Wikipedia:Peer review/Lang Hancock/archive1

Lang Hancock

I found this article on "articles for cleanup since 2004", and put a fair amount of research into it over a fair period of time, culminating in what you see there now. I'm pretty pleased with it now, and am hoping to put it up for FA; but I thought I'd better post here first to see if there's any problems I've missed. Cheers, --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too tired to attempt to work on your suggestions tonight (hopefully tomorrow, if not, Wednesday), but I figured you deserved a reply now. My comments are interspersed. Thanks, --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad - I'll comment on structure - its such a short article, someone else may comment on content:

Intro should be one long paragraph, not three short ones

- I had no idea about this one! I'll see what I can do.

Paragraphs in general too short - also some one sentence paragraphs

- I've had people complain about my paragraph style in the past, actually. Something I need to work on! Do you have any suggestions for paras that could be run together, or for how to improve the one-sentence paras?

You may or may not be asked to axe the further reading section... be prepared!

- Bring it on :-). 's not that vital to the article, really.

The book review external link could use a better description.

Take care! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Cheers.

The article doesn't really mention how much money Hancock was worth, for a time he must have been one of the richest people in Australia - and it would help put the inqeust and events that happened after his death in context since it isn't explicitly clear that the fuss was over the fortune. It'd be good if you could get a Perth Wikipedian to take a photo of the mansion for the article before it gets knocked down (if it hasn't already). Otherwise the points that Ryan has made will help tidy up the article.--nixie 04:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point (on both counts). I'll flip through my sources, see if I can find anything; if not, do you know where would be a good place to find historical lists of Really Rich Australian People? Now that you point it out, this is a really glaring ommission. By the way, I have enlisted the aid (through the power of subtle hints) of two Wikipedians for images (Wikipedians are cool!). I also lodged a request with the webmaster of Gina Rinehart's company (his was the only public email contact I found) for the use of a picture taken by John Hancock; he passed the request on, but I haven't heard back in three weeks. What's the general feeling on fair use images when there's no known legal alternative? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no free alterantive you need to write up a fair use rationale on the|image page for the fair use image being used- this page provides some good instructions. Business Review Weelkly has lists of Australia's richest people, I'm not sure how far back they go.--nixie 02:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little about his fortune. The most recent BRW article I could find was from 1990, at which point they estimated he was worth whatever $125m was in 1990. Still working on the photos. Cheers. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the lead. Also see WP:LEAD for the (relative) specifics of leads in featured (and sometimes not featured) articles. In addition - combining paragraphs can be tricky for new people. Try to "sort" the text in a section so that you can combine passages that are more related to each other. Sometimes you can use a connecting phrase like "in addition" if the subject veers a bit from the main subject of the paragraph. Its really something that just takes a bit of practice - it isn't too bad once you get the hang of it. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For one, you will have to split the lead into two paragraphs.

Done.

(WA) -- unnecessary

I use the abbreviation "WA" later in the article, and figured, where better to define it than in the intro? What do you suggest?

colourful -- a synonym needed, colourful doesn't really fit in this tone

The best I can think of is "interesting", which would be worse. What would you prefer as an alternative to "colourful"?

he is best-known today for his third marriage, -- tense problem; he's dead.

Ah, but his memory lives on!

John Hancock; prefix it with occupation: explorer/prospector etc.

Done

CSR?

Colonial Sugar Refining, only ever known (in Australia) as CSR. (addendum 2005-10-18: I recently discovered (when settling down to write an article about CSR), that Wikipedia already has an article, at CSR Limited. I've linked accordingly.)

Would like to know more about his first marriage.

As would I! Alas, I have no information – my sources are mostly contemporary news sources, and those articles/references that do mention his marriages at all tend to gloss over them. Frankly, the only reason I know anything about Hope Hancock (his second wife) is because her daughter is interested in keeping her memory alive.

Nunyerry --> wikify (infact wikify all proper nouns)

Fair enough. Done, I think.

What's the difference between Commonwealth Government and Government of Australia?

"Commonwealth Government" is the phrase invariably used in Australia to differentiate between Cth and State govts. The link points to "Government of Australia" because, in other contexts, it may mean different things.

At this point a map would me most useful.

'Twould, wouldn't it? I have no talent whatsoever when it comes to drawing, although User:IceKarma recently volunteered to draw a map if he had the opportunity. I'm not sure if he'll be able, but I'm grateful for the offer.

good friend --> rephrase

I'm not sure what to rephrase it to?

(she introduced a number... merge the text in the brackets with the rest of the sentence.

Done.

==Third marriage== should be expanded

~~Yes. I'll see what I can do.~~ Done.

==An unexpected death==? The title is isn't suitable. At 82 death is anyways expected. If you mean to quote his daughter then it should be "unexpected" death. But I'd prefer you simplify it to =Death=

Okay. I've retitled it "Death and aftermath", since the section deals with more than just his death.

(that Porteous was Rose's fourth... same as above; embed

Done.

Complete this first and let me know, more issues pending.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick. I've replied after each point. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]