This WikiProject is believed to be semi-active. Activity has slowed down in the last few months. If you are not currently a member of the project, please consider joining it to help. Feel free to remove this tag if activity resumes or if this tag was placed in error. If almost no activity occurs in this Wikiproject, consider replacing this tag with {{inactive}}.

The peer review department of the Biography WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality. The process is intended to make both marginal and good quality articles into excellent, encyclopedic ones. However, use of a peer review for articles assessed below the Biography WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewers' time.

Editors with article requests involving significant policy and/or POV concerns or edit wars should use Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and/or Noticeboards (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for living persons and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for others.) before a peer review.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Biography WikiProject. Please consider reviewing someone else's article too, if you request yours :-)

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 Requesting a review 1.2 Responding to a request 1.3 Archiving 2 Requests 2.1 León de Greiff 2.2 Frederick Buechner 2.3 Taeyang 2.4 William Stanley (Victorian inventor) 2.5 Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne 2.5.1 Comments 2.6 Jon Gettman 2.7 Nikita Khrushchev 2.8 John Rosenberger 2.9 Nicholas U. Mayall 2.10 Jessica Lee Rose 2.11 Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant) 2.12 Per Ahlmark 2.13 William J. Jefferson 2.14 John Christie (murderer) 2.15 Tony O'Malley 2.16 Janek Gwizdala 2.17 Harry Lewiston 2.18 Mary C. Seward 3 Archives

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
4. Below it, write what you hope to gain from a peer review. For example, what are you aiming for with this article? Do you hope it can become a Featured Article? Good Article? Or something else? Remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~).
5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.
6. Add a link to your article to the beginning of the Peer Review announcement list.
7. The peer review volunteers interested in your subject area welcome direct requests. Simply leave a message on their user talk page inviting them to comment on your article.

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== Review by [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WPBiography}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.
3. Remove article from Peer review announcement list

[edit] Requests

[edit] León de Greiff

A lot of work and research has been put on this article in the last couple of weeks. I am hoping to get feedback on the layout, readability, and any other things that may move this article to be rated a Good Article. Since most of the information and sources have come from another language, I am afraid some parts may be phrased incorrectly. Please let me know what can I do to make this article better. Thanks. mijotoba (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick Buechner

A lot of work has been done on this page in the last few months - would love to see this move up to FA or B rating. Thank you an advance to any/all peer reviewers!

Suggestions from Carcharoth have been addressed as well (see below)

Copied from User talk:Carcharoth 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Are you interested in reviewing an article on novelist/theologian Frederick Buechner. I am a fan and it seems that some professionals have helped write the article, but I wanted to help get it to FA level... what do you think the article needs next? Thanks, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Buechner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.22.54 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Lead looks good. "The Buechner Institute at King College" section is stubby. The external links section needs formatting. Quotes section looks the wrong approach for that sort of thing. I've reassessed as C-class, and I think if you ask for a proper review, you can get this assessed as B-class, or GA-class. FA-class needs a bit more work. I would try a formal request for peer review and keeping asking around. Copying this to the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Godric1234 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Taeyang

I would like to expand on the article in itself. thus would like some feedback on what to do in order to improve the article. ^N_P^e_e^e_r^b_v^s_e^s_z (Push) 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] William Stanley (Victorian inventor)

What I am looking for is ways to improve the layout of this article.

I have done a lot of research on Stanley (as can be seen by the references), and although all the information is present, I feel that it does not look right!

I would love this to be raised to Good Article status, as I feel that the information in it is sufficient for that, if the layout etc can be sorted.

This is my first article (or rather, my first substantial one), and so it is the first time I've submitted my work for peer review - so please be gentle! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne

I am entering this article to be reviewed because I feel that it deserves a good ranking. I have many substantial changes to it, including adding important information with credible sources. Please treat it fairly; it took a lot of work! Note: this is the first article I have submitted for peer review. Ruby2010 (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Note: I'm not a member of Wikiproject Biography, but the nominator asked me to review the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Not being familiar with the specific article ranking system of this project, I won't definitively determine class, but by my own criteria the article falls somewhere between C- and B-class. Here are some specific concerns:

• I'd say her marriage into the Medici family deserves a mention in the lead.
• The article is rather short, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in this case I feel it could be expanded.
• Generally, month-day articles (ex. April 28) should not be linked
• Any information on her life prior to marriage negotiations?
• Most opinions are cited, which is commendable, but they should still be worded to make clear that it is someone's opinion (ex. "it was a great honor" -> "it was considered a great honor")
• Should "La" in her title be capitalized or not?
• Could use a few more wikilinks, but should avoid linking the same term/name more than once
• Referencing is complete and well-done
• Take a look at policies like WP:WTA, and make sure that the article is written in a strict encyclopedic tone.

Thanks for the input. I mostly just wanted to get a second opinion on it, seeing as how I was really the only person editing it and the fact that this was my first article submission for review. I'll work on making it even better. Thanks! Ruby2010 (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Gettman

I've written all that I can with the sources available. However, there is zero information on Gettman's early life and I'm not sure how I should go about (if it is at all possible) rectifying this. I'm also concerned that I'm giving certain parts undue weight. But any and all input is greatly appreciated, and my goal is to reach GA status. Mnation2 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: His e-mail address is found at Jon Gettman PhD - Medical Marijuana - ProCon_org - perhaps you could e-mail him and ask if there is a published biography of him that we could use? or a reliable source of information which we could refer to (please note that personal e-mails couldn't be used as a source, but perhaps he could give ideas of where to find information?) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Additional comment: note that the ProCon site should be used only as a starting point for research. It is not suitable as a reference per WP:RS, and as well there have been considerable efforts to spam links onto Wikipedia, so external links should be avoided. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nikita Khrushchev

I'm hoping for this to become a featured article but it is by far the most complicated article I've ever undertaken. I'd like for as many eyes as possible to be on it and as much advice as I can get.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John Rosenberger

I wrote a lengthy biography primarily using information from the only major source available for the artist's life and works, an article in Alter Ego #23 (the writing for the Wikipedia article is all original). While I feel this article is a well-written, well-cited, well-supported Good Article, I understand that the subject is only of low to medium importance. Please advise on protocol – should the article be cut down? Is it frowned upon to include "unimportant" life details? Any input is welcome. Thanks, Slugabed (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Review by llywrch

After reading the article in its current version, I don't see anything I'd cut out. It covers his early life, career, & explains his notability. If Wikipedia were paper, some of this would likely be trimmed out -- but this is not the case. -- llywrch (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas U. Mayall

I'm thinking this could easily become a Good Article. WilliamKF (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Lee Rose

I was hoping to get this article to a GA status, or maybe even a FA status. Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Arts says "Due to the extremely large number of pending nominations in this category, nominators are advised that it may take a long time before a review begins. You may still add your nomination, but if you just want comments directed at improving the article, you might want to try Peer Review first." Therefore, I was hoping I could get some feedback before getting it officially reviewed. Additionally, myself and another user believe it is already B-class, but due to a dispute (see here), it is listed as C-class, falsely, I believe. Regardless, I was hoping to get some feedback and ideas to improve upon an article I have worked hard on and believe to be in pretty good shape as it is. Thank you very much for your time. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Gbern3

• All of your references are correctly formatted. You have persondata in this article which is really good to have in all wikipedia biographies. There is a good amount of categories and your photo is correctly licensed. I also love how your article is organized chronologically. It makes it so much easier to read and understand her body of work and growth as an actress.
• Your lead does a good job of summarizing the article. My only qualm is the first sentence. The first sentence of all wikipedia articles should establish notability. The first sentence in this article only states that JLR is an NZ actress. Although it establishes who she is, this is not enough information to explain to a casual reader why she's important or unique from every other NZ born actress. I think you can solve this by combining the 1st and 3rd sentence of your lead like so:

Jessica Lee Rose (born April 26, 1987) is an American-born New Zealand raised actress who gained popularity after playing role of lonelygirl15, a fictional teenage homeschooled character named Bree who appeared in many video blogs (also known as a vlog) on the popular video-sharing website YouTube.

• There is a separate argument for birthplace when using the {{infobox actor}} template. You should list her birthplace in this argument rather than with birthdate as it is right now. Does she have an official website? If so, list it under the "website" argument.
• I think your lead could use some more internal wikilinks particularly "Webby" for people who aren't familiar with this award. You could also wikilink New York Film Academy, Mount Maunganui College, Los Angeles Times, etc.
• In the Post-YouTube career section, The Crew links to a disambiguation page rather than an article.
• Ref 7 doesn't state that she went New York Film Academy. NYFA isn't mentioned.
• Ref 14 and ref 25 are dead links.
• In the Awards and recognitions section there are some awards that have a year beside them and others that have both month and year listed. I suggest sticking to one format: either use just the year for all accolades or both month and year for all (rather than switching back and forth).
• Refer to Jessica Lee Rose as either "Jessica" or "Rose", you mix them up in the article. Generally when referring back to the subject of a biographical article, you should refer to them by their last name. I don't think there's a wiki policy on this but I know that in writing this is the general rule of thumb.
• The lonelygirl15 video blogs, first appearing in the summer of 2006..." Suggestion: "The lonelygirl15 video blogs, which first appeared in the summer of 2006..."

Hope these suggestions help. // Gbern3 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Zoeydahling

First of all, thanks so much! Here's my thoughts on your comments:

1. Thanks!
2. I switched the first sentence around a little bit so it addressed lonelygirl15. I wanted to keep the bulk of the lonelygirl15 part in the second paragraph so it would still stand as it's own paragraph. Do you mind taking a look at it now and letting me know what you think?
   1. I think it looks great. The notability is in the first sentence and lonelygirl15 still has it's own paragraph.
3. It is listed separately, in the "location" as opposed to the "birthdate" - that's just how the infobox template formatted it. I added her website.
   1. Whoops, I didn't realize there was an argument for "location". It isn't listed on the {{infobox actor}} template page.
4. Done. How's it look? Good or overkill?
   1. Wikilink SyFy? I think it would be helpful to those unfamiliar with this channel. Since there isn't an article for Studio 111, I think you should remove that one.
      1. Removed Wikilink for Studio 111 and added to SyFy. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Removed "The Crew" link.
6. It does say that, it's just on the second page. Do I need to make a separate reference for the second page? I thought just linking to the article would suffice?
   1. I wouldn't make a separate reference per se but since both of your ref 7 cited statements are located on the second page, I would change the url in ref 7 to point directly to the second page rather than the first. The only difference between the current url you have and the new one is the last seven characters ?page=2 --> http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/unmasking-lonelygirl15/2006/09/13/1157826998165.html?page=2
      1. I didn't change the link, but I did add a page=2 argument so it's clear. That way someone can read the whole article but know the part of the article that's referenced. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
         1. That's better. Come to think of it, I actually think this is the correct way to go about it rather than changing the link.
7. Switched out links to non-dead ones.
8. Some of the awards are given yearly and some are monthly. I thought it would be better to give as much information as possible for each award, since just listing the year for the monthly ones would not really be specific enough. What do you think?
   1. I agree but some other issues have come up that I didn't see before. At first I disagreed with you because I felt that if the awards were given out on a monthly basis then I would see the need to list the month. For example, Playboy's Playmate of the Month. Awards like these need a month and year because they're given out monthly. The other awards are given out yearly (or so I thought) which is why I only saw a need for giving the year. After taking a second look I realized that most of the other awards are a one time thing like VH1's 40 Greatest Internet Superstars. They don't compile that annually so now I see your point in giving both a month and a year for the award. I have a couple new thoughts:
      1. For VH1's "40 Biggest Internet Celebrities", if she was #4 on the list why does it say "won" rather than "listed"?
         1. I did that because she "won" fourth place where in the other she was just included in an overall list. I can change it if it's clearer though? --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
            1. I suppose it's already clear. You did specify fourth place in the article. Perhaps it's just me but I don't think of 4th place as winning.
      2. It says she was listed in Jane Magazine's 30 Inspirational Women Under 30 in May 2007 but your reference gives August 2008 as the date. This is more than a year's difference in time. Which one is the correct date?
         1. Good call. I fixed it. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
9. I think I got them all. Do you mind doing a quick check for me?
   1. You got them all.
10. Fixed.

Thanks again!! --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I reread the article and saw three new things I didn't see before:

• These two sentences The series was an immediate hit and became the most subscribed channel on YouTube and An investigation by the Los Angeles Times would reveal the lonelygirl15 videos as a work of fiction. need references.
  • Will do. UPDATE: Added refs, how's that? --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Better.
• In the first paragraph of the Post-YouTube career section, it starts out with what she did in 2007 and then skips to 2009. In the second paragraph, it goes back to 2008. Chronological please. This sentence looks like it belongs at the end of the 3rd paragraph.
  • What I was trying to do there was to group it in terms of what type of media it was. The first paragraph addresses old media, the second web series, the third her production company, the fourth her current projects. I found when I did it strictly chronologically it got a bit confusing. Do you think it would benefit greatly from switching it around though? --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Some thoughts: [1]After rereading I can see how you organized it in category form rather than chronological order. For this reason I think you should lose the dates particularly the April 2008 one about the Blood Cell announcement. When the series itself came out is more important than when it was announced it would be coming out. In contrast, I think it would be OK to leave the 2007 Chris Sivertson film and of course presented at the 2009 Streamy Awards because it gives context but if you're set on categorization, stick with one format throughout the section. Skipping though dates that aren't in order causes the reader to be adrift. I was criticized of this when I put up an article I wrote up for peer review in September. [2]I also advise you not to use the term "She is currently appearing". "She appeared" would be better. It's OK to have that paragraph be for the most current events but the use of time specific terms should be avoided because things don't stay current WP:MOSNUM. [3]Since your last paragraph is for her most relevant work I think you should move the October 2009 work she appeared in the SyFy television movie, Ghost Town to the fourth paragraph because this happened around the same time as Poor Paul (September 2009) and The Crew (October 2009) so it goes along with being current.
• Because the White Tie Affair's song "Candle (Sick and Tired)" is an external link rather than a wikilink it should be placed in the external links section. You should definitely leave that bit of information in the Post-YouTube career section, just linkless (if that's a word) within the body of the article. //Gbern3 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant)

Just finished an extensive rewrite of this article, making use of the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts and other very reliable sources circa 1900. I would like to bring this to GAN soon but would like a peer review before doing so. There are some minor facts that I will be adding in the interim, also, which is why I'm waiting before GAN. In the end, I would really like to bring this to FA status. I put a lot of time, reading, and work into this. Some of the text is copied verbatim from sources (almost all of which are PD); many times this was done because the wording in the source was so good I couldn't top it. That said, there were some that were pretty good, but give off 19th century vibe, but which I couldn't do much with. This is an important man for the history of New York and the Northeastern United States in general, and a full and thorough article on him was very warranted. Thanks in advance to any interested parties! upstateNYer 23:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Per Ahlmark

I'd like to hear what you think about this article, what're the good and bad sides? Do you agree with the current ranking C and can it become a Good Article in the future? /Slarre (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] William J. Jefferson

This page needs help. It is a mess, too long, and disorganized. We need to figure out how to help it. Rockules318 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John Christie (murderer)

I'm hoping to turn this article into a featured article. I'd like to know what improvements I should make to do this. In particular, I'd like to know whether I've covered the details of John Christie's life adequately, whether I have enough information on the controversy concerning his involvement with Timothy Evans, and whether I've handled that controversy even-handedly. Any general comments about improving the article's quality are also welcome. Thank you! Wcp07 (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tony O'Malley

RogerZoel (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Janek Gwizdala

This article has attracted some interest, largely due to it having been written by its subject. While there's little doubt that he is sufficiently notable to warrant a wikipedia article, it could do with some pointers to bring it in line with WP style. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Lewiston

This is my first biography, and I am hoping to have this assessed as a Good Article. I have done a good deal of research about the subject and tried to keep the tone neutral and factual. Full disclosure - Harry Lewiston was my great-uncle and I wanted to ensure that he was not lost to history. I welcome your suggestions and feedback. 48states (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mary C. Seward

Would like to see this article achieve A-class as representative of the many people whose work or accomplishments have been cited and/or endured enough to warrant a basic on-line entry, but usually not notable enough to make the cut in printed form or as a Featured Article. Thanks in advance for any comments or other feedback. Rostdo (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Scott Free comments: Great job at finding research material on this person, and building up an article with limited available information. The article overall looks pretty solid to me. I have just a few comments and suggestions:

• It's not good to have links to uncreated articles - better to remove them or else create new article pages.
• Early Years - Maybe try to expand this a bit - Maybe give some more background info on the period and area - Is it possible to have a bit more on the New London Female Academy?
• Poet and composer - Again, maybe try and expand this section a bit - What are the names of some the magazines, she was published in? Maybe add some commentary on her poetry, lyrics, and music, if possible. Are there any recordings that feature her compositions? Maybe try to go into her relationship with her husband a bit more.
• Club woman and parliamentarian - Maybe try to include more dates in this section, if possible - In what year did she join such and such club, until when, etc...
• Philanthrophy and later years - Good job at integrating background information here. Maybe include something about when her husband died.
• Overall, I think the information is presented with good encyclopedic quality. Maybe the sentences are a little short and staccato in some areas. Consider improving transitional passages and elaborations to improve readability.

Hope this helps, --Scott Free (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've listed these on the article discussion page and will address there as time permits (or other editors handle). One clarification on the first comment: judicious use of red links is actually an asset to wiki-based article development as described on the Wikipedia linking page and in The Missing Manual help document. Main reasons given for removing red links are the topic is already covered somewhere under a different name (includes typos) or is not notable enough to warrant an entry. I don't believe either of these apply to the red links in this article, but please let me know if that is what you meant. Rostdo (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy to help out. My red link comments were incorrect. I wasn't up to date on the guidelines for that. Thanks for pointing them out. I'd rephrase that by saying that it's probably more useful to have stubs than red links. --Scott Free (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Articles archived - 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

See also: Index of WikiProject Biography peer reviews and Category:Old requests for Biography peer review