Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Biography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Biography page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Discussions about article assessment (including complaints and suggestions) should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment

[edit] Bob Dylan FAR

Bob Dylan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Mercy Lewis update

I think that the section under Mercy Lewis, "The Afflicted Children," should have its own page because there has been more and more research on the children as a whole. There are more than a hand full of accusers, but only Mercy's page shows the afflicted children as a whole. I think a more in depth study on the afflicted girls about their afflictions, the symptoms, their behavior, and why they acted as they did is neccessary as its own page because of the amount of information available.

[edit] proposing indigenous people's workgroup

I just edited a few tweaks on George Horse-Capture of the Fort Belknap Agency, and there's nothing on the page or in his linked bio to say which of the two tribes on that agency he's a member of (or both?) - Gros Ventre (a branch of the Blackfeet) or Assiniboine (a Siouxan group). I noted he's in the s&a (science & academia) workgroup of WP:Bio; but might I suggest that there be convened a workgroup to address indigenous peoples' bios, since there's so many of them and they have particular categorizing, cultural-sensitivity etc needs. I added {{NorthAmNative}} which of course addresses some of this, but I'm finding lots and lots of "Indian bios" that don't have NorthAmNative on them; maybe the proposed workgroup could be an interface between that project and this one??Skookum1 (talk)!~

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heenal Raichura

Would appreciate an independent eye on the links to this article. Basically every list of "notable" for which she qualifies by ethnicity or place of study etc.. But is she notable enough to be in them? Would categories be more appropriate? Rich Farmbrough, 18:08 14 May 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Vincent van Gogh GAR notification

Vincent van Gogh has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Brown GAR notification

Gordon Brown has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliographies of people who may never have existed

I'm think here specifically of Madoc - a figure for whom we have no historical evidence and almost certainly did not exist

although his historical reality is still asserted (though without hard evidence) by fringe writers. Should such figures really be covered by this project? Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Pinter

Hello, everyone. There is a longrunning debate about referencing and MOS style at the Harold Pinter article. Both ref tags and parenthetical references are used together, and the result is that the article is very difficult to read. The article appears to me to be overwritten, and I believe that there is a very serious overuse of quotation marks. The footnotes are very long and often contain references to multiple sources. Editors at the current peer review had suggested various kinds of simplifications, but an editor at the article is very persistent in discouraging changes. There is a lot of useful information and research at the article, but here is a situation where (bad) style is overwhelming substance. Can anyone help? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Businessperson Infobox?

Wikipedia seems to highlight "celebrities" and doesn't seem to have very much on the movers and shakers in the business world. Considering there is are lots of different infoboxes for every sport ever created, what about an infobox specifically for businesspeople and entrepreneurs? There are some parameters i feel could be created specify for businesspeople that can't be included with the standard infobox. Anyone else agree? NThomas (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Group vs. individual bio

I'm stuck with expansion of Vesnin brothers and individual articles on them. Most of their notability rests on collaborative work as a trio (definitely true for Leonid Vesnin who died young, less so for Alexander Vesnin who had a succesful solo career in stage design and abstract art). Unlike Marx brothers, where anyone can see each individual face on the screen, individual art of Vesnin brothers completely blended in their collaborative work; critics can only reconstruct individual stylistic cues by conjecture.

What would be the correct way to write individual articles without copying the same text three times and without making a false impression that their individual work was more significant that their team work? NVO (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Keene GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Jean Keene for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Springsteen GAR notification

Bruce Springsteen has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Use of United States in articles

Comments to this would be appreciated (of significance for this entire project --> please add comments here, on talk for WikiProject Biography, rather than on the Michael Jackson talk). In short, it is suggested that WP:NCGN means that people born in the United States should not have this included in the infobox, but only the city and state (not "city, state, United States" – e.g. for Michael Jackson it would be "Gary, Indiana" versus "Gary, Indiana, United States"). I have disputed that this is correct, as the intro for WP:NCGN specifically says it is for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places, but if it applies *everywhere* on wiki, it means that a large percentage of the featured articles for this project should be changed, as they all (at least all the ones I checked that involve people born in the US) use "City, State, USA/United States". 212.10.90.224 (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I too have found a fair percentage of articles with the incorrect usage. It is far more than I as one editor can handle on my own. There are also many other articles that are written correctly. A structured and firm interpretation of the above policy does suggest that only the articles title should not be City, State, Country. It is, however, fairly silent on the usage within the article or the infobox. I believe that in the absence of any strict wikipedia policy in either direction towards the articles body, we should trust hundreds of years of precident on this subject. Although The Chicago Manual of Style is not binding on wikipedia, it is by far the best and most well known reference on this subject. Wikipedia may be its own beast, but its probably best to stick with what has worked in the past and not try and rewrite MOS.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that Jojhutton has replied here rather than on the "old" discussion under Michael Jackson, I will also add an additional comment here (and request that further comments on this matter are kept here to avoid further "split" in the discussion). First, as requested elsewhere a number of times, please point to *any* place on wikipedia where it is mentioned that the non-use of "City, State, United States" applies everywhere, such as the articles in project biography, and not just in the specific city articles. Notice also that even featured articles for cities (at least the ones I've checked) do include United States, though elsewhere in the infobox. This is entirely sensible, as wikipedia is an international (not just US) project: While it is fair to assume everybody knows the most populous/"famous" states (New York, Texas, California, etc), it is just as fair to assume that some of the less populous/"famous" states (Indiana, New Mexico, Rhode Island, etc) are not immediately obvious to everybody as being in the US. While a specific country category exists in the "city infobox", that is–as far as I know–not the case for the "people infobox" (nor would it be useful, as born/death/where someone lived most of his/her life easily would result in conflicts). This is easily solved by sticking to what appears to be the current de facto standard in this project; including United States. Fortunately, having checked additional featured articles for this project, I have yet to find an article with another format than the "City, State, USA/United States" – with the notable exception of Michael Jackson (where removed earlier today by Jojhutton). 212.10.90.224 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you and I may be the only two who actually post here.

That being said, I concede that there may actually not be a wikipedia policy that specifically states that the format should be (City, State). And I concede that many articles (biographies and non-biographies) do use the non-MOS structure of (City, State, Country). The way that I look at it is that Wikipedia policy has up to this point been silent on this issue. There is no policy that supports either way. This may have been missed up to this point, or it may be a conscious decision by the creators of wikipedia early on. Either way, absent any policy direction I believe that we as editors should use our own common sense and follow the standard rules of MOS. Adding both the state and the country to a single line is over kill. Should we say Houston, Texas, United States, when just saying Houston, Texas gets the job done. Is it going to be confused with another Houston, Texas somewhere else? 200+ years of Manual of Style usage tends to agree with me, regardless of wikipedia's silence on the matter. Any article on wikipedia that already has the incorrect MOS usage of the City-State-Country format was probably updated by editors who were unfamiliar of the correct MOS format. Its not something that you learn in High School.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

To your 1st question: Yes, I am fully aware we may be the only people posting on this, but considering its significance... let's wait and see in a number of days. Secondly, you state that "There is no policy that supports either way", then follow it up by "Any article on wikipedia that already has the incorrect MOS usage of the City-State-Country format was probably updated by editors who were unfamiliar of the correct MOS format". While the first part of this apparent contradiction is correct, I have still not been pointed in any direction suggesting the second is supported by anything on wiki. You may think that it is entirely obvious where the cities & states are, and while one could argue that the example you mention, the 4th largest city in the US, indeed is obvious, you did not present this as a case of just the "big and famous cities". Why the United States should get a different treatment in biographies than all other countries still remains unclear to me (and would arguably be a bias). As said before; wikipedia is international, not just US (and even within the US, there are "rumours" of a percentage not always being up to speed on these issues; New Mexico... USA or Mexico?). Otherwise, the same could be argued for other large countries with a divisions comparable to that of the US. E.g. Tamara Almeida Silva was born in Ipatinga, Minas Gerais; a locality which certainly is as obvious to some wiki users as Kearney, Nebraska would be to others. If WP:NCGN had applied everywhere (not just for determining the names of wiki articles on places) as you suggested initially, that form without the country would appear to be supported by the Brazil subsection (and comparable sections can be found among the other countries). To sum it up: It appears you are trying to force the "City, State" rule upon all articles, but this is not supported by any wiki rules (MoS or elsewhere), arguably represents a bias, and (based on featured articles) it goes directly against the de facto standard of WikiProject Biography. 212.10.90.224 (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with 212 here. Policy on this matter is quite clear, as shown by the large number of articles (remember policy does not have to be written). For article titles, yes you use city, state but for elsewhere, either city, state, country or city, country. Los Angeles is not a particularly good example since there is argument we don't even need state there. But for some obscure US city in some relatively unknown US state, expecting that everyone will know where the city or state is is ridicilous and not supported by any aspect of policy. As I mentioned, it is not always necessary to mention the state, this is needless trivia to most people outside the US. The Chicago Manual of Style is a reference for US English. Clearly not a good thing to look at in this instance. If Jojhutton wants to change policy, he/she is welcome to attempt to do so. I would suggest the manual of style is a better place to start such a discussion. And such a massive policy change definitely needs amply discussion and probably should be advertised to WP:VPP and perhaps the signpost at a minimum Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] lists of requests for photographs

Would welcome comments on proposal to address list of photo requests. See User:Traveler100/bio-photo-bot for details. Traveler100 (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Colleen Fitzpatrick (forensic genealogist)

Could someone please have a look at this article and do some work on it? (It's a resumé.) I don't have the time to get at it for a while. Thanks. --Sift&Winnow 22:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The fact that a scientist is a member of the editorial board of a journal?

I have a quite fundamental question about biographies of scientists? I wonder if an Wikipedia article should or shouldn't mention that a scientist is a member of the editorial board of a notable journal?

On the WikiProject Academic Journals here I have raised the opposite question, if a Wikipedia article about a scientific journal should or shouldn't list the notable scientists of the editoral board? One opinion was (simply said) that the Editor In Chief is the only real important person in the journal, and that editorial members shouldn't be listed. And... that biographical article preferable shouldn't mention that the person is a member of the editorial board of any journal? This last remark seems rather extreme to me, but maybe there is something I am missing. I would like to hear your respons here. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Timothy Garton Ash available

It's no big deal, but I figured I could make a note for the community that there are nice pictures of Timothy Garton Ash available for his biography page. Would someone receive it or point me in the right direction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timothy_Garton_Ash CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Getting {{Blp}} to display with Banner Shells

Please be aware that {{WikiProjectBanners}} allows the {{Blp}} message to display when the |living=yes parameter is set within {{WPBiography}}.

However {{WPBS}} aka {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} does NOT display the {{Blp}}. For examples see Talk:George Clooney, which displays {{Blp}}, and Talk:John Candy which doesn't. Please refer to the history of Talk:John Candy IF it has been recently updated to display {{Blp}}.

This should be used

{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{WPBiography |living=yes |class= |priority= }} 
|2={{WikiProject projectname |class= |importance=}}
}}

instead of this

{{WikiProjectBannerShell
|1={{WPBiography |living=yes |class= |priority= }}
|2={{WikiProject projectname |class= |importance=}}
}}

Can a Bot be created to replace {{WPBS}} with {{WikiProjectBanners}} ? 98.71.212.16 (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Any BLP which uses a banner shell should use blp=yes as a parameter within the shell itself and omit the living=yes from the template. ie:

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WPBiography |class= |priority= }} 
{{WikiProject projectname |class= |importance=}}
}}

As such, there is no need to replace anything. By the by, John Candy has been dead for 15 years so he his biography is not one of a living person. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad example. Ahh! I see, perhaps there is an article out there using the other shell, just can't find an example at the moment. Thanks for the quick reply! 98.71.212.16 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is worse news. The original code for {{WPB}} has been replaced by the code for {{WPBS}} with |collapsed= set to yes. In my view this was not at all necessary but occurred because a few admins, one in particular, decided that {{WPBS}} was more powerful and more flexible than {{WPB}} and, therefore, the latter should be eliminated. The details are on Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell and Template talk:WikiProjectBanners. Notice that the recoding did not require any review process and no such process was sought. As the templates are protected so that only admins can edit them we non-admin editors are stuck with what has been foisted upon us.

JimCubb (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shalom Weiss

This article is about a white collar criminal who has the distinction of being sentenced to a longer term than Bernard Madoff, 845 years. This article has a number of issues that I have attempted to address, but expert help is urgently needed. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of Mary Higgins Clark

I have conducted a reassessment of this article and have some issues that need addressing, which can be found at Talk:Mary Higgins Clark/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UNDUE FRINGE NPOV etc. vs. Biographies

Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask this question - if not, I'd appreciate a bit of direction on where I should post it. I have been working on a biography recently, and the person in question is a controversial scientist. In trying to present aspects of his work I have been running into quite a bit of grief with people reverting edits on the grounds that they violate various combinations of WP:UNDUE, FRINGE, NPOV, PEACOCK, and COATRACK. What has dawned on me is that people are applying these tags to the persons' research, not the biography. That is, the research this person has conducted is considered FRINGE (I argue it's Alternative Theoretical Formulation), so any mention of his work in the bio is being attacked for violating FRINGE and UNDUE, even though the sources are not FRINGE or UNDUE. I'm not sure if all of that is as clear as it could be, so I'll try to put it into a question and example; When writing a WP:BIO does UNDUE/FRINGE etc. restrict only the quality of the material/views presented (i.e. only present material that accurately reflects the majority view of what this person did), or can these policies also restrict presenting the actual work of the person who is the subject of the article? So for instance, if Joe Blow (who satisfies notability) conducted research into unicorns living on Venus, and there are plenty of reliable sources covering his efforts, can a biography on Joe Blow actually present the various elements of his unicorn research in some detail provided the biographical information is accurate and satisfies verifiability etc., or does WP severely restrict mention of unicorns on Venus research because it is such a fringe topic that it does not conform to the majority view of science, regardless of notability? Any help people could provide on this would be very welcome! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You could present Joe Blow's unicorn work in his bio, so long as it's not discussed so extensively as to become an article on the unicorn theory. But if Joe Blow is notable enough for a bio, his unicorn theory might be notable too. It would depend on context. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's great SV, thanks for your time. In this particular instance Joe Blow (Ian Stevenson) is very notable, as is his theory. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR for A. E. J. Collins

I have nominated A. E. J. Collins for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asmahan

Hey. We've got an RfC open at Talk:Asmahan#RfC to try to reach consensus as to how to display her nationality. Any comments from people here would be most appreciated. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra

Some help would be appreciated here. The article was previously deleted several times for copyright violation. Permission was obtained to copy the text from one website; there is nothing, however, that confirms the neutrality of that content, as will be evident upon reading. Other text has been copied from various websites, mainly descriptions of books by online booksellers. Whether this content was original to commercial websites, or copied from the books themselves matters little. The concern is that they may still be copyright violations, and do not constitute reliable objective references. In all, the subject may merit an article, but much of what is being provided appears to be self-referential and non-neutral. This has been rather copiously discussed not only at the current article talk page [1], but previously at my talk page [2], that of the sole contributor to the article [3], and that of an administrator [4]. Thanks. JNW (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of Andrea Dworkin

I have reassessed this article and found issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. The reassessment comments are at Talk:Andrea Dworkin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Solondz

Could someone with experience in biographical articles take a look at the Justin Solondz article. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Related article: Briana Waters. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cut out some commentary and unsupported information from the Justin Solondz article and removed the 'unfairly convicted' bit from Briana Waters. The Waters article could likely use another set of eyes and further reference double checks though. --ponyo (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

At the Justin Solondz article someone added some information and wrote: "Sources are directly from 2 of these girls who are now awaiting trial", which sounded odd. User:Ponyo took out some of what had been added but then it was quickly added back. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone editing from 209.107.217.8 also recently added information about Rachel Corrie to List of The Evergreen State College people. The added information is not sourced and seems to contradict what is said at the Rachel Corrie article, although that article mentions that there is some controversy in the matter...I'm not familiar with that situation. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a situation for WP:AN/I than for here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Asmahan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An RFC is open at this article which is marked as within the scope of this Wikiproject but the RFC has so far seem very few responses. It would be very helpful to resolving the matter if any interested editors could stop by and offer any thoughts.

CIreland (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Armstrong GAR notice

Neil Armstrong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

I have nominated Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another FAR

I have nominated Anne of Great Britain for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. john k (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR of George F. Kennan

I have nominated George F. Kennan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Otumba (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GAR

I also submitted a couple of Biographical articles for GAR. They are all for Medal of Honor recipients and they are. Michael J. Daly, Charles Pomeroy Stone, and Merritt A. Edson. --Kumioko (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Polo

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, Marco Polo, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

Chzz ► 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bahia Bakari (airplane crash survivor) AfD

Bahia Bakari (the sole survivor of Yemenia Flight 626) is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahia Bakari, a semi-procedural nomination to ensure that a merge into the flight's article would not be excessive for a BLP. Input there would be appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Sunday GAR

Billy Sunday has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question about appropriate inclusion of awards

I'd like to get others' input regarding addition of information about awards won by living persons, especially whether there are relevant guidelines or general principles. I have a potential conflict of interest with a well-known public figure who has a Wikipedia article, and would like to include some appropriate information about public awards won. I have a list of 25 such awards going back the past four years, and although I have not done research to find reliable citations for them, I presume for now they do exist. However, I am not quite sure where lies the line between being informational and overdoing it. I've looked at guidelines within this WikiProject, as well as WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO and WP:NOT but neither make any such mention. Please let me know if you can. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Biography articles without listas parameter Needs Your Help

This category at one time had more that 375,000 articles. Through extensive effort by editors and at least one bot it is now down to 50,000 articles.

There are still a few editors who are working on the articles in this category but a bot is no longer useful. (The last time it was run it could only work on one out of 400 pages.) The category is growing by almost 100 articles per day. What needs to happen now is for a larger number of editors who are very knowledgable in the naming conventions of many cultures to take 30 minutes or more per day and work on the articles within a specific area of the alphabet.

I have managed to clean out the articles before "A", the ones after "Z", the ones in "Q" and the ones in "X" and I monitor those letters each day. I am currently working on "V" because I wanted a break from Chinese and Arabic names and because it had fewer than 500 articles when I started.

Please jump in almost anywhere as a test effort. If you become interested in working on the project, please register your interest in the appropriate place on the category's talk page. You have nothing to lose but your sanity and how much of that is left anyway?

I may put a guide to how I determine a valid value to the |listas= on a sub-page to my talk page once I figure out how to make such a page. Until then feel free to ask me about any part of the process that puzzles or bothers you.

JimCubb (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Rose Eldred GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Arthur Rose Eldred for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)