Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 26

Snap!
I've been working on the entry for German dance act Snap! and would appreciate it if you'd take a look and improve its score and ad any suggestions to how it can be improved. AcerBen (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is for biographies not a dance act. Find the appropriate WikiProject and make that request.  Mr. C.C. (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? That was less than helpful. I don't suppose it occurred to you that people make up a dance act and that may be why the person posted it here or to suggest checking with WP:DANCE? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Aviators, military or otherwise...
Which task force would aviators such as Amelia Earhart fall into? I understand military aviators would be covered by WikiProject Biography/Military, but the rest? Would there be enough interest here to create a joint task force with WikiProject Aviation? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't myself object, and I can see the utility of such a group. Any other comments? John Carter (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Bump) I wouln't mind setting this up. Even if it were not very popular, I'd like to use it for its organizational value, if nothing else. Any objections - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where would this project prefer the taskforce/workforce be created, here or at WP:Aviation (WikiProject Aviation/Aviator task force)? How about adding it to the Biography banner, any takers, I don't want to step on any toes. Since nobody's taking part in the discussion here, I'm not sure if that means this proposal is not supported or not. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I brought this up at the Aviation project, and the suggested title there is "Aerospace biography task force", so as to include astronauts, rocket scientists, aerospace engineers, etc. Comments anyone? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, now the Space project may be involved with this was well (Neil Armstrong, etc). Any comments about this? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This task force has now been created at WikiProject Aviation/Aerospace biography task force. If there are no objections, I'll add a link to your Navigation banner, and add you banner to the task force page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam me in, Scotty
Are there no dedicated author/writer & fiction Projects? Trekphiler (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They're under the umbrella of the A&E task force. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Anna Olson
Since I started the article on Anna Olson, I haven't been able to find much for citations. Although I have been looking sparadicly. Mr. C.C. (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What about obit-stub articles ?
I posted a technical question at Category talk:People stubs on creating bio-stub type articles starting from published obituaries (ie: "obit-stubs").

My concept is that there may be people who are truely notable but have been out of the public's eye for many years and their obit is the last fanfare that might trigger an article about them. Because we are mostly talking about folks who are really old, many of these folks may be people who were the "first to do XYZ" and therefore will probably end up merged into articles about whatever XYZ is. Others may be goldmines of unknown depth creating detailed bios and/or new XYZ articles as well.

I would appreciate any questions and/or comments on this idea. Low Sea (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Improvements needed to keep Rosa Parks as a Featured Article
As with most articles promoted so long ago, this article does not currently meet the Featured article criteria. I would like to work with this article's contributors and the related WikiProjects to bring this article up to the current standards. Please don't take this as an insult to the article, as it is well-written and there shouldn't be a lot of work necessary. The concerns I have at this point are:


 * 1) Verifiability - Much of the article is unreferenced. This included statistics and quotations, both of which need to be cited with reliable sources.
 * 2) Lead section - The lead does not currently summarize all of the key points of the article, and it should be 3 to 4 paragraphs long.
 * 3) Consistent citations - The references are missing important information. At minimum, they should include a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a publication date and/or author is listed, this information should be included as well. Citing sources gives information of how to use the template, which helps to keep things consistent.
 * 4) Images - Fair use rationales need to be provided for all images that are covered by copyright. In addition, I don't believe that the Montgomery Advertiser picture can be included under Fair Use terms, as the article does not specifically discuss the newspaper itself.

These are the most important things that need some work for now. This is a very important article, viewed by an average of 3,500 people every day, so it would be great to make it as good as possible. I would like to get this up to the current standards without going through a Featured Article review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dejan Medaković
Anyone interested in helping with an academia bio? Dejan Medaković was a Serbian writer and historian; he was a president of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SASA); he has just died (1 July 2008 or 2 July 2008 - some confusion about that at the article). I've just had to remove most of the text of the article because it appears to have been copied from the SASA website (and it probably needed some rewrite for WP style, anyway.) I'd think the info from the SASA site would be a good source for the article, we just need to not copy it directly. I don't think I'd have a chance to get to it before this coming weekend at the soonest, and since his death is a "current event" (at least in Serbian academic spheres), I thought someone else might like to have a go at it before then. Thanks, Lini (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Unabomber
I'm currently working on getting Unabomber to FA status. If anyone wants to help out, especially with (reliable) references, feel free to do so. Gary King ( talk ) 03:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Spring" 2008 Assessment Drive
Several people participated in the WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive/Spring 2008, but Ozgod, who first set up and opened the drive hasn't edited since March. The drive hasn't been closed out, nor awards given for it. Is there someone who has done this in the past and is available to just finish this? Great thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't belong to WP:Bio, but I am an admin, so I'll step in. I gave everyone who did over a 1,000 a Bio Barnstar, save for myself of course (Conflict of Interest), and handed out the Gold, Silver, and Bronze awards to those who deserved them..  I also did the cookies and thanks.-- Bedford  Pray  08:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Bedford!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to direct
Can I propose a task force (if not a separate WProject) for actors/actresses? I've tagged a bunch of new page bios, & I'd prefer something more specific, if I was looking for them or intending to work them. Also, I think it's a good idea... TREKphiler 06:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have an Arts & Entertainment task force.-- Bedford Pray  07:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe more to the point, we also have the WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen that one yet. Thanks.  TREKphiler  07:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding FL-Class to the Biography assessment scale
Discussion here for the benefit of those who don't visit the assessment talk page. PC78 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?  " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) -, member of WikiProject Council. 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Curtis
She has a snub, which mentions her marriage to Ian Curtis (Joy Division), her book about him and being a producer of a movie based on her book. I don't feel that this is enough for her to have an article of her own - the important stuff is all on Ian's own page. Opinions? Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proded. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_16 Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon Hoggart
There is a dispute about this sentence in the Simon Hoggart article:
 * In December 2004 he confessed that he was the "third man" in the Kimberly Quinn affair - the political sex scandal that contributed to David Blunkett's resignation.

The objection is along the lines that it doesn't meet the criteria of "insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

Here is the wording of the section from which that sentence was taken (Biographies_of_living_persons:


 * ''Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.


 * Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.''

The sentence is sourced to The Telegraph, a newspaper of record. There are a variety of other sources which which could be used to show Hoggart's association with the affair (examples:, , , , , , ), and more could be said in Hoggart's article to demonstrate the relevance of his association with the affair to his notability, however the simple factual, neutral sentence with one solid, unimpeachable cite from a newspaper of record seems appropriate for the size of the article and the general notability of the person. I feel it would be as inappropriate to enlarge upon the sentence as it would to omit mention of the affair altogether. Hoggart is clearly associated with the affair, he revealed the information himself, several newspapers of record have not simply reported it, but carry columns and articles in which it is mentioned after the event, and the general media refer to Hoggart's association with the affair.

Suggestions and advice welcomed.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Including that sentence seems appropriate. It was widely covered by reliable sources, he acknowledged it as correct, and it was a major political scandal because it involved a senior member of the government. That there were three people engaged in an affair, not two, added to the impression that the minister had exercised poor judgment, so Hoggart's involvement was not trivial. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 17:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been asked by SilkTork to comment here, and I agree with SlimVirgin.  Sandstein   11:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. It is appropriate to mention his "third man" status. We should not be deterred from including factual, well sourced assertions in biographies. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the proper place for this discussion. If you wish to try to reopen Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-09_Simon_Hoggart, or take it to a higher level, you can do that. Posting a complaint here and asking your friends to support you isn't the way to deal with something you don't happen to agree with. Flatterworld (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a decent enough place, though there are others. The Mediation cabal, however, is an informal process. ("The Mediation Cabal is a bunch of volunteers providing unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. We do not impose sanctions or make judgments. We at MedCabal are not at all official and are just ordinary Wikipedians. We facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement by their own efforts." This BIO project has an interest in and knowledge of BLP issues. SlimVirgin, for example, is the main author of BLP. This is an appropriate place to get informed consensus. If there is a clear consensus for the statement to appear in the article then the statement will be restored. I would hope that you would accept that. However, if you are still not content you could approach Requests for comment.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You could consider the BLP noticeboard, otherwise I would suggest a request for comment. I agree that holding a discussion here, instead of the article talk page is slightly unusual. --PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to drag this around Wikipedia. However, if the credentials of the people here and the comments they have made are felt by PhilKnight and Flatterworld not to be satisfactory, I will do as suggested. I have started a new discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I do hope that whatever consensus is reached there will be taken as binding.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no interest and no response. My comment has now been archived: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive49. As we have four to two here in favour of including the material, four to two in favour on the Simon Hoggart talkpage of including the material, and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 different editors who have actively placed the material in the article, compared to just the one who has been removing it, there is a clear consensus that the material is acceptable and should appear in the article to give a balanced and accurate portrayal of the man's notability. If there is no further objection I would like to replace the material.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I followed the rules, and so can you. Go to request for comment if you like. Posting here and requesting your buddies to support you doesn't constitute a consensus. Flatterworld (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Article on Robert Nivelle on GA hold: Needs expansion before it can become GA standard.
The article on Robert Nivelle is currently on GA hold. The article requires more information about Nivelle's life, especially concerning his legacy, and his pre-WW1 service, before it can become GA-class. I would like to request that people work on addressing this issue. Your help would be greatly appreciated, and you can credit yourself with 'This user helped promote the article -- to good article status' template if the article does go up to GA status. Please try to get this information down before 7 days from now, as that is when the GA review will probably be closed. Thank you in advance. More details can be found at Talk:Robert Nivelle. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

req Morris Moss
I didn't see a "requested articles" section on the project page so am adding this here, mirroring a request just made on WP:Canada:
 * Morris Moss, colonial BC entrepreneur, provisioner for the Chilcotin War, plus lots more; one of early BC's most intersting characters; see bios here and here. Too complicated for me to want to tackle, but for someone who enjoys bios Moss' is one of the most interesting to be found re early British Columbia.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps of sports people
Just dropping a note to anyone with a sports person related Good article that passed GAN before last August. These articles have now (finally) come up for GA Sweeps and over the next few weeks I will be assessing them against the Good article criteria. Please make sure that any GAs you maintain or may have taken to this stage conform to the current criteria. They will need a high standard of referencing, compliance with MOS where possible, a good standard of prose and properly tagged images. I am especially looking out for articles on living people that have not been maintained in the last year and may have libellous or simply messy statements inserted without referencing or format. Formal reviews will begin soon, to see a list of articles coming under review and their current status based on my quick "instareview" see this list. Please direct any questions to my talk page as it is possible I will miss them if posted here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bacon (diplomat)
A relatively new user attempted to move Nathaniel Bacon (diplomat) to Nathaniel Bacon (rebel) via copy/paste move as Nathaniel Bacon wasn't a diplomat (though the article calls him one there is on actual source for that). Would rebel be the appropriate disambig to change the page name to, or is there something more appropriate that is a little more neutral sounding? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Burgess needs your help
One of my pet Wiki-peeves is articles without adequate cites. Anthony Burgess contains literally perhaps 150 or 200 un-cited assertions, many of which are in the form of "trivia" (though not so-called in the article). Anybody feel like working on this? (I will not be doing so myself.) -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not well versed regarding Burgess, but I have tagged the article with several issues and removed a large block of what amounts to non-encyclopedic, irrelevant, uncited and in some cases, speculation that was grouped into subheadings such as Habits (smoking, sex, drinking, health (including he had problems with flatulence, a cyst on his back and had chicken pox as a child), finances, transportation, and an extensive listing of places he lived. The article does need a lot of work to bring it into an encyclopedic tone. This removal cut the article size down to 70 kb from 87. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot
There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All National Portait Gallery images may be deleted off Commons
Please see this deletion discussion. This affects at least 500 images, probably twice that in actuality. Kaldari (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Noelle North
Ongoing AfD for article Noelle North. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR for W. Mark Felt
W. Mark Felt 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.

Call sign field in infobox?
I propose to have an optional "call sign" field in the main bio infobox. This would help tag amateur radio operator bio articles. Comments? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  12:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review
user:Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. This was the article planned by a group of Wikipedians as a tribute to NewYorkBrad because, on leaving, he expressed regret that he couldn't now fulfill his plan to bring this article to FA. We would very much appreciate reviews from those with legal knowledge, particularly with knowledge of American law, because neither of us are legal experts, nor indeed are we American (British and Canadian). It would be useful if we could iron out any legal imprecisions (there are bound to be some, though we have tried our best) before we go to FAC. Many thanks in advance to anyone who can help us with a review. qp10qp (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Crane at Peer Review
Stephen Crane (currently rated as GA) has been listed for Peer Review. All comments/suggestions from members of this WikiProject are welcome since I hope to nominate the article at FAC in a month's time. The review can be found here. Thanks! María ( habla con migo ) 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ken Lamberton
I need some help with the lead of Ken Lamberton. The article is currently written soley by the subject himself, and is lacking neutrality (and actual truthfulness). While looking into whether he is even notable, I discovered that writing wasn't his first "claim to fame" but rather his 12 year prision term for running off with a 14 year old student. However, I am at a lost as to whether that belongs in the first sentence, and how it should be mentioned neutrally. He is a writer, a former teacher, and a former convict? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)