Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Charles Faulkner
I am submitting this article for peer review. I hope to achieve GA status. In the event that this article has achieved this standard, I would like some feedback as to how to bring the article up to the next level (FA status).
Thank you.
Brinabina (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Javascript reviewer
[edit]The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
Not doneConsider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
Done You may wish to consider adding an appopriate infobox for this article, such as Template:Infobox Person. [?]- DonePlease add
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] - DonePer Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
- DonePer Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==An Expert==, it should be changed to ==Expert==.[?]
- DonePlease 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. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
*The lead is ok, but why do you have to link "book"? I don't think it is necessary.
Done I have removed the link. I think the idea here was to link to the wikipedia bibliography of his works, but I was unsure of how to do this. I have the same problem later on in the article. It would be nice. I have searched for the info on how to link to a subsection of an article (even the same one) but I seem to be wading through a lot of other information and I just can't find it... help?
*"The methodology described in the book described ways of affecting immediate and positive life changes by reprogramming speech, movement and thought patterns.". You see the prose problem here?
Done Oh, yes, I seem to have missed that one. My bad. It reads much better, now. If you have further suggestions for improvement on this or any other sentence please let me know.
*You have a separate subject "Education", while you also speak about his education in "Biography". Overlapping?
Not done I think of the biography as a general overview that includes the subsequent topics, but does not go into any one of them
at length. I understand this to be Wikipedia's style. Perhaps I can further generalize the earlier reference, or further specify the latter. Alternately, I can eliminate any reference to his education in the biography, altogether. What do you suggest?
*"The skepticism stems, in part, from the fact that NLP is largely based on cognitive linguistics which emerged from later work on generative semantics--the "losing" side of the heavily debated "Linguistics Wars" in academic circles of the 1960s and 1970s. Furthermore, this credibility debate is compounded by the previous lack of empirical research supporting NLP's effectiveness." I would cite that.
Not done Ah, yes, I believe this is another one of those places where I wanted to link within Wikipedia (to a subsection) and couldn't, for the life of me, figure out how.
*"Linguistics Wars" is also undercited.
Not done Same.
*“If you want academic credibility, if you want respect from the established entities, whether they are psychological or medical or whatever, well, you have to play their game. If game sounds too flippant, then you have to meet their values. Have to meet their standards of evidence.” Citation?
Done Yes, this one slipped by me and I neglected to cite it. I actually have the source somewhere and can't quite find it at the moment. If I can't place it, then I'll just delete it from the article. It's a pity, as it's a good quote.
*In "References" we put the material we used in notes. Otherwise it is "further reading". I don't think it is clear what is exactly your "References" section. And why Koppel is in "Further reading", although he is referred in "Notes"?! Some fixing is needed in these sections.
- External links go after "further reading".
Duly noted. I will review these sections and make changes, as needed.
*I am not a specialist on the issue, so I will not elaborate on the ideas of Faulkner and how they are presented in the article. I will just point out the necessity to follow the POV policy. I express some scepticism about the source (note 9) used in the first paragraph of "achievements". It is a site where no author is sigining Faulkner's short biography. I am not quite sure if such a source is "reliable", but I hope I am wrong.
I tried to be especially careful to maintain a NPOV. I feel that any biography used as a source for this article can be considered reliable because they can be cross-referenced with reliable sites (such as Faulkner's own and those belonging to established Societies or organizations who are accountable for the information they present to the public). However, I will reread your posted link and review the citation extra carefully to be sure that I am correctly following Wikipedia's guidelines.
In terms of structure, IMO the "Achievements" section is not exactly an "achievements" sections! It includes the whole career, ideas, works of Faulkner being something broader than mere "achievements". Maybe it should be renamed or divided in two sections. Again this may just be a personal preference.
Done I agree that the title is too narrow. I am looking into some alternate choices... leaning towards splitting the section into two and coming up with narrower titles. Thanks for the suggestions.
In general the article is good IMO and goold well go through GA. For FAC I am not yet sure ...
--Yannismarou (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your thorough and honest feedback. :)