia.
• (2) The translation is accurate. It is from his official CV in English.
• (3) Well, I have avoided calculating and I have included the information as I have found it. I do not know how these things work in the EU institutions, but, in Greece at least, the annual pay includes not only 12 salaries, but also extra money for Christmas, Easter and summer holidays (so, in total, the annual pay is 14 salaries). "Annual pay" may imply also not just salaries, but also extras for traveling and so on. Anyway, because I haven't found anything about these things, I have prefer to write only about what I am sure is precise and verifiable. --Michkalas 15:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the rapid response. The answers above address all the questions I had. The article has my basically unqualified support now. John Carter 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support.--Yannismarou 11:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was pass. MrPrada 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Listed as A by other projects. -- Avi 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support - acknowledging religion is my field and I may be less than objective. I do think that the article is possibly a bit overburdened with templates and pictures, but am not sure that they are enough to disqualify it for A-status. John Carter 18:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, per Carter, IF THE SECTION "Sources on Jesus' life" IS PROPERLY REFERENCED. (I knew I'd find something wrong with Jesus! ;-)) - Duribald 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. MrPrada 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was pass. MrPrada 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul

I recently reviewed this article for GA-class. Outside of stability options and a few POV-concerns about representing all views (both positive and negative) of Congresman Paul, I think this is an example of some of Wikipedia's best work. MrPrada 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support I can't find much wrong with this article. Next step GA? -Duribald 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Could see a few more references, particularly regarding early campaigns, but otherwise no real problems. John Carter 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was pass. MrPrada 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nina Simone

Lot's of work has been done on this article since the last projectreview. The article recently passed GA. I think that the article in its current state has potential to be an A-class Biography-article. examples of edits since latest review (december 2006):

• expansion of the introduction, which now sufficiently reflects the article's subject in compact size.
• notes are wikified, a seperate reference section makes it easy to view the literature used.
• and lots more. Marcel flaubert 08:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There are a few problems, but only one major major one which keeps it from getting my approval: More reference citations would definitely be in order. Many statements, particular statements regarding opinions, are currently unreferenced, and should be referenced. All paragraphs should have at least one, generally two or more, reference citations. "Quotes" should be referenced as well. Other than that, a few minor qualms:

• "seems all the more appropriate" in 1st paragraph doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article. "interesting" would work just as well.
• African-American should only be linked once for the article. Links in general should only be used once per page linked to per article, at the first usage of the word.
• Sentence on "Strange Fruit" could be structured better, like maybe "She covered Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit",, a song about the lynching of black men in the South, on Pastel Blues. John Carter 18:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments John Carter, I will work on it! Marcel flaubert 08:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Are the edits performed as a reaction to comments above sufficient? Marcel flaubert 12:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There's probably a problem with the image in the infobox, as its status as free content isn't clearly established. By wikipedia rules at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy #9, only free content, including images, can be used in any template, including an infobox. If there are any other images out there that are even remotely acceptable, one of them should be placed there instead. Sorry for having not caught that earlier. :( John Carter 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yikes, i guess your right, the image in the template was fair use. I think I solved the problem now, though I particularly dislike the image now used in the template. Thanks for your advice so far, even though it means I had to remove that lovely album cover, sob sob :( Marcel flaubert 10:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose "Performing live" is still unreferenced. Some reference for the end of the second paragraph of "Youth (1933-1954) would be advisable. The last sentence in particular, at least to me, doesn't seem really encyclopedic, although that's a comparatively minor matter. Also could use a reference in the last sentence of "Later life" regarding her daughter. "Best-known work" might not be the best title for that section. Section also definitely needs more reference citations. The "see also" last paragraph isn't particularly necessary for a reference to the same article. "Legacy" first paragraph needs at least one citation. Most of these are comparatively minor, except for the reference citations. I share your regrets about not being able to use the album cover, though. John Carter 14:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • edits done: added references to "Legacy", "Performing Live", to the end of "Youth" (deleted un-wiki-ish sentence), added reference daugther, and finally added references to the Best-Known section, changed its title to Simone Standards (it cant be called greatest hits for a number of reasons which i will not go into right now, if you know a better title, feel free to edit. are these edits adequate? Marcel flaubert 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comments Aren't some periods of her life missing? '59-'64, for example? The "Performing Live", "Being difficult" and "Honors" sections seem a little out of place in the biography. The "Quotations" sections is a bit ridiculous - there's only one quote and furthermore this isn't Wikiquote. Put the quotation in a suitable place somewhere in the rest of the article. - Duribald 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, they have been adressed. As for the period "59-64", that was Nina's Colpix Records period there's not that much to say about that period without going very much into detail, she just made a lot of records, and laid down the roots of what was to come.Marcel flaubert 12:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support -Duribald 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support with changes. John Carter 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. MrPrada 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Promoted. - Duribald 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Falk

I think this article is now comprehensive enough to warrant an A-class review. Only possible problems I see are:

• Three of the images claim "fair use." Two of these (the Nike logo and the Space Jam picture) are not crucial to the article, and can be removed without too much fuss if their rationales are deemed too weak. The third, however, is the photo of Falk himself in the page's infobox. This is the only photo of the subject of the article on the page, and its removal will significantly hurt its chances of an A-Class rating.

• Information on Falk's personal life is a little slim. This lack of info isn't by choice... the information simply isn't out there (trust me, I've looked). Exact birth date is not present, although birth year has been attained.

Otherwise the article is well-written, comprehensive, and heavily referenced. In my opinion, it is A-Class material. Joseph Petek 04:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article has been expanded significantly since the GA rating, and it now has, essentially, all components required of an A class article. And I don't think you did a bad job on the personal life section. I support the A class rating and leave it to others to udge the fair use rationale. - Duribald 05:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support good stuff. Chensiyuan 08:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are several sentences which have 5-6 refs en bloc. I find this a bit overkilly, but this is just my opinion: IMHO just pick out the 2-3 best ones, 6 loosk awkward. While this is not per se something bad, I also would prefer them realigned like this:
• BEFORE: so Falk's client list, with Michael Jordan its centerpiece, made him one of the primary movers and shakers in the NBA, able to leverage teams into agreeing to his terms on contracts and trades.[50][51][52][2][13][20][22][28]
• AFTER: so Falk's client list, with Michael Jordan its centerpiece, made him one of the primary movers and shakers in the NBA, able to leverage teams into agreeing to his terms on contracts and trades.[2][13][20][22][28][50][51][52]

But all in all, good stuff. —Onomatopoeia 08:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you're talking about, and I partially agree with you on both issues. It does look a little strange to have 8 references lined up in a row. I just felt that the more more far-reaching the claim, the more references would be needed (in particular, the claim about him being as powerful as David Stern defineteley needed a lot of back-up). There are also sentences with, say, four facts that come from four different articles, and in that case I oftentimes elected to put all four references at the end of the sentence, as placing them all separately within the sentence would probably look even worse.

As to the order of references above, there is a rhyme and reason to it: I decided to put new references (first time they had appeared in the article) first, and then put the ones that had already appeared earlier second. Hence, in the above example, 50-51-52 were first used for that sentence, while the others had been used previously.

Those are my reasons. Doesn't mean I'm right, and that one you point out where I have 8 references in one place probably could stand to be toned down. Joseph Petek 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - A-class articles aren't necessarily perfect, and a little overkill on references isn't really the worst problem an article could have. But maybe instead of the multiple references they could all be combined into a single citation after each sentence? Like, for instance, "See (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E)". John Carter 15:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, and it's true that it would make the article look cleaner. However, I fear it would make the references section itself very unwieldy: the article currently has 29 references which are used 4 or more times, with a few used as many as 20 times. If refs were split up as you suggest, there would be countless repetition of refs in the ref list.

Currently there are 8 instances where 4 or more refences are used in one place. I'm going to look at those 8 places today and see if I can't eliminate some stuff. Joseph Petek 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I have now pared down the references in the article to where there are no more than four together in a block. I intentionally kept four references in six different places to back up the article's most controversial/far-reaching statements, with two of the six actually being simple repeat-sentences that use the same refs. A summary of these statements is below.

• (Falk) is generally considered to be the most influential player agent the NBA has seen. (Section: Lead section)
• (Falk) was often considered the second-most powerful person in the NBA behind Commissioner David Stern. (Section: Lead section)
  • (Falk) was often considered the second-most powerful man in basketball behind NBA Commissioner David Stern. (Section: Role in facilitating NBA trades)
• Falk was often described as the "invisible hand" that guided union negotiations. (Section: 1998 lockout)
  • ...and many saw Falk as the controlling influence in the union's negotiations. (Section: 1998 lockout)
• Falk's client list, with Michael Jordan its centerpiece, made him one of the primary movers and shakers in the NBA, able to leverage teams into agreeing to his terms on contracts and trades. (Section: Role in facilitating NBA trades)

My feeling is that these sentences needed as much substantiation as they could get. Hopefully the references have now been curbed enough so that it doesn't look quite so unwieldy as it did. Joseph Petek 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is:

promoted.

Thoroughly referenced, useful pictures, informative, stable and neutral. Written in a no-BS style.TruthHider 11:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Needs infobox and persondata, to start with... Free Mumia Campaign needs expansion. Duribald 23:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - suggest that review await GA decision, as the GA review process tends to bring about changes to an article. John Carter 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GA process is now completed. The article is now confirmed GA.TruthHider 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Infobox has been added and changes implemented so that the article now reaches GA (awaiting confirmation from the reviewer). The article, being perhaps overlong already, will not be expanded to included more coverage re 'Free Mumia' - a distinct subject that has its own lengthy article and which is linked to in the parent (ie. main bio) article.TruthHider 11:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I can't see any major objections to this article being rated A-class. -Duribald 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So do I close now and effect its promotion or wait a few more days?AboveTheClub 10:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a consensus decision - i.e. more than one vote on what to do - so we just have to wait. -Duribald 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - It's a great article, with skillful handling of a controversial subject. A few comments: the last paragraph of the lead section leads one to believe that controversy regarding music will be further explored, but it isn't really discussed -- music is only mentioned briefly under Free Mumia Campaign. Things mentioned in the lead should be more fully explored below. For similar reasons, I would consider moving the last three sections under "Life as a prisoner" into the next section and renaming that section "Controversies" or something like that. The reader has been set up by the lead to look for a section about controversies on many topics, but only "Foreign honors controversies" is there. Also, I would specify in the lead that the naming controversies are international in nature, because it reads like they've happened in the United States. A more minor issue: I think it reads a little awkwardly to set off such short quotes in blockquotes. BTW, nice use of images. --Melty girl 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and these suggestions. The article is overLONG already. 32kb+ is classed as LONG for GA-review purposes. This one's much more. Therefore, more detailed consideration of things such as musical references to him has been farmed out into the Free Mumia subarticle. Three quotes have been given prominence: the two confessions attributed to him, and the biased/racist statement attributed to his trial judge. AboveTheClub 03:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) It's fine if you don't want to make the article longer by expanding on certain topics, BUT the problem I raised still exists, so you need to do the converse, because this is a big issue. As per WP:LEAD: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Leads are summaries of what's to follow. So if you're not going to discuss topics such as controversies in music, these topics should be removed from the lead. I suggest that you carefully review your lead section and remove all topics that are not expanded upon below. (2) Yes, I see the quotes that you've given prominence. It's just that blockquotes are usually used not for prominence/emphasis (bold and italics are), they're usually used to set off longer quotes (see: blockquotes). Very short quotes, particularly one word quotes (i.e. "Yes"), should not be blockquoted. It actually disrupts the flow of reading as you look for the word because it's not where you'd expect it to be (after the word before or at the beginning of the next line). Cheers, Melty girl 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is:

promoted.

Hoping to get this FA status at some piont. Thought I'd see what eles is needed to do that by getting it to A class. Buc 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I question the prominence of the separated quotes. I'm not sure it's particularly common to do so, and it does to a degree, at least in my eyes, maybe detract from the neutrality of the article. John Carter 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting I remove them althougher or just make them less prominent? Buc 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support The quotes are an ornament, and not really a problem. Minor style/editing issues are not an obstacle to A class promotion. Most sources seem to be good. The article is readable, it makes good use of pictures, the infobox is filled out, an anonymous hero added persondata, its been previously peer reviewed and it's made GA. I say it qualifies. -Duribald 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I was wondering why there are no ref's in the lead at all? For instance it says As a child Milner was recognised as a talent in football, cricket and a long distance runner representing his school in each. I think that needs ref'ing personally. My only comment part from that think its a very good article Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's an easy one. Everything is the lead is mentioned later with a ref. Buc 06:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's not unusual for the intro to lack refs, since the info in it is just a summary of the contents of the article. -Duribald 08:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Duribald above. John Carter 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is:

promoted.

This comprehensive, carefully sourced article was recently improved upon via the GAC (passed) and peer review processes. As sole major contributor, I am seeking to get additional feedback, because I'd like to move the article towards FAC. I believe the article is very strong, but this is the first one I've ever worked on to this degree, so I am hoping to continue to learn from experienced editors about top quality at Wikipedia. Thanks, Melty girl 06:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support the number and diversity of references impresses me, as well as the formatting of the article. My preference would be to turn red links to black. You may wish to include a link to Portal:Ireland. You have been diligent to maintain alphabetic and chronological ordering. Featured Article status will come with maintaining adherence to the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the prose being credited as "brilliant". Just as you've mastered how to combine multiple footnotes into the one reference I will now approach to do the same with Mumia Abu-Jamal.AboveTheClub 09:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done: removed red links. Where would you put the Portal:Ireland link? Thanks for the positive feedback. I will have to check out Mumia Abu-Jamal when I'm not at work. Must have a been a tricky article to navigate. --Melty girl 16:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - with changes. Regarding the portal link, I think those tend to be placed in the "see also" section, although placement is far from uniform in that regard. John Carter 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say "with changes", which changes are you referring to? The removal of red links (Y Done) and the addition of Portal:Ireland? I don't think that the latter change is appropriate. I have carefully read many FA actor articles and have not noticed similar links. For example, the FA article Eric Bana does not contain a link to Portal:Australia, and Jackie Chan doesn't have Portal:Hong Kong. And should every biography page for a person born in the United States have a link to Portal:United States, or does including a link in the phrase "born in the United States" suffice? (Obviously, I would suggest the latter.) Murphy no longer lives in Ireland, and he works internationally, portraying characters of many nationalities. WikiProject Ireland rates Cillian Murphy of low importance. And the Portal:Ireland page doesn't offer links that are of particular "See also" relevance to Cillian Murphy that aren't already offered in the article itself. For these reasons, I don't see a need to add a link to Portal:Ireland. --Melty girl 16:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The removel of red links, which seriously detract from any article. Linkage to any portal is always optional. Personally, I prefer those links on the banners on the talk pages, but links to portals are a matter of personal preference, not quality. John Carter 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was: not promoted.

[edit] Pablo Ganguli

I think the article contains all the important information that is available, and is well cited. It could be longer, if more were taken from the cited sources, but I think the length now is appropriate for the importance (or lack thereof) of the subject. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't encountered any reference to such before, but I think the biggest drawback might be the multiple forms of notes and external links. I'm no expert in this though, but I think it would probably be best if only one were used. I would appreciate any comments from others who have more experience with this matter, though. John Carter 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The article lacks persondata and the infobox seems half-filled. The introduction is too short and the prose too laconic. For example it is mentioned in a sentence that he lived in Wales - Where? Why? Do we know the names of his parents? And couldn't "India" and "United Kingdom" be merged to one paragraph, considering the length of the latter paragraph? Overuse of headlines is a mortal sin. More info on the festivals and the subjects work with them would be nice. The festivals seem both interesting and notable, but I get very little of an idea of what they're about and what they're like from the text. As Carter points out, more categories are needed and the mix of reference types is a definite style flaw. These are some of my concerns. Peer review and GA recommended before attempting A class review. - Duribald 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Duribald above. John Carter 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not promoted.

[edit] Nancy Reagan

Mrs. Reagan's article is now a Good Article and is in very "good" shape. As a public figure, Nancy Reagan is still important in the political world, and an article about her should be considered one of great importance. I think this article, because of it's fine prose and current GA status, belongs in the A-Class department. Happyme22 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - content for what there is of it seems good. The lack of any information about the 1975-1980 time period is what seems to me to be possibly the largest stumbling block for A class designation. Some coverage of her activity during that era (I'm assuming she did something, like campaign for her husband?) during that period would probably be appropriate. John Carter 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Although the article is readable, well disposed, has infobox, has a good use of pictures and is excellently referenced, it lacks persondata (which could easily be added) and as Carter pointed out there's nothing about '74-'80. No wokr done since june - no promotion. - Duribald 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not promoted.

[edit] Thomas Huxley

Was rated A-class recently. Uses both styles of in-line citations (also Harvard style).

• Oppose - Article is clearly incomplete. "Friendships and character" ends with "[work in progress]". "Educational influence" lead section and "Royal and other Comissions" are completely unsourced. One quote is sourced "ref to come". This I think is probably sufficient to withhold A-Class rating, at least until the work is finished. There are other reservations as well.
• Several of the quotations in the quotations section are not sourced, or have ambiguous "was used several times"-type comments.
• I also believe that the number of citations in general are insufficient. Much more thorough referencing, particular regarding matters of opinion or conclusions, seem called for.
• The last paragraph of "School of Mines and Zoology" contains several comments which look like original research, "it is surely strange...", "That must be part of the reason", and others. If there exist sources for these, I think they should be indicated in the text itself, like "[Source] said it was strange, or "[Source] concluded part of the reason", if they are to be included as currently structured at all.
• Statements about "periods of depression" seem to me at least to be inadequately sourced and vague. Is the writer indicating the possibility of clinical depression? If so, at least one link to an appropriate page would also seem to be called for. Parenthetical clause in first sentence is also probably inappropriate, particularly the rhetorical question in it. John Carter 21:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't read this at the time, so it's quite interesting to look back now. It's almost overladen with refs now; the refs were in a bit of a typographic mess for a while: half-way through an editor helpfully changed the system, not realising that contributor didn't understand it... I've tried to keep the page readable and interesting—he was such an interesting man, he deserves it! And quite a lot of work went into the graphics. I was encouraged and helped by Fred.e who rescued me from despair more than once. It has been an educational experience. And, sorry for any original ideas — they do tend to pop out when one's not watching. Macdonald-ross 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Still many parts unreferenced, although others are well referenced. - Duribald 19:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not promoted.

[edit] Mary (mother of Jesus)

• Article has already been assessed as A-Class by the Saints and Catholicism projects, curious as to whether this project would also give such a ranking. John Carter 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Some comments:

  The amount of pictures makes the layout somewhat messy.

  Is it Regina caeli (213.000 Google hits) or Regina coeli (711.000 Google hits)? My memory of Latin classes (which is very long ago) says the latter.

  Can Bible sources really be used as references? This looks to me to be original research. Try to find a secondary source.

  Some statements need sourcing. I've added an example, where it is stated that some speculate, but no ref is given. There are very few refs for an article this size, and it becomes even less when the Bible refs are discounted.

  Some weird sentences: "an enrollment, see Census of Quirinius". Can this be merged like "an enrollment"?

  I find the use of Bible references like Matthew 27:55 or Quran references like ^{[Qur'an 23:50]}} in the body of the text very irritating.

  As it is now, I guess I would lean more towards oppose than towards support. Errabee 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Opposition seems reasonable based on the points above. John Carter 14:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above! Especially the Bible as a fact source is questionable. If the article had said that the Bible claims, it might have been better, but it's presented as fact. - Duribald 16:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not promoted.

[edit] Vincent Massey

This article is about an important Canadian political figure. It is thorough and well laid out. A-Class review requested. --KenWalker | Talk 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Article lacks WP:PERSONDATA. Article appears to be based on a single source, which is generally considered far from sufficient for even a good article rating. Introduction, of just one sentence, is far too short for existing article. Article is also lacking in reference citations, as is generally required. Several sections, particularly "Military career", "Political career", and "Return to Canada" are unusually short. "Political career" heading is also at least potentially problematic considering that diplomatic service, which comes later, is also often generally counted as "political"; a more specific heading might be preferable there. Plerse see the WP:MOS, particularly for text formatting, lead section, citing sources, and footnotes for some of the comments which might most help this article. John Carter 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per above. SpecialWindler talk 12:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not promoted.

[edit] Duke Cunningham

Recently awarded A-class by a participant in the summer assessment drive. Errabee 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Article clearly need more reference ciations. Whole paragraphs lack a single one. The article also seems to lack WP:PERSONDATA. Also, on a purely stylistic matter, I personally think four "infoboxes" in one article is a few too many. John Carter 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per carter above. - Duribald 16:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion is: request denied; awaiting result of FAC.

I feel this is A-class material. SpecialWindler 03:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the only reservation I have is the presence of the "needs free image" template, but I think that is a big one, as it definitely gives the impression of incompleteness from the instant you see the article. I regret to say that I have to see it as being probably enough to withhold A-Class, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that no such images of the subject, even old school pictures, exist. I do note that the picture doesn't have to be notable current, just a free image. John Carter 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply Well I'm working on that. SpecialWindler 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that it's not A class, you can not class it and I will re apply it to here when it has a free image. SpecialWindler 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A new free image has been added in place SpecialWindler ^talk 05:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. The article could indeed use some copyediting, especially in the 2006 and 2007 sections. If the copyedit banner is removed (when the concerns have been addressed), I'll be happy to support A-class. Errabee 12:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It is really hard to say an article that has an existing "needs ..." template (photo, copyediting, whatever) on it is A-class. If the copyediting concerns are addressed, I don't think that I would have any qualms about supporting it. John Carter

I'm working on it. SpecialWindler ^talk 05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The page was proofread by User:Miriam joy and I feel is ready for another check for A-Class review. ^Special_Windler 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been copyedited thrice now, (by ONUnicorn, Sticks66and Fishal). See the history. It should be given A-class status, if anyone respons. I will query any problems immediately (or as soon as I can) SpecialWindler talk 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This is now up for Featured Article Status as a FAC, due to no response from this A-Class review. SpecialWindler talk 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Don't be judgemental. We have given you feedback, and you should be grateful for that. We *do* have real lifes, you know. I'm failing this review for two reasons:
  • If it passes FAC, it has no use for A-class anymore
  • All those infoboxes make the article look very messy.
• 13:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not promoted.

This article received a B-class rating in March, 2007. Since then, I have integrated the trivia section into the main text, added more citations and rewrote many of the individual sections. I think this article is a good candidate for an A-class rating based on the depth of the biography and the overall content. - Diarmada 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - article needs more references. Three paragraphs completely lack them, others are only quote citations. I'm not sure that is sufficient to withhold A status though. Would appreciate other comments from reviewers before making my decision. John Carter 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. In addition to John's objection, I think the lead is too short for an article this size (it should be two to three paragraphs according to WP:LEAD). The lead also presents information that is not presented in the article itself, which is apparent through the use of the notes in the lead (e.g. champion of the poor and disadvantaged is never used in the article itself); the lead should be a summary of material presented later on. In addition, I think that his most ambitious and critically acclaimed novel, The Looking-Glass does not receive enough attention in the article, where other books like Company K, The Bad Seed, and 99 Fables do receive that attention. The images of the books should then be placed at the section where they are discussed. So I would expect the book cover for Company K at the place where now stands the cover for The Looking Glass. That latter should be removed from the article as it is now, as the fair use rationale does not allow its use on the present page (but it would if there were a section about The Looking-Glass). Errabee 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - based on further comments above. John Carter 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result is: not promoted.

Assessed as A-class by a participant in the summer assessment drive. Errabee 13:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - insufficient reference citations. The worst example is the "Civil rights" section, which lacks any citations whatever, including for a direct quote from elsewhere included in that section. John Carter 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Definitely underreferenced. Also I think the image of Robert Jackson can only be used under fair use (and it contains no fair use rationale at all, let alone for its use on the Hugo Black page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not approved

Got promoted recently without approval. See also its peer review

Oppose. Too many superlatives (greatest, preeminent, excelled, poetic grandeur) are used without references to substantiate them. Uneven referencing overall; 20 paragraphs lack references, including the entire "Other poems", "Reputation", and "Authorship" sections. I note the lack of material on Shakespeare's early life makes that section difficult to improve, so won't comment on that. But the cursory treatment of Shakespeare's writing style in the "Style" section could be improved. The single sentence comprising the last paragraph of that section could be expanded upon. John Carter 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree with John, and add the listy nature of the article in the end. The works by Shakespeare merit an article of themselves, and should be removed from his biography. Also, not all the points mentioned in the peer review seem to have been addressed. Also far too many citation needed tags. Errabee 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not promoted

Been passed as a good article. Good enough for A-class? Clavecin 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - article lacks WP:PERSONDATA. Also, I think the minimal content regarding the subject's "early life" could bear expansion. John Carter 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Added the WP:PERSONDATA template. There is a not much information readily available about the subject's early life, though I think the main events are covered. Clavecin 14:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Lead needs expandion, and not one or two sentences—it needs to be 2-3 full paras. Quadzilla99 04:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lead needs improvement, and the article becomes very listy in the end. I think the recording section should be split off into a separate article, and then this article becomes shortish. Errabee 13:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is not approved.

Currently rated A-class. I haven't read it yet. Errabee 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - suggest waiting until the 15th or until the replacable non-free image question is resolved. John Carter 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Image was removed, but the logo is also non-free, and the article doesn't seem to be very actively maintained. Errabee 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not approved.

• Support. This article does need a bit of copy editing, and there is at least one "cite needed" tag which needs to be addressed, but it seems very thorough and well-researched. -- Ssilvers 03:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The article has excellent information and great illustrations, but I'm not sure it's only one step below FA-class for the following reasons:

• Some good, solid copy editing is needed.
• Many significant facts, including some that might be debated or considered POV, are not cited.
• Several of the references lack full bibliographic information (publisher, place & year of publication, ISBN).
• Several of the citations don't have accompanying bibliograpic references, so it would be difficult, if not impossible, to track down the source involved, if a reader wanted to.

With all this in mind, I would tend to wait until these issues are more fully addressed before promoting to A-class. Jancarhart 20:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I could grant A-Class to an article with some of the problems indicated above, but not with all those listed. John Carter 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Jancarhart and John Carter. Errabee 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Result: not approved.

Currently rated A-class. I haven't read it yet, so I haven't got an opinion yet. Errabee 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article contains lots of very short subsections and is pretty listy (the racing victories would look better in a more compact table). It also seems under-referenced and somewhat uneven in its coverage. I am guessing that the problem with writing about Armstrong is that there is so much information available about him that it is hard to choose and organize the most important facts. I think this is an important article, so I hope there are some editors who can address these issues. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Whole paragraphs/sections contain not a single reference citation. Also, the structure seems to me to be at least somewhat suspect, as per Ssilvers above. I acknowledge that the selection of information for the article will be difficult in this case, but I can't use that as an excuse to give this existing article an A-Class rating. John Carter 14:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Severely underreferenced. Stub sections. Quotes should be moved to WikiQuote or removed if they're already there. List of victories and teams should be moved to separate article. Errabee 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Result of this discussion: not yet approved for A-Class

After discussing the rating with the editors, they have adopted many of my comments. I think this article surpasses B-class and A-class may be appropriate. Errabee 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I won't vote, because I am one of this article's editors, but I can note that another editor who worked on this article has done extremely good research for it, and I believe it to be quite thorough in its coverage of its subject. Ssilvers 04:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely reluctant oppose - I have only one major objection to the article, and that is the absence of a free image and the presence of the free image solicitation in the infobox. The article structure per se seems, good, although I question the use of the phrase "a key source for this article" in one of the photo captions. On the basis of the present inclusion of the free image solicitation, though, I have to oppose promotion. John Carter 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: While I think GA-class may well be appropriate, I'm not sure that this article is only one step below FA-class. The writing is good, and the professional information seems suitably comprehensive, but I'd like to more information about his early life: family background, schooling, etc. (An info box that contained more biographical data: spouse, children, parents, etc., would be helpful.) The list of references needs to be alphabetized. The picture of Reid's book, "a key source for this article," seems promotional and unprofessional more than scholarly and informative. I find it hard to believe there are no pictures of a man of this caliber in the public domain. Jancarhart 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these comments. First, does anyone have any idea how to get a photo that is acceptable under WP's copyright rules? Secondly, if this article is ready for GA but not A-class, can someone transfer this to Good Article consideration? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. Errabee 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the review is: Not approved

Looks pretty excellent, extremely well referenced with expand dates included and is well watched. Current at GAC, but this may take a while and I don't see it as a bar to its nomination/passing here. RHB - Talk 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• This article may be a candidate for A class, but if it's already going through GA, then let it pass there first. Oppose for now. -Duribald 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite being number 2 on the list there, it could still be days before it is reviewed there. I don't see why it can't be passed here and then left at GAC too? RHB - Talk 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GA is normally a stepping stone towards A. You can nominate an article for A class without it first having been made GA, but if we only have to wait a short while for a GA assessment, then why should we? -Duribald 10:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis of not wanting to duplicate efforts. Let's wait to see what the GA review says, and make our opinion on the basis the final draft of the article that emerges from that review. John Carter 14:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree that it would be good to finish GA review first. A couple of other comments:

• The article could benefit from copy editing. (There are some grammatical errors, one sentence paragraphs, and choppiness.)
• Is there more early biographical info that can be included: parents, siblings, wife/partner, children, earlier schooling, other general biographical background? Since this is a biographical article, I'd ideally like to see it contain a fuller discussion of all significant aspects of Johnston's life and background, if the information is available.
• It might be good to have a list of Johnston's major articles, with bibliographic info, included at the end of the article. Jancarhart 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this article is anything like A-class. It is exceedingly unattractively formatted; it focuses mostly on his time in captivity, and it hardly discusses his writing, journalistic style, etc. -- Ssilvers 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the review is: Not approved.

Another core biography. Errabee 14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 5 reference citations for the whole article is woefully insufficient. John Carter 18:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Carter above. Good article - catastrophic references! - Duribald 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Seems like a good article -- although I don't know enough about Charlemagne to fully judge. Citations are tremendously inadequate both in number and quality: Only one citation, "Einhard," seems to include a page number identifying the citation. The remaining four(!) citations either have no page numbers or are seemingly unconnected to any source included in the list of references. It may be a small point, but references are not written in proper alphabetized bibliographic format and there seem to be remarkably few of them given the importance of the subject. Jancarhart 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree - It's a very nice-looking article and seems throrough, but it is so underreferenced that I am surprised it was made GA. -- Ssilvers 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result is: not approved for A-class Current GA. Appears to surpass GA-criteria on first sight. Errabee 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure of the precise criteria for A-Class vs. GA-Class, but I would think this article might need more of the following before being promoted so closely to FA status:

• Full bibliographic information and proper bibliographic format including ISBN numbers for each of the references listed (Right now there are only titles, authors, and publication years; these are not done in MLA or Chicago format. It would help greatly to have them at least listed alphabetically beginning with the author's last name so that a reader can easily find full source information to accompany the citations listed above the references section. At the moment, the references are listed, unalphabetically, by title, and, as mentioned above, have incomplete bibliographical information and non-standard format.)
• Many more citations. (There are many facts, particularly in the later sections of the article, that are uncited, and it seems to me they should be, particularly those that might be considered debatable or possibly POV.)
• Citations that can be matched easily to a properly listed reference: Each citation should, I would think, have an accompanying reference so that a reader can find the source for the information involved, if need be. (I spotted no references listed for the citations attributed Elton, Strickland, or Scarisbrick; and those for Ives provide a page number, but do not indicate which of the two Ives books listed as references are being cited.)
• Perhaps the info box can be "fleshed out" a bit by adding siblings together with birth/death years for the other individuals included.

The article is very well-written and is divided appropriately into pertinent sections. While I don't know as much as I'd like about Anne Boleyn, it seems this article hits on all significant points and presents full, solid information about this important figure. The only significant problems I see, keeping in mind that I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of the content, are those described above, which, while arguably technical, are substantial, particularly if there's any concern that some of the information involved may be POV. Jancarhart 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Sadly, I am going to have to oppose this comprehensive, well-written and enjoyable article for one major reason. It does not have enough inline citations. Many sections and subsections have either no citations or only one. Controversial statements and theories attributed to historians need to be cited. I have a feeling that the editor(s) who worked on this article started the process of citation but then stopped because the citations are heavily weighted to the beginning of the article. Like Jancarhart, I would also like to see the bibliography properly formatted. It is extremely difficult to read as it is now stands and does not contain enough information on each book. Awadewit 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result is: not approved

Another core biography currently with an A-grade. Errabee 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Almost there, but requires more reference citations. One standard form of citation should be used as well. Also might benefit from fewer red links, particularly in the "Works" section. John Carter 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Several issues need to be addressed before this article can be considered A-class, in my opinion.

• The "Life" section needs to be expanded and broken down into subsections - this is a biography page.
• The "Legacy" section, while it does provide a lot of good information, needs to be shortened; this page is already 60kb. Pages should exist for all of Hume's major works and forks should be directed there when appropriate.
• The "Perspectives on Hume" section reads like a prose list rather than a coherent section.
• I have a feeling that the page was written using the "References" listed at the bottom, but inline citations must be given throughout the page. Currently, only citations to eighteenth-century sources are given. We need citations to modern scholars as well as to Hume's works.
• The "Works" list should only list Hume's works, not where they are available on the internet.
• In my opinion, the infobox is out of control. Restricting it to major facts rather than vague influences is more helpful. Awadewit 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Per above. -Duribald 18:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this review is: not approved for A-class

Another core biography that needs confirmation for A-class. Errabee 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I am opposing for two major reasons and one minor reason.

• The structure of this article is poor. Since it is a biography page, there should be more information on Poe's life. Also, I find the headings slightly odd "Life," "Career," and "Death." The "Literary and artistic theory" section is unorganized. Some of what is "Legacy" should be in a section about Poe as a writer. The "Legacy" section is also too long; it needs to be condensed. The page should be dominated by information about Poe and his writings. The "Popular culture" section has lists rather than paragraphs.
• The page is poorly-sourced. The editors need to do a lot of research and radically revise this page. There should be many more citations from reliable biographies for the biography section and the literary sections should rely on the work of literary critics. What is the consensus among Poe scholars regarding Poe's aesthetic theory, for example, or his contribution to detective fiction? To answer the question "what is the consensus among Poe scholars" (and the consensus view is what wikipedia aims to present) requires extensive research. I do not see evidence of that here. Awadewit 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• There is no list of works on the page. Although Poe wrote a lot, there should be at least a partial list of major works with a link to a separate page that lists his entire oeuvre. Awadewit 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe it's just me, but I think a "biography" article should have more than just one section dealing with the subject's "life". I personally think that there is enough potential content regarding his life specifically to constitute a full article, and that the "artistic" sections could easily be spun off into one or more separate articles. However, I acknowledge that I am rather new at this game, so if anyone presents contradictory information I reserve the right to change my opinion. John Carter 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to have three sections on the life: "Life," "Career," and "Death," but, like you, I do not feel that these are adequate, and the description "Career" makes the user think that the biographical description is over. On the point about dividing an author's works from their life, I am generally against that. I think that an overview is at least necessary. Some works need separate pages for a more extensive treatment, but I do feel that there should be a discussion of the author's literary output since that is the reason they are notable. See Mary Wollstonecraft and Anna Laetitia Barbauld for examples of literary biographies that have recently become FAs. Awadewit 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In this particular page, over two-thirds of the total length of the article proper is devoted to his literary career, with only about 12,000 words of 40,000 total in the article dealing with the subject's life per se (Life, Career, Death). I agree with having "some content" relating to the subject's career, but 2/3 of the article might be a bit excessive. Also, based on my own experience with the subject's biography, admittedly in the distant past, I think there are grounds for saying the existing content on his life might be comparatively insufficient. But, like I said, I read up on him several years ago, and may have gotten some things confused. John Carter 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You do know that I agree with you, right? I was just trying to add more information to the debate and more nuances. If you notice, in my oppose I also said that there needed to be more biographical information. Awadewit 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Just amplifying and substantiating my previous comments for anyone else who might see this for clarification purposes. Sorry if it was so poorly phrased that it was reasonably taken as something else. John Carter 02:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Awadewit above. - Duribald 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Overall, I agree entirely with Awadewit and John Carter (see above). Much of this article is well-written, and it contains much good information. There are, however, a number of significant things to be addressed:

• Citations needed for all facts. (Have added citation needed tags to article in some, but not all, of these places.)
• Citations that are given fail to include page numbers
• Given Poe's writing, there should certainly be a substantial, chronological list of his writings, ideally separated by category (poetry, short stories, essays, etc), with years of original publication.
• While there are a good number of excellent "hard" references for Poe, this article has not relied on many of them. Moreover, while some of the websites cited are clearly credible ".edu-type" references, others seem to be less credible.
• Given Poe's importance, I agree that the section on his life should be significantly expanded with the section on Griswald perhaps done more briefly in one paragraph. (There is an article on Poe's death, which seems a better spot for such a full discussion of Griswald's obituary and whatnot.) It also seems odd to have the Griswald bit as its own dedicated section with the entire life of the article's more than worthy subject rolled into one single, relatively short section, given the importance of the subject.
• Info box probably needs more biographical facts: parents, foster parents, siblings

Jancarhart 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the review is: not approved

Another core biography that needs confirmation for A-grade. Errabee 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Support(see below). Article has no obvious gaps that a general reader (like me) finds wanting. A few reservations, none of which probably disqualify the article:

(1) Eleven paragraphs have no reference citations in them.

(2) The article presents two different spellings of Anshān (Anshan).

(3) Several paragraphs are only two or three sentences, and one or two lines in appearance, long. Expansion or merger might be appropriate.

(4) The content on the subject's father, who has his own article, and the separate "family tree" section seem to me at least to possibly be excessive.

In short, the article might stand for a rewrite, but I don't think that is grounds for disqualification. John Carter 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose since article clearly needs more references. For example the "Median Empire" section :only has one single reference. That particular section should also have a "Main article:Medes" link in the beginning. There's a lot of that going around. The article is, however, near A status. -Duribald 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - as sourcing is clearly something which is to be considered in determining if an article is to be counted as being of A class. John Carter 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: While this article seems to be well written and thorough, I don't think it should receive an A-Class rating just yet. (I should also say that I don't know enough about Cyrus the Great to really judge the content itself.) Here are the major problems, as I see it:

• Insufficient citations. As noted above, most of these are at the beginning of the article and dwindle off to few if any by the middle to end of the article.
• A number of citations that don't seem to correlate with a reference, making them difficult to track down, if need be, particularly if the web link for an online source is broken.
• A preponderance of online refereces, which, in and of itself may not be terribly problematic except that (1) it's difficult to tell which of these online references constitute highly credible sources without actually going to the site itself; (2) web pages change or can be eliminated, so having an article that's substantially written using online sources may make it difficult, if not impossible, to locate a source some length of time from now; and (3) I find it difficult to believe that there are not a large number of highly reputable, "hard" sources that would also cover this material. A great number of the online references fail to include access dates and fail to identify the actual source without clicking on the link involved. Finally, I would like to see that those that are actually books available online also include full bibliographic info for a "hard copy" that might be used by a reader in the event the online source is either unavailable or inaccessable for whatever reason.
• While the idea of separating sources listed in the reference section into "ancient" and "modern" sections may be a good one, I would like to see a reference section that included appropriate bibliographic info telling me how to locate the ancient source involved, if I wanted to. (I know there are "modern" copies of Herodotus, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance -- many in highly reputable, good translations. These should be inlcuded here.) The reference section also needs to be properly alphabetized, and each citation should be clearly related to a reference provided in the reference section.
• Personally, I found the family tree interesting, but thought that it should perhaps have a caption briefly indicating the significance of the three different "branches." Also, the "Dynasty" box should include Cyrus the Great -- or Cyrus II -- in the two cells (King of Persia & King of Media) that presumably apply to him.

Jancarhart 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion is: not approved for A-class.

One of our core biographies that has an A-grade. Needs to be checked if this still applies. Errabee 11:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong points - good coverage of Armstrongs life, good disposition, good prose, persondata added, good infobox, excellent use of pictures (none of which are copyrighted). Weak points - a lot of sections need more citations or, like "Gemini 11" and "Early Apollo program" lack them altogether. This is not acceptable for an A class article. "Armstrong in popular culture" is in list form. It should be rewritten into prose. Oppose for now, but with a few alterations it will change to support. - Duribald 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Duribald. Errabee 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Duribald above. John Carter 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the review is: not approved for A-class.

Template placed by Kittybrewster on the talk page, placing here. RHB - Talk 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. It is a nice article, but it is still weak on his early life and military career, as well as his family life. Those have to be expanded upon if this article is to get an A-grade. Furthermore, according to WP:NCNT, the name of the article should be Norman Stronge, as there seems to be no need for disambiguation.

Errabee 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, he is likely to have fought in both World Wars, but this is not mentioned apart from briefly in the lead. RHB - Talk 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe he didn't fight in WWII, as he got wounded in WWI, but because the nature and seriousness of his injury is not detailed, it is impossible to tell in a review. Errabee 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article suffers from WP:OWN issues and is also used by some editor in relation to WP:POINT.--Vintagekits 19:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on your reasoning for this? I understand several editors have been commenting on a potential RFC regarding you in Kittybrewsters user space? RHB - Talk 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with this and also the one that is based around the work of guy that was banned because he was a sock. You mean the RFC that he has had in his users spaces for what seems like months but has never gone anywhere and will never because its without foundation.--Vintagekits 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. I believe there is some (maybe a lot) of prior history between Vintagekits and the nominator, which I don't have time to look into right now. Suffice it to say that reviewers are reminded to concentrate on the strengths and weaknesses of the article, no more no less. --kingboyk 01:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN and WP:POINT are not criteria by which articles get judged. It's the quality of an article that determines if an article gets A-grade or not. Errabee 23:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - the first 44 years of his life get only two short paragraphs; that should be improved. If he really didn't do much during that time, some sort of statement to that effect should be included. Other than that, and possibly the naming question as per Errabee above, it looks good. John Carter 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the review is: not approved.

This was one of the articles I had downgraded from A-class to B-class earlier. An anonymous user reverted this. Now that we have an official A-class review department, I'll ask for an evaluation here. Errabee 09:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Copyright status of pictures is unclear, structure of article is strange (Obituary before marriage, and why even obituary?), no in-line references whatsoever. Errabee 09:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose *sigh* No references, no persondata, the speculation about the cause of death is controversial (at least in her part of the world) and unsourced (same thing goes for her husband's cause of death), it hasn't passed GA... Should be downgraded to a "B". - Duribald 10:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Errabee and Duribald above: picture status is unclear, no persondata, and article needs in-line citations. John Carter 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Downgraded it to "B" status until there's a consensus to make it an "A" class article. - Duribald 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the review was: Not approved.

Article was rated A-class by Kittybrewster. I'll leave a comment at her talk page, notifying her about the A-class review department. Errabee 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Nice article, but needs a picture and an infobox. Content could also be expanded on, e.g. his activities in WWI are very briefly described, in what battle did he get wounded etc etc etc. Errabee 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "his talk page". I can get you a fairly simple b/w head and shoulders photograph which may be acceptable under fair use. His WW1 service would need more detailed research in the Army lists of the era, which I might be able to do. Sam Blacketer 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, his talk page, my bad :) The WWI service record is only one of the sections that should be expanded. Most sections are stubs right now, but it definitely has potential. Errabee 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Clearly not an A class article. It lacks a good enough intro, an infobox and persondata, it could also do with some expansion and a picture. Let it pass GA, before it's ranked A class. I'm lowering the grade, until it's improved. - Duribald 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - as per the above, I think it could use an infobox and picture. Solid article, but could use expansion in some areas as noted above, if the data is available. John Carter 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this review was: Should be rated Start-class.

Was awarded A-class by the article's main contributor, Rajithmohan. Should be checked if it complies with A-class criteria. Errabee 13:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• propose downgrading to Start-class. Article consists mainly of lists, which is not compliant with WP:EMBED. The lead section is too short, and too little information has been gathered. Errabee 13:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• A main contributor should not rate an article. This article is FAR from A status, and I'm taking the liberty of changing it in accordance with your suggestion. - Duribald 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• I don't have any problem with the downgrading. But, the article is definitely not on the Start-class. Please do a more accurate rating, and also please feel to put more comments to improve the article. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• It's a definite start class, it's mostly made up of lists. See comments I just added, at your request. -Duribald 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the Start class rating, listy throughout, though I do like your prose tables. Some statements need citing, such as him being know for a leftist leaning, and there is no infomation on critical response to his works. Also, could you confirm that you can release both pictures under the GFDL? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 12:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Downgrade to start - article is sadly lacking in biogrphical content, as would be required for an A-Class article. Also, a stub-class article can be up to three paragraphs long. This article (outside of list of works) isn't much longer than that. It certainly does not provide much information on his life, which would be required, or his campaign, which would be required if it is to be mentioned in the intro, or even the times he occupied any of the specific positions (teacher, etc.) he has occupied. What content there is is good, but not is not sufficient for more than a Start-class rating. John Carter 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Start-class. Too list heavy and not enough content for even a B, I am afraid. -- Avi 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comments. Agreeing. Thanks for all the valuable comments. I will try to improve the article. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 05:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the review was not approved.

This article is our current example for A-class criteria. Let's make sure it complies with our criteria. Errabee 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Downgrade (sadly)

Pictures are not properly tagged

No in-line references, except in a couple of well referenced paragraphs (like the first paragraph of Work on structure of atomic nucleus)

Early life is a mess with all the birth and death years.

In Early scientific career, the singing in his sleep part is very odd

Errabee 10:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Downgrade per all above.--Yannismarou 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Downgrade as per the above. John Carter 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fail. MrPrada 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Beckham

Article has already been rated A-Class by a Biography project reviewer. Wondering whether to confirm or deny such status. John Carter 15:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - on basis of insufficient reference citations. Several paragraphs lack any. John Carter 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with J. Carter a lot of paragraphs lack references entirely. - Duribald 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fail. MrPrada 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Cent

The article is good enough to be A-Class.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 23:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - Only free use images are permitted in templates. I'm not sure that the image in the infobox qualifies as such. The statement about his August 11, 2007, quote needs direct sourcing. The image question, if it can't be used there, might be sufficient to withhold A status. I suggest that further review be suspended until it is definitely known whether that image can be used one way or another. I've left a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions regarding it and hope to receive a response shortly. John Carter 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a free image. The photographer was kind enough to release it under Creative Commons. Spellcast 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Support - with proviso that statement of August 11, 2007, gets a direct source, as indicated above. John Carter 14:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That never should have been added in the first place, especially in the lead-in (see WP:RECENTISM). Spellcast 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm going to have to oppose for the same reasons said in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/50 Cent. This passed as a good article only only three weeks ago and the reviewer suggested room for improvement, which has not been addressed yet. There's little critical reception of his albums and no reviews of his acting. So it's still not as comprehensive as it should be. Spellcast 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Spellcast. - Duribald 18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fail. MrPrada 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Adler

I have re-written approximately 90% of the Alfred Adler entry over a two month period. I have added scholarly references, increased the number of sub-categories, added relevant links, reorganised the references list and provided additional readings to refer others to. Thank you in advance for reconsidering this entry as a potential A class article.

• Oppose - article needs WP:PERSONDATA. One-sentence lead is far too short as per Wikipedia:Lead section. Article itself could also be significantly longer, particularly in the biographical sections. There are few if any inline citations.The list of topics in "Basic principles" should conform to a list setup,
• like
• this,
• or not be numbered at all. I would think at this point the best way to go would be to address the concerns about the length of the biographical section and inline citations, and persondata, and then nominate the article for GA consideration. Article does seem to have been greatly improved, but still falls short of FA or A class. John Carter 18:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Response - I have added the Persondata template and substantially expanded the lead. I have also added some more references and re-structured the numbering in Basic Principles to a list set-up. These are very helpful suggestions, and I thank you! Cshelley 17:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - in general, at least one reference citation per paragraph is sought. Also, maybe, some of the paragraphs might be broken up, although the latter is purely a minor stylistic matter. John Carter 17:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Response Thanks John, I have followed your suggestions, cheers Cshelley
• Oppose Article doesn't cover Adler's early life at all, and doesn't have enough citations. - Duribald 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.