Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lists of Bio articles?[edit]

I am running WP:LOTD and trying to determine if it is proper to encourage the inclusion of {{WPBiography}} on talk pages of biographical lists. I have added it to List of Harry Potter films cast members, but I was not sure if this was correct. Now, I am considering whether to add it to List of New Jersey Devils players and List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters. Is this a proper thing to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In as much as they're not biographies, I think probably no. --kingboyk (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

I've tended to write stub biographies, mainly for biologists and naturalists, as I go along. I am preparing an article (Blackbird) for FA which could do with a link to an biog for Dr John Kinnis, former military surgeon in Ceylon. Although I can track down some publications, I can't track down enough info on the man even to do a credible stub. Any help would be much appreciated. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a stub, but dates of birth and death would be good. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP Biography template[edit]

In looking at Ian Bone, I noticed that one WikiProject Biography template, actually takes up the space of four templates. It looks totally ridiculous, and crowds up the page terribly. Is there anyway that the "infobox", "needs picture", and "living persons" parameters can't be worked into the template directly so they don't take up SO MUCH space on a talk page? Murderbike (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Living persons template is itself extremely important, as it directly relates not so much to the WikiProject per se as to the official policy of WP:BLP. Ditto with the "active politician" and other template add-ons related to BLP. Regarding the others, I do think that both of those were previously templates which existed separately, and were later incorporated into the project banner. I believe some other projects also have such template integration facility. Whether they should continue to be is another matter entirely. Unfortunately, however, I am not myself in a position to alter the template, not being an admin, or for really understanding how to change it anyway. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not for us to unilaterally reduce the impact of those messages. We integrated them so we could tweak the messages displayed and the categories used by those banners; it wasn't meant to be a backdoor to making them smaller. If the bio template takes up the space of 4 banners that's because it is 4 banners. --kingboyk (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lawson (architect)[edit]

Robert Lawson (architect) 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. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

John Day (printer)[edit]

John Day (printer) 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. -- Biruitorul (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Isaac Asimov FAR[edit]

Isaac Asimov 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.

Galileo[edit]

Galileo Galilei 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.

Articles taged for deletion[edit]

The following article Professor Khalid Mahmood has been tagged as belongling to this WikiProject. it has also been tagged for deletion. Thought that some mention of that should be made here:

Upside-down lists of works[edit]

If you spot a list of works, or a list of awards, that is in reverse-chronological order, please either correct it to chronological order as per the manual of style at WP:LOW, or tag it with the template {{MOSLOW}}. This template looks like this:

A helpful tool is User:Whilding87/ListReverser.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mask of Zorro (talkcontribs)

Louis Riel[edit]

Louis Riel 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.

Flags[edit]

I've noticed that many band pages don't include flags like other pages do. Do we have a preference on that because I for one think they enhance the Wiki experience. Leodmacleod 3:11 3 October 2007 (UTC)

discrepancy between dates[edit]

on the philipo taglioni bio: i noticed the dates of the original production of "la sylphide" conflict. the intro states that "it is he [taglioni] who was the original choreographer of La Sylphide, in 1836," while the "background" section goes on to say, "the triumphant première of La Sylphide on March 12, 1832..." i think 1832 is the correct date of the premier. someone should fix this.

Emily Dickinson is up for Peer Review[edit]

In preparation for nominating Emily Dickinson for FAC within the next few weeks, I have listed it for a Peer Review. All comments and suggestions from those involved with this Wikiproject would be very much appreciated here. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review[edit]

There are a number of articles currently eligible for A-Class status. Unfortunately, any interested parties should feel free to look over the requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review and offer their opinions as to whether the nominees meet the A-Class criteria or not. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Expand MOSBIO?[edit]

Shouldn't the guidelines at WP:MOSBIO be expanded a bit? Presently, all it covers are Lead paragraphs and naming conventions. It seems to me that adding general guidelines on Section headings, use of footers, deprecated use of Infobox flags, etc., would also be useful and help promote greater bio standardization.

For example, many biographical articles currently have a section called "Biography", instead of "Early life" or Personal information": certainly a redundancy to title a section "Biography" within a biographical article — this seems to be especially prevalent in articles about actors and musicians, apparently because of imdb's format. Standardizing on "early life" or "personal information", instead of titling a section "biography" in a biographical article should be specified JGHowes talk - 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like some good ideas. I would go to that page and start making some specific proposals and see what kind of responses you get. I watch that page and have worked on it. --Melty girl (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove Tag?[edit]

My aritcle on Stephen Cohn has been accepted as a Wiki Biography Project, has been given a "Start Class" rating and has received the support of the Wiki Project Contemporary Music. Is it now possible to remove the tag?User:Stephencohn (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First answer is I would suggest that you read WP:OWN and WP:AUTO. It is really a very bad idea to ever describe any article as "mine" or any similar word. Secondly, it isn't the case that any articles are ever "accepted" by any project. The tag is placed on articles that fall within the scope of the project, meaning any articles relevant to that project. This, among other things, provides the article with a forum for discussion if other editors should ever need to be involved. The WP:BLP tag should definitely stay, as it indicates that poorly sourced material should be removed. Also, as the article is a biography, even if of yourself, it should conform to wikipedia style guidelines. The Biography project is generally seen as being the one which knows the Manual of Style guidelines for biographies best. Having said all that, it certainly would be "possible" to remove the tag. Doing so, however, isn't necessarily a good idea, and someone may later restore the tag later. Also, I note that Contemporary Music hasn't assessed the article yet, so removing the tag removes the assessment as well. The assessments are useful for wikipedia overall. It can be and generally is the case that most articles fall within the scope of several projects, and have their relevant banners placed on the article. I don't see any good reason to remove the tag in question, although clearly there is no explicit prohibition to removing it. John Carter (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Need help/direction - questions for BLP articles[edit]

I don't know where else to post this, as I picked a couple of members of the project and posted the questions below, but got no response. Hopefully by posting here, more attention it will gather. Here is my query:

I just happened upon an article yesterday about Jaron Lanier, and tried to clean it up. I then did some minor research, and wrote to Jaron (from the email address on his website) asking permission to use a different image. He gave me permission to use his image that is on his website. What is the protocol for that, such as copyright, permissions, etc?

Also, I know nothing of the subject or his area of notability, but he wrote back thanking me for taking an interest (no one else has bothered, he said) and asked if I would post his note he had sent to me via email earlier (with a bunch of terms relating to his area that I have no idea what they mean...but said that I could Google them. lol). Part of that note (email) said his experiences with trying to edit Wikipedia entries was very difficult and frustrating, saying that there was information in his article that was unfamiliar to him, IE: not pertaining to him and/or out-of-date, or trivial information. And that his most important achievements/activities/experiences/family, etc., where not even in the article at all.

My other question is -- where do I post his note, how and how much do I post, so someone may find interest to help correct his bio? I really don't have the background nor the interest to re-write the article and was wondering if you can help me... well, help Jaron especially and Wikipedia. Thanks for any help or direction you can give.  GeeAlice  19:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I can forward the emails directly to whomever if that would help determine what to do, and how to go about it. Thanks in advance.  GeeAlice  19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitt Romney RfC[edit]

There is currently a discussion regarding how much weight to give the subject's religious affiliation at Talk:Mitt Romney#Material regarding subject's religious affiliation. Any input is welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Dunglas Home[edit]

He is now up for a GA. --andreasegde (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Births/deaths by day[edit]

Over at Wikipedia talk:Notability on a global scale over time, there's a discussion about splitting the by-day births/deaths lists into their own articles (and making these lists complete) but then should there be some more restrictive criteria for a birth or death to be listed in one of the by-day articles (e.g. January 1). The current minimum criteria is "article exists", but with nearly 500,000 biography articles if these lists were complete the births at least would include roughly 1500 articles (per day). If anyone here has thoughts about this, please join the discussion (there). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Robert Conquest needs cleanup[edit]

Robert Conquest needs cleanup for neutrality and weasel problems. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dethklok?[edit]

Seriously? The "lives" of a cartoon heavy metal band are now within the scope of the biography project? -- Boradis (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the banner indicates at the bottom that it is within the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, which uses the Biography banner. The banner was evidently added in October here. You'd probably want to contact the Musicians project directly regarding whether they consider the article within their scope. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Boradis (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting one. Ordinarily, this project is concerned with humans only: no cartoon characters! However as that band is within the scope of WP Musicians it's a legitimate tagging. (Also, don't forget that real people are making the music behind the scenes ;)) --kingboyk (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Application of template[edit]

Hi WikiProject Biography. Is it the intention that {{WPBiography}} should be applied to the talk pages of all real-world human biography articles, i.e. if I happen to notice such an article without the template on its talk page, should I add it? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means. Also, if they are still living, please add the Category:Living people to the main page and try to ensure that the banner includes {{WPBiography|living=yes}} so that the BLP tag appears above the banner as well. John Carter (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An AFD[edit]

There is a new AFD, William Hung.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Was. Nominator has recalled. Discussion is archived. Wjhonson (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reader suggestion: More pronunciation guides[edit]

A suggestion from a reader, emailed to me:

I'm not press, but this seemed the only access to the Wikipedes. (Mind you,
I am a former newspaper columnist.)
As a lexicographer, I admire Wikipedia, and offer one suggestion. Ask your
contributors to indicate pronunciation where needed.
For instance, I had to look up an actress with the first name of "Cote." Is
it [COAT]? [ko-TAY]? [KO-tay]?

Quite a few of our biographies include the pronunciation, but it's far from universal. Would anyone be interested in a drive to fill out pronunciations? (What groups of Wikipedians are fans of this stuff?) Adding a field in the infoboxes might help too. Anyone inspired by this suggestion? - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Anna of Austria and the house of Habsburg[edit]

There were a lot of articles linking to this disambiguation page for specific Annas, and I've gone through and fixed a number that were obvious. There are a couple more to fix up, which I can't determine myself; they may require the creation of a stub article for the first listed Anna.

Additionally, there is the confusing issue that the dab page itself is in Category:House of Habsburg, which presumably can't be right. There are also several generic redirects such as Anna of Austria, Habsburg; Anne Habsburg of Austria; and Anna Habsburg that all point back to this dab.

I hope there's someone with relevant knowledge that could help finish this cleanup. Hv (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gun Saint? Not fact. St. Gabriel of the Sorrowful Virgin, Saint of a Different Barvery![edit]

St. Gabriel's religious name recieved in Latin on Profession Day was "A Virgine Perdolente" which means "of the Sorrowful Virgin". This is the more exact translation of the Latin name he bore in Passionist life.

The most recent book written on St. Gabriel is Following the Light of the Cross, 2002, by John Joseph Schweska, a lay Passionist in New Jeresy. The book's cover has new icon of the saint drawn by Brother Michael Moran,C.P. It was presented to the Holy Father, John Paul II in the Vatican City by the author. The book was published by the Passionist Provincial Office in Still River, NJ in honor of the 150th Anniversary of the Passionist presence in the USA--remembering some of Gabriel's own classmates who came to America to preach the Crucified Lord. The book is based on over 20 years of reserach and study and contains the most exact historical dates of Gabriel's life and religious events surrounding him. Besides a biography, it is also a study-reflection and prayer book--an overall resource book on St. Gabriel. The book will be re-published as a new Edition in 2008 by St. Benedict Center, Still River, NJ with expanded chapters and stories, under a new title: At the Cross With Mary. The new book's cover will have a traditional painting of St. Gabriel rarely used in previous books--with a crowned Sorrowful Virgin in the background pierced by 7 swords in honor of her traditional seven sorrows. The "cowboy" story of St Gabriel shooting a pistol at a lizard to scare raiding bandits is not historically documented in any of the archives of the saint; however what is historically related is that Gabriel acted with complete faith and surety when the bandits rampaged the monastery itself with the royal soldiers in hot pursuit behind them; Gabriel entrusted the monks' saftey to God, calmed the other monks and frightened superiors, and forgave the bandits, parying for them. The latter story reveals a true heroism of heart and soul in the midst of conflict and crisis. Edited by John Jospeh Schweska,LPC, Lay Passionsit, and Author.

I'm not entirely sure what the above is supposed to be, other than perhaps an advertisement, which is not allowed in wikipedia. I note that the same IP added pretty much the same thing to the "references" section of the article Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows, which I have since removed. If the individual who posted this comment believes that the book is a valuable source, he should cite it in the relevant articles. Otherwise, comments such as the above are considered spam, and should be removed as such. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional work groups?[edit]

It has been proposed that we might benefit from having additional work groups. Does anyone have any proposals for any? I believe we could reasonably create more based on any or all of the following principals:

  • (1) Period - for instance, BCE, Classical, Renaissance, etc.
  • (2) Location - Africa, Europe (maybe subdivided further), Asia, Americas, Middle East, off-planet,
  • (3) Field - We could perhaps break down the extant work groups further: Doctors, Lawyers, Merchants, we have already have Chiefs, specific scientific disciplines, etc.


Anyone with any specific suggestions is free, even encouraged to list them below. We already do have one work group for religious leaders which has enough interested parties to be viable, so I think a group there is probably a given. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that many regional and national WikiProjects already tag everybody who ever set foot in the place, then geographical workgroups might not be a bad start**. These could be in collaboration with those WPs, using our banner (as with the military workgroup, a collab with WPMILHIST) - which would also cut down on tagging because our banner will already be on most of the pages and the geographical WP banner can go. **Not a great way of grouping people imho, but it accepts the reality that the geographical WPs already double tag these articles. --kingboyk (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I could go with that. It might also serve as the basis for a few more focused groups, like maybe British writers, German musicians, or American politicians, later. Not that such groups would necessarily be the most sensible either, but there clearly is some sort of relationship in a lot of those cases. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The one question I have is whether to break down the national/regional work groups down further to reflect our existing work groups or not. Would we want, for example, the Canadian politician work group to be a separate part of the Canadian biography group or not? John Carter (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think not initially. Unless you want to sit down and design a comprehensive set of workgroups and update the template and create the infrastructure (with your enthusiasm and work ethic nothing would surprise me!) I would think that keeping it simple and taking one step at a time would be best. It may well be these "workgroups" get no or few active participants anyway and only help out the WP1 Bot. What are your thoughts on this? --kingboyk (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't for a second really think about, for instance, scientists/academics of Togo as being a separate work group, but given the number of articles relating to some of the countries which have a lot of coverage, particularly the US, UK, Australia, China, India, Germany, France, and a few others, such subdivision might make some sense there. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What impact would this have to the WP 1.0 bot? Its already slow enough as it is. Would this slow it down since it now has even more groups to go through? It hits the main BIO category and all its subcats, then it has to hit all the work-group cats and their subcats, each of which contains subsets of the main BIO cats.↔NMajdantalk 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It probably wouldn't have any real effect on the bot, except possibly have a remote chance to speed up the bot by breaking the articles down into smaller units. It isn't that it slows the bot down, it's that there are about half a million biography articles that makes it take so long. It might in the future be an idea to maybe remove the main project's statistics page and just use the statistics of the subprojects, but I'm not sure we've quite come to that point just yet. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I'm saying, and maybe I'm wrong and don't understand how the bot handles work-groups. The bot does a complete run through of all million articles associated to WPBIO. Then, it goes through, say, 200,000 articles affiliated with the sports-work groups and then another 150,000 articles for a&e workgroup. And then if there are a few thousand that are apart of multiple work-groups, the bot has to hit them once for the WPBIO project and then once for each work-group. So, there's a lot of duplication there and thus extra work for the bot. Its a moot point, though. And again, I could be misunderstanding how the bot handles workgroups.↔NMajdantalk 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
They'd have to be in the workgroups only and not in a main bio list I guess. TBH I hadn't thought of that ;) You're probably right.
Wasn't Oleg saying that the bot is running out of memory because of Bio now? --kingboyk (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
He is constantly saying how much of the bot-run is devoted to WPBIO and the workgroups which is exactly why I brought this up. Many of the WPBIO members may not be too concerned about the effect of this change on a bot, but it is still definitely something to consider. Might be worth mentioning this conversation over at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index.↔NMajdantalk 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't know of many articles which are tagged for multiple biography groups (I don't know of any, actually), although I could be wrong. Certainly, one option would be to simply stop the run for the main Biography articles by quality statistics, or no longer including the articles of the various work groups, and create a separate subpage of the project listing all the different statistics charts for all the Biography subprojects. That probably would speed things up considerably. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope has four workgroups. Woody (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I do think that it would still considerably speeden things up if we were to abandon the main Biography statistics information. I can't imagine that there will be that many articles which are really directly relevant to more than three work groups at the outside (acknowledging the one above) and the work groups would probably run much more quickly if they were each done separately. Not saying that it's a great idea, but it is one of our options here. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that Cunningham is a real rarity, though I have seen quite a few with 2 or 3. This is usually in the milhist arena where they became generals (milbio), received national honours (Baronets) and then went into a career in politics, (politics). Three is usually the limit. To be honest, I am not sure how to fix the issue of statistics, just to say that there are anomalies. ;) Woody (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Using the BLP banner for articles on deceased individuals[edit]

The talk page at Talk:Heath Ledger recently had a box note attached to explain why the BLP banner is still in place, even though the subject is deceased. I'm a little concerned about the precedent being set here as it might open things up to the fact that the BLP banner might now need to be added to every biographical article that includes references to individuals still alive, even if the main subject is deceased. That said, I can see some practical application for this. For example, the article I work on relating to Bill Haley & His Comets. While Haley is dead, as is numerous members of the Comets, there are still no less than 3 performing Comets groups made up of surviving members of the band. Ergo, the article, which discusses these groups, needs to be under BLP since it contains content pertaining to people still alive. So I have added the BLP banner (although other editors have tried to remove it) and have just added a modified version of the Heath Ledger "Why the banner is here" box). I think it might be a good idea to come up with a template or some sort of guideline regarding the use of BLP in articles on deceased individuals. I can see pluses and minuses here. (And if it's already covered in the police, please point me - and it might be worthwhile noting this at the Ledger talk page. 23skidoo (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • There is also talk on the Ledger page regarding the creation of a new template or something relating to BLP. I might be speaking out of turn, but this might be cause for concern if someone is trying to bypass process. 23skidoo (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found it on non-biographical articles also. If it was meant to be on every page it would be in a Mediawiki: message space. Perhaps it should be. Personally I generally remove these "excessive" tags but let it slide if there's resistance or a clear reason why the tag is needed. As that's the case here it might be worth overlooking this one. There's more to find and remove here if you want to make up for it :) --kingboyk (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles needing attention[edit]

Hi. Is it possible for this project to take over management of Category:BLP articles lacking sources and merge it into the attention subcat? I'm trying to sort the cleanup categories by WikiProject, and the BLP category would be better off managed through the use of the project template. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 10:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

George Fox[edit]

I came across this page tonight, which is listed as a featured article under this project, as well as others. I'm not very familiar with the criteria for featured articles, or what would go into one, but I did want to express my concern that this article no longer meets the criteria for featured articles. The main problem seems ot lie in the citations, which aren't in a consistent form, and there are large blocks of text uncited, including some quotes. I thought it should be brought to the attention of the project. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Assisstance please at the WP:IPNA/Nish[edit]

Currently at the Anishinaabe sub-project of the Indigeonous peoples of North America project, we are having some problems with article naming for several different chiefs who have the same name. Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Anishinaabe#Chief_Buffalo_of_Lake_Superior and could someone from the Biography project provide us with advice on how to go about untangling the chiefs and naming the new article titles that should reflect the untangled biographies. Miigwech. CJLippert (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ability to carry out GA review?[edit]

Out of curiosity, does this Project have the authority to upgrade an article to a good article? I'm only asking because Golda Meir is rated a good article by this project. If it doesn't, someone must have just rated it him/herself and I'll remove it. Just need to know. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. That has to be done through the regular Good Articles process. It probably would be a good idea to downgrade it to B for both Biography and Israel. Thanks for catching that! John Carter (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem! --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinand Eisenstein[edit]

Hi, I amended the assessment from Stub to Start-Class now that someone has added a decent amount of bio. Hope that's ok. Secret Squïrrel, approx 11:55, 29 January 2008 (Earth Standard Time)

Tyrone Wheatley FAC[edit]

If there is a place to mention Tyrone Wheatley's FAC, I can not find it. Tyrone Wheatley may be the first modern NFL player bio to achieve FA. Only Jim Thorpe is an FA currently. Please come comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)