Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/James Robert Baker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] James Robert Baker

I have spent several weeks working on this article, and I can't think of more ways to improve it. I would like it to receive GA status, but it probably needs help for that. One of the auto-generated suggestions was to expand it, as it wasn't long enough. The only way I can think of doing that is to discuss each book in depth. Could somebody read it and give me some helpful criticism? ThanksJeffpw 12:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLilburne

It looks to me like it's well on its way to GA status. One minor way to improve the article might be to give it subheadings (such as "early life," "screenplays," "novels," "posthumous reputation" or something along those lines), which would help to structure it and would help the reader find his/her way around a little better. The lead paragraph could also be expanded somewhat, although I don't think that the article as a whole really needs to be longer. MLilburne 14:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you, MLilburne, for your suggestions. As you may have noticed, I implemented all of them, and they really improved the article! It's now a GA! The nomination was stopped until you made those thoughtful suggestions:) Jeffpw 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

I saw you easily achieved GA status. Congratulations! I suppose your next goal is FAC (or not?). In any case, these are some suggestions for further improvements:

  • I saw you have his books both in italics and quotations. I checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) and I saw that for titles of books only italics are recommended. I think you should fix that.
  • "he became attracted to the fringe elements of society, including beatniks". What is a "beatnik"? Linking is never enough! For such terms five an immediate explanation in a few words. I went to the relevant article and I got more confused, because the term has many uses! Which one you use? In any case, there are many users who does not want to go to other articles for explanations. They want them right here right now!
  • "Baker also began experimenting with drugs, and became, in his own words, "an out of control, teenage speed freak".[2] He also began drinking heavily, attributing it to the fact that he was still a closeted homosexual." Prose issues. These two "also" in a raw are not nice. In general, a slight copy-editing of the article would help.
  • ""Mouse Klub Konfidential" and "Blonde Death". "Mouse Klub Konfidential"". For films too I think quotations not needed.
  • "It is also alleged to have caused Michael Medved to abandon his dream of becoming a film maker and become a film critic, instead." Rephrase. Bad sentence!
  • "Writer" needs better referencing. Some paragraphs having important assessments are not properly referenced or all not at all referenced.
  • First paragraph in "Death" is unreferenced.
  • "Legacy" is totally unreferenced. Try o have at least one reference for each paragraph and citate assessments such as "Since his death, Baker's reputation has steadily increased among the reading public, and his works now have cult status in the literary community."
  • In "Published works" you should properly reference the books. You do not mention the publishers.
  • "External links" go after "References".
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 09:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Yannismarou, for your great comments! They are a big help, and I am making improvements. And yes, FAC is my next goal, so your help is greatly appreciated.

  • I have removed the quotation marks for the film title, but kept the italics. My rationale is the articles on Jane Fonda and Laurence Olivier; both of them are in that style, and they are both GAs.
  • Ok. Italics are fine.--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Beatnik". I tried to add an explanation for that term, but it severely disrupts the flow. The link *does* take you to the most appropriate definition. I realize wiki is not only for an American audience, but the term is generally used in the english language. Do you have any ideas that would not compromise the flow of the article?
  • If I was a native English speaker I'd have found a solution! If you definitely cannot summarize it with 4-5 words, a short interim phrase, then let it be as it is.--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Double use of also has been removed--thanks for pointing that out! When you keep reading the same thing over and over, it becomes impossible to see even glaring mistakes, sometimes.
  • What do you find bad about the Michael Medved sentence? The use of alleged? According to Wiki,one may use alleged if it is supported by sources, and I used two. (three now, and also changed it to read: "credited with having" instead of "alleg to have").
  • I just did not like the structure of the phrase. I thought it has too many verbs and "to" gathered. Again this is my personal impression. Don't take it for granted!
  • I've added 2 additional citations to the writing subhead. I can add more, but am not sure if it's necessary--for instance, the section about cinematic imagery in his books can be referenced, but anyone who reads the books will see that for themselves. Should I cite a source for something so obvious?
  • Not necessarily. But it wouldn't be bad if you added one more citation in the last paragraph.--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Legacy" and "Death" now have 2 references.
  • External links is now shifted to the bottom.
  • Added publishers to the "Published works" section. Is that all I needed to do to properly reference that? I have no experience with this sort of thing.
  • Basically yes. In order to be sure about what to put in, you could use this cite book-thing, you can find it used in many FAs: Template:Cite book.--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Categories alphabetized, though who knows for how long? People keep adding categories willy nilly:-s
  • For how long? For ever! And when somebody adds a new category, check if your article really fits there.--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for all of the very constructive criticism. This is my first Wiki article, and I need all the help I can get! Jeffpw 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • added this to the word "beatnik": (anyone living as a bohemian or acting rebelliously or appearing to advocate a revolution in manners[2]), with a source. My personal feeling is that it interrupts the flow, but I grant that it does add clarity.Jeffpw 16:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Again I don't want to make you do something you regard as wrong for the article! After all, it is a major issue and I'm not by default right!--Yannismarou 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh! And some external links I now saw added are not properly citate. There is another cite-template for this stuff you can use. Where is it? Ah! Here: Template:Cite web--Yannismarou 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you again for your constructive criticism, Yannismarou! I have reformatted the references (Wow! That was a pain! I am not very computer literate when it comes to HTML code), and now they look properly Wikified.
  • I'm going to sleep on the Beatnik sentence. I have left the explanation in for now, and will look at it again tomorrow, when I am not as frazzled.
  • Citation added to last paragraph of writing section. I might be able to add one more there, as well. Just out of curiosity, can one overly cite in an article? I do have sources for everything, but was hesitant to put a citation in for every sentence. Jeffpw 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, let's not overdo it! The principle is at least one citation for each paragraph and referencing of every allegation, assessment, quote. Some users say that citation for each sentence goes to the extreme. I say "some users", because I'm a reference-freak! To summarize, citations are usually well-received, but again we should not overdo it. In any case, avoid to have more than one citation in a row (I mean [1][2][3] - one after the other).--Yannismarou 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Eww! I have that 3 in a row thing in 3 different places. I felt it important, since each reference by itself was rather weak, so I wanted to show a consensus of viewpoints. I saw elsewhere that it is possible to turn the three into one, but I don't know how. I'll give it a look on other pages to see if I can figure it out. By the way, I have nominated it for FAC. So far one person gives it support, if the Fair Use of the images can be established. Jeffpw 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If I were you, I would combine all three references into one citation (just put each reference on a new line). The FA people may disagree with me, however. MLilburne 19:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Formatting gives me so much stress! What I ended up doing was combining 2 of the three, so now there are 2 citations next to each other, which is accepted (so I read somewhere). I wanted to combine them all into one, but I wasn't sure how to combine 2 internet citations, and was afraid I would mess the whole thing up if I tried. Jeffpw 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have tidied up your combined footnotes a bit. If you don't like the result, please feel free to revert, but I think having the references on seperate lines makes it look a bit tidier. MLilburne 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, MLilburne. Writing an article is fun, but formatting it to Wiki standards is another matter entirely! I sincerely appreciate your help with it, and yes, it looks a lot neater the way you did it. I did add "See Also" to the second reference, simply because I saw that other pages with multiple references for a sentence included that.