Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Stephen Barrett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Stephen Barrett

The article could use the help of experienced, patient editors with the NPOV and BPL problems and disputes that have been going on since early last year. If nothing else, some advise to the current editors would be appreciated. Ronz 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just took a quick look - things I would do. Morphh (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Add Infobox for main pic - see Infoboxes
  • No space between ref and punctuation per WP:FOOT
  • See also goes before Refs (should probably be "Notes") per WP:GTL
I added an infobox,however I would suggest --Maniwar (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC):
  • Finding out his birth month and day
  • Adding Birth city and state
  • I'd like to see more paragraph structure and less bullet structure
  • The bio seems lacking. What about his early life as an MD...where is that?
  • Move the Recognition section down lower in the article
Thanks for the suggestions! I tried to track down more biographical information on him and found little other than birthplace and wife's name. Seems to be a very private person given all the opportunities he has to give more information. --Ronz 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

  • "Biography" is awful! Nothing about his early life. Not a clear line of events. It obviously needs rewriting and expansion.
  • "Recognition" is listy. It needs rewrting and proper prose.
  • Don't leave a gap between the citation and the quotation mark.
  • [citation needed] should be fixed.
  • IMO "Qualifications and objectivity" also looks listy and trivia.
  • If you want to quote, you should use {{cquote}} or <blockquote>s per WP:MoS. In "Defamation lawsuits" you do not quote properly. Try to avoid the long and one after the other quotes which interrupt the prose.
  • I do not the way you have the lawsuits. In some of them we have inadequate infos and stubby pars. Others lack proper prose, being listy. Have in mind that your purpose is not to enumerate events but to right a proper article with a nice prose flow, which the current article lacks.
  • You start "Credentials" with half sentence and another long quote. I don't think this is nice. Try to make clear to the reader of your article which is the topic of this section. A quote straight away without any other introductory comment rarely helps.
  • When you quote, you do not have to use italics. Quotation marks are OK.
  • "Credentials" could also provide material for his biography. You could rearrange and reorganize this material, trying, of course, not to be repetitive.
  • "A California court stated:". Clumsy and un-cyclopedic prose, especially when you open a new paragraph.
  • "Ray Salhelian M.D. ... nutritional medicine." This par is just a compilation of quotes.
  • "Selected publications": I am not sure that underlining the titles of books is in accord with WP:MoS.
  • The online sources should be cited in a consistent way. In some of them I see author, date it was retrieved; in others just the title.
  • The "see also" section is big. Can't you incoroporate these links in the main text? Have in mind that we do not relink articles already linked in the main article.
  • Something easy: alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
  • If you want to see this article GA or FA, the POV tag should somehow go. I don't have the time to read the talk page in detail, but the article should try to expose all different views without espousing any. I think that, in general, it is not POV.--Yannismarou 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From SG

I would offer to help, but there are names in the edit history indicating you've got a very tough row to hoe - sorry, but this article may end up at ArbCom. Sandy (Talk) 17:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biff Rose

This article needs a good dea lof clarification on the man's later life, which seems to be rabidly guarded by a fan who doesn't want it to represent all the facts.Macinneedofhelp

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)