Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal personal.svg WikiProject Biography
General information (edit · changes)
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do (edit)
  • Review an article


Biography article statistics

This list is generated automatically on alternate nights.
view full worklist

Shortcut:

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 :-)

Instructions[edit]

Requesting a review[edit]

  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.

Responding to a request[edit]

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.

Archiving[edit]

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. Remove {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page.
  3. Remove article from Peer review announcement list


Requests[edit]

Nipo T. Strongheart[edit]

The article used to be very short and I took an interest in it. The more I took an interest the more I found worth writing about. It became something I think could be a "good" article but there were several novel/new aspects about the work so I'm fielding it for comments and suggestions with the hope it could actually become a "good" article. --Smkolins (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Bennett Greenspan[edit]

To date, this article has been edited from the genetic genealogy perspective. I would like to bring this up to an A quality article. To do that, I would like to hear from those with more of an interest in entrepreneurship and biographies of CEOs. Comments from those who simply like quality writing are most welcome. --RebekahThorn (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

After a very, very quick review, I do have some concerns that might prevent this from becoming an A article. At first I was concerned about the sourcing and notability - but even though many sources seem low quality or closely related to the subject, there are at least 3, maybe 8, clearly reliable sources. But none are NYT quality sources, clearly high quality sources would be very helpful.
Another concern is that the article seems somewhat promotional, perhaps even written by the corporate PR department. The guy seems to be a "good guy" and I'm not encouraging anybody to dig up dirt on him, but a more balanced approach (non-semi-hagiographic?) would be appreciated.
Related to the above, 2 of his related companies have articles Gene by Gene and Family Tree DNA. Merging these, or even merging all three articles would lessen my concerns.
I would dearly love to merge the two company articles, but I will finish my cleanup of Family Tree DNA before dealing with Gene by Gene in a way that will not start an edit war. --RebekahThorn (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to the merging of these two articles, and am more or less stepping aside from this lot as it is not a productive use of my WP editing time. I pushed through on BG because I wanted to finish what I started. Helen (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not accusing anybody of WP:COI here. The articles, e.g. might have been written by a huge fan or a doting grand-daughter. If they were written by the corporate PR department, they have done a fairly good job of trying to be balanced, but if all BLP articles were written in this tone, I think Wikipedia's reputation for BLP articles would go down. Tone, of course, is a matter of personal opinion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. That is exactly my concern. We are talking about someone with a highly charismatic personality, so finding those who can work with the material and be balanced is not easy. There isn't a PR department per se. Sourcing anything even vaguely negative would be challenging to say the least. The man has critics, but he seems to lack reputable reliable critics. I think we would have to have him grilled by Barbara Walters first. --RebekahThorn (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Manville[edit]

I hereby request a peer review of the article Edward Manville, with particular attention to the following:

  1. Adherence to the requirements of neutral point of view
  2. Adherence to the requirements of formal tone
  3. Grammar and other aspects of correct use of language.

I am not certain that these are in order and would like other opinions on the matter.

Смерть Интернет тролли! Sincerely, SamBlob (tlak) 02:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Jaroslav Nešetřil[edit]

Looking for comments to reach (at least) the C level. pom (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Stuart Milk[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have a COI and am trying to help address promotional concerns about its contents in a fair way. Assistance on improving tone of article to better comply with bio policies would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Luigi Facelli[edit]

I brought this article to a good level, I tried to follow the eleven steps required to raise class to B class. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Convert the European record segment into full sentences and discuss his 400m hurdles record. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discuss what he competed in at each olympics and what he won. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I think that the section about his rivarly with Burghley talk about this.
  • It is pretty short at present. Did he do anything notable after he retired from athletics? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Now I improve it, four different sections for biography, one of these talk about his career after athletics. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

George M. Stratton[edit]

This article has been rated as class 'B' by an uninvolved editor. The next step in bettering it seems to be to get it to GA status, and then, eventually, FA status. I have been heavily involved with the article, and more tinkering from my side is probably not enough. Looking for suggestions and comments on the content, style, point of view, organization, length and tone. Churn and change (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

John Wagner[edit]

I've given the article a thorough rewrite with plenty of cites, and I think with some further attention and feedback it could be pushed to good article or even featured article status, so I would like to request some feedback on what could still be improved. --Nicknack009 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul S. Walsh[edit]

This page is almost entirely my own doing. I previously got it up to GA status, and would hope to be able to get it up to Featured Article status eventually. Farrtj (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikiproject Biography Peer review is dormant. You might have a better chance to get a review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

José Rizal[edit]

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have opened this page for an IP editor Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm worried about the article's readability and its structure. Some users want it to be arranged in chronological order but it doesn't seem to be working out well. So we need help and guidance on how this article can be improved into these good examples: Ferdinand Marcos and Napoleon Bonaparte.119.224.27.62 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • No need to cite his name, I think.
  • "which would start the Philippine Revolution" -> "which later started" or "which started" or "later led to"
  • "the dignity of the people, saying "Why independence" Comma after "saying".
  • "prosperous farmers that were" -> "who were"
  • "Rizal was the seventh child of their eleven children namely" Comma after "children"
  • "then Governor-General of the Philippines Narciso Clavería, issued a Decree" No comma needed.
  • "My family never paid much attention [to our second surname Rizal], but now I had to use it, thus giving me the appearance of an illegitimate child!" Why is this in italics?
  • "poetry writing contests" -> "poetry-writing contests" or "poetry contests"
  • "as he writes to another friend" -> "wrote" Also the quote that follows is inexplicably italicized.
  • "As to his father's request" -> "At his father's request"
  • "the 25-year-old Rizal, completed" No comma.
  • "being himself a regular diarist and prolific letter writer, much of the material having survived." is awkward. Try a new sentence. "He was a regular diarist and prolific letter writer, and much of the material has survived."
  • "Among his earliest writings are El Consejo de los Dioses, A la juventud filipina, Canto del viajero, Canto de María Clara, Me piden versos, Por la educación, Junto al Pasig, A Las Flores de Heidelberg, El Cautiverio y el Triunfo: Batalla de Lucena y Prision de Boadbil, Alianza Intima Entre la Religion y la Buena Educacion, La Entrada Triunfal de los reyes Catolice en Granada, Sobre la Nueva Ortografia de la Lengua de Tagala, etc." Just list a few of these not the whole lot. It interrupts the flow of the text.
  • "On his early writings" -> "In his"
  • The Writings section needs a lot more citation.
  • "The core of his writings centers" Centered.
  • " the Philippines is battling" "was", not "is".
  • "a double-faced Goliath"--corrupt friars": spaced en dash or unspaced em dash here.
  • The list in the writings section should be converted into prose and cited. No need for bullet points here.
  • First part of the Persecution section is uncited.
  • Exile section needs citations.
  • Last days section needs many more citations. It's almost entirely uncited.
  • Legacy section also needs citations.
  • So does Other works.
  • Generally speaking, the organization of the article leaves something to be desired. I would suggest making it into a strict chronology of his life directly following the lead, from early years to time in Europe, back to the Philippines, into exile and then execution. Once that's dispensed with, talk in further detail about his relationships, literary works, etc. (these will already be in the other sections, but you can go into further detail in dedicated sections). I'd recommend doing a reorganization of this kind before going much further.--Batard0 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Frederic M. Richards[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first attempt to create an excellent biographical article (it was very minimal when I started). There was quite a lot of good material available - but I'd very much appreciate advice on any ways in which I could make it even better. It is part of developing the new WikiProject Biophysics, but none of us have experience yet in how to formally assess and grade the articles in our own domain by wikipedia-appropriate criteria.

Thanks, Dcrjsr (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you so very much for the useful comments and advising on more wiki-standard ways of formatting and organizing! After I've made these changes, what quality level do you judge it to be?- Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Frederic Middlebrook Richards (August 19, 1925 – January 11, 2009),[1][2][3][4][5][6]" just wonder why we need six refs for this statement?
Moved to end of first sentence, as one of the recommended ways of citing refs general to the entire paragraph & header; hope that helps. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No need for "(see ribbon drawing below)".
Fixed. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No link for "ribonuclease S"?
  • Ah, there is a link for ribonuclease S, but do it first time.
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is (Pfizer) actually Pfizer?
Yes, name of the company that sponsored the award. I've now cross-linked the Pfizer page. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • " (paper #7 below)." avoid use of hash for number, and avoid self-reference in the article, just link it to the section or just find a more elegant way of writing it.
Have removed the #s. This type of harvnb ref was recommended by another earlier reviewer; I'm keeping it for now pending any further discussion, since I think the citation should indeed link to the specific paper.
  • "separately, RNase A[16]) " put ref outside parenthesis.
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "1RNS in 1973 (PDB 1RNS), " avoid this kind of link, make it a proper ref.
In structural biology, the primary ref is indeed to the database not the journal paper (altho that's cited just previously), so I'm keeping those links here and in the section on his deposited structures. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Second para of "Ribonuclease crystal structure" is unreferenced.
Added 2 refs. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The "Richards' box"" -> ""Richards' box"" per WP:HEAD.
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And more refs needed in the tail-end of this section.
Those last 2 sentences all refer to or quote from the ref given in the first. I've changed the wording a bit to make that clearer, but would rather not re-ref. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure why you switch to bullet points when prose in good paragraphs would work fine in "Other research areas" section.
Have fixed that. Then needed to add further details, both to avoid criticism for many short paragraphs, and for appearance. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't relink and re-abbreviate things like NMR half-way through the article.
Fixed the NMR one and some others. Seems to me that cross-links are needed in a separate section like the one on career events & awards. Is it OK to do them twice? Or if only once, should that be in the header section or the award section? Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Personal Biography" -> "Personal biography".
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I would expect this to be first actually, since this is about him, not his work. Reorganise so we learn about him, then his work.
I've done this switch, and will see what I think and consult others, since of course what he's notable for is the science. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "100 top places to live in the US.[3] It is a coastal " make [3] a proper citation.
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • " and had three children - Sarah, Ruth, and George - and four " en-dash (per WP:DASH) not spaced hyphens.
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Summary of career events" be consistent with year formats.
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Check refs for compliance with WP:DASH, eg. ref 6.
Done. Hope I didn't miss any. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Check all refs have as many fields as possible, including publisher, access date etc, see refs 42 and 43 for instance.
Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and I'm no expert), it may stand a chance as a good article nomination, and if it didn't pass then it probably wouldn't take too much work to fix it up. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To Ruhrfisch - Thanks for keeping the peer review open. I've now done a GA nomination, after fixing Rambling Man's suggestions. Since you have reasonably related expertise, as well as vast wiki experience, I'd be truly appreciative if you'd consider reviewing the GAN. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Helen Astin[edit]

I would like to improve this article in the hope of achieving Good Article status. I am a new Wikipedia Editor and would appreciate suggestions and advice. Thanks! grandpa lemon 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lucius Arruntius the Younger[edit]

I'd like to improve this article and get it up to the status of "Good Article". Flaviusvulso (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Lucius_Arruntius_the_Younger/archive1 for my comments. Allens (talk | contribs) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno[edit]

Due to the extensive work I have undertaken in the last few weeks , I now feel a GAC is due. This will be my second GAC and one that I have thoroughly enjoyed working on. I would like to take this to FAC in the next few months, depending on how well it does here. Many thanks! -- Cassianto (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you want to take this to WP:PR, the wikiproject peer review is inactive. Hekerui (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
done -- Cassianto (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

William Bliss Baker[edit]

Previous peer reviews:

It's been nearly five years since the previous peer review in April 2007, and the article has changed significantly (diff) (gained about 10k in content). I'd like opinions on where the article stands now: Does it meet B-class standards? If not, what needs to be done to bring it up to that level? I've gone out of my way to include a lot of sources (as many as I've been able to find). I'm working on getting additional sources, but the going is slow as I try to find articles and other references which discuss this lesser-known but important artist.

Thanks for your time! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd removed the characterization of several paintings as masterpieces, because they were unsourced and seemed a bit hyperbolic. Generally such a description--a fairly profound assessment--would seem to require sources of greater reliability than those provided. Bentley's article provides helpful information [1], but there is no indication that he is an expert whose assessment is valuable, and his article was written for an advertising publication [2]. Perhaps more dubious is the inclusion of the St. Bonaventure page as a source, which is aimed primarily at selling prints of the painting--the use of the term 'masterpiece' has a decidedly commercial application there [3]. Otherwise this is a well researched and written article. Bringing it to B-class may be difficult, given that the most voluminous scholarship on Baker--and there's not a lot--comes from 19th century sources. It would help if there was at least one major article about him from a recent publication--his work merits rediscovery. JNW (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • How do you cite a plaque at a museum? The Fallen Monarchs display at the museum where it's housed states it's considered his masterpiece as well. I don't know that I'd discount commercial sources describing two of his paintings as masterpieces, either, as those are the only two of his works I've seen described that way, including in other commercial sources showing others of his works. I agree with your assessment of finding reference materials on his works; it has been quite difficult to find what I've included in the article. It took almost 5 years to find his birthdate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 10:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd err on the side of caution and not describe it as such, unless the museum's text was written by an acknowledged scholar in the field. And I flat don't put much value in the overtly commercial sources--I think they're rather meaningless. When I include a laudatory description, as at May Night (Willard Metcalf painting), it's a direct quote taken from a preeminent scholar in the field--I may or may not even agree, but it's solid ground. The fact that he's been largely ignored by scholars and historians for the last century makes it all the more important to cite one or more 'heavyweight' sources when referring to works as masterpieces. The bigger picture is that you've done an excellent job hunting up information on a veritable ghost. JNW (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I've found a few other refs, including one showing he was considered a well known landscape artist (per a well known art critic of the time). I've removed the "masterpiece" descriptor from the "Morning" paragraph, but I'm still hunting down more refs for the description of "Fallen Monarchs" as I've seen that painting described as the masterpiece in multiple places. Just have to find them now. Thanks for the comments and suggestions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the introduction is a bit long relative to the size of the article. It should serve as a summary and anything else moved into the body of the article. For example, a suggested intro could be:

William Bliss Baker (November 27, 1859 – November 20, 1886) was an American artist born in New York City who began his studies and career just as the Hudson River school was winding down. Baker began his studies in 1876 at the National Academy of Design, where he studied with well-established artists such as Bierstadt and de Haas. His paintings were created using oils and watercolors, including several works done in black and white. While Baker is relatively unknown to the general public, his works are considered "characteristic[ally] American" and done with "amazing skill." Baker completed over 130 paintings in his career.

The info about his summer house and the cause of his death should definitely not be part of the introductory summary IMO Sionk (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I've shortened the lead a bit, though I'm hesitant to shorten it any further. I think two short paragraphs is good for the length of the article. Thanks for the comments and suggestions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I just expanded the bio a bit, as well as rearranged it a bit to flow better. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph should say why he is notable. It doesn't now, and leaves the reader wondering why there is an article about him on Wikipedia? The easiest fix is to rearrange the sentences. FurrySings (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I added "award-winning" to indicate notability. Which awards are explained later in the article and in the infobox. Thanks for your time! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Any additional comments or suggestions? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe Clifford Faust[edit]

I hope to get this entry out of the start category and into the GA category. Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo

A. R. Rahman[edit]

This article was twice nominated for GA and failed both the times. Any suggestions? --Commander (Ping Me) 12:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Anna Hazare[edit]

I want to expand / edit the article further and make it a GA. Kindly give your suggestions.- . Shlok talk . 10:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Heather O'Rourke[edit]

It's been a little over two years since I substantially rewrote the article. Though a few new sources have trickled in over the intervening time, I think it's pretty much as done/comprehensive as I can make it. My goal is to bring it to WP:FA and I recognize the interminable value in receiving outside opinions and review prior to nominating it. — Fourthords | =/\= | 00:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I did some editing, changing the location of a few citations to aid easy verification. morelMWilliam 09:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm so sorry I didn't see your comment here. I appreciated your edits when I saw them though, thanks! — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Bright[edit]

This article about an important mid-20th century American college and professional Canadian football player has been well referenced and cited using a variety of reputable sources. I believe the article should be rated above "B" class, and is worthy of being a "good" and even a "featured" article. I am open to any suggestions to make this article better. Sundevilesq 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

  • No info about his family background, and his childhood.
  • Your section about ""Johnny Bright Incident"" is almost as long as the main article. Check WP:SS and act accordingly.
  • Per WP:MoS do not wikiling single years, only day-month-year.
  • It would be nice if you could expand "Post-football career". You could also merge it with "Death".--Yannismarou 18:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

New Peer Review Requested[edit]

I've been working up the page, and have incorporated most, if not all, of Yannismarou's helpful suggestions. I would REALLY like to move this article up to a GA level, and maybe even get it featured. Sundevilesq (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Frithjof Tidemand-Johannessen[edit]

Hi, before submitting this article for a renewed quality assessment, it would be great if editors of this project could have a look at it and make/suggest improvements. Basically, this page is an translated and lightly adapted version of the Norwegian one, and I am not sure that it in all respects conforms to the projects standards. One issue could be the use of sources in Norwegian. (I guess it might have reached B-Class as it now stands, but hope it could be improved further with a little assistance.) Thanks! WK-en (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • An interesting article. I did a light copyedit of it for MoS compliance and grammar, though there are still a few sentences and clauses that suffer from a lack of grammatical parallelism (especially in the second para in the lead). On a different note, the sentence "The remainder were completed by Jardar Lunde" needs revising. It should either be "the remainders were" or "the remainder was", so that the verb and the subject agree with each other. --Eisfbnore talk 13:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Grigore Vasiliu Birlic[edit]

I've improved the article by creating the complete biography of the actor. From all of my searchings this is all the info that can be found about the subject. I belive it is enough for a Start rating. If the request is denied, please leave some suggestions and the areas that are under developed.

Thank you! comment added by Rares2cristea (talkcontribs) 18:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

Articles archived - 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

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