Talk:John W. Rogers Jr./GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * First paragraph of the Background section, "where he spent a lot of time" is unencyclopedic and vague.
 * Is that better?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the Personal section seems like a tossed together list of unimportant trivia. Why does it matter what color his goggles are and how often he changes his toothbrush? Also, "only eats simple familiar foods and will return an order because a vegetable touched his meat." seems at odds with a diet of constant McDonalds, but maybe that's just me. To me, really the only important information in the section is the second and third sentences about his business habits, and then only if they have an impact on his professional life: he uses his early subscription to Business Week to get a jump on stocks, or his lack of computer usage hampers his ability to do business.
 * This is a tertiary resource. We relay information made available in secondary resources.  When I read the secondary resource those were things that jumped out at me as being unusual. I have reworked the section into two separate paragraphs.  One is completely devoted to odd habits.  I think if people want to learn about a guy, they might want to know his odd habits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is relevant for an encyclopedia article - it reads like People magazine and seems utterly trivial.--Parkwells (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph of the Personal section: are there supposed to be four guys on a three-on-three team? Just making sure, because that's how many I see listed.  Also, which year did they win the three-on-three tournament when you say "He scored the game-winning basket of Chicago's three-on-three basketball tournament"
 * I think three-on-three leagues either have 4 or 5 man rosters. Teams need subs, but many leagues play half court, I believe, so a lot of subs are not necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source does not say what year he made the shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Family section should probably be merged into the Background section, as both sections are fairly short, and what is family but a person's background?
 * Often times, that is the better way to go. However, here each has at least two substantive paragraphs. I kind of think it is good like it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the last sentence of the Family section, you say he had a daughter with his first wife. Has he remarried? If not, "former wife" would probably be a better word choice.
 * No info on remarriage. word changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Ariel Capital Management section, you say "However, his firm and its mutual funds have often been among the industry performance leaders." and then say "His investments have on average outperformed the market." later in the paragraph. These two sentences are basically saying the same thing, and should probably be combined into one sentence.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall, the prose in this article seems rather poor. I've done a bit of copyediting, but please take a run through the entire article looking for short sentences that could be combined, places that could be improved or expanded upon, irrelevant information that could be removed, etc.
 * I admit it is choppy in sections. I did not see anything ungrammatical however.  I move a one sentence paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Can you please find a more reliable source for the name change of his business than a blog posting?
 * I found something from Thomson Reuters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 7 (Inauguration committee...) deadlinks.
 * New ref found.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have quite a few issues with the prose in this article, and a couple of issues with references, so I am placing this article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits you've made make the article look quite a bit better. One more comment though - The section order seems a little odd - discussing his background, then his personal habits, then his public service, then his family, then his business.  What if you changed it to something like Background, Family, Personal Habits, Business, Public Service?  This would put all of his personal, non-business stuff together, then put his business before his public service, because the business is what allowed him to become influential/wealthy enough to do a lot of the public service.  Just my opinion, let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks much better now, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt responses. Dana boomer (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have quite a few issues with the prose in this article, and a couple of issues with references, so I am placing this article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits you've made make the article look quite a bit better. One more comment though - The section order seems a little odd - discussing his background, then his personal habits, then his public service, then his family, then his business.  What if you changed it to something like Background, Family, Personal Habits, Business, Public Service?  This would put all of his personal, non-business stuff together, then put his business before his public service, because the business is what allowed him to become influential/wealthy enough to do a lot of the public service.  Just my opinion, let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks much better now, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt responses. Dana boomer (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)