Hello, I'm trying to write a series of contemporary author profiles, so any help you could provide would be much apprecited. The article was rated as a starter page, which states that it could use better documentation. I've documented almost every sentence (in some cases I've combined reference notes: this is the reason that not every sentence has its own footnote.) I've used only secondary sources from reputable publishers (i.e. academic presses, journals, some online like The Electronic Book Review, some in paper like The American Book Review). I don't think the "Starter" designation is referring to the documentation but if I'm wrong could someone point out how it could be improved. Or is the "Starter" designation referring to something else. Your help is much appreciated!
Sharee Dossier (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Hi Sharee: Those ratings are more subjective than they may appear to be, but I note that in this instance the project banner was created automatically as part of the process of converting the article from an AfC submission. So I suspect it says "start" mainly because no one from the relevant WikiProject has got around to assessing the article yet. You could go to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Biography and ask for someone to assess it. As to your broader question - I see a specific cosmetic issue, that there are several URLs placed after the item using angled brackets; this is a website, so we prefer to link them: the syntax is [http://..... Title of page] (i.e.: the URL followed by a space and then the title/link text, all within single square brackets. And there are two issues raised in the template at the top of the article: a lack of incoming links and a need for copyediting (which may well refer primarily to the URL point). At a glance, I don't see much wrong with the article; it does indeed have adequate referencing (although I'm unfamiliar with the Electronic Book Review and thus not sure how reliable a source it is), it's clearly laid out, seems to offer adequate coverage, and I found what's said in the lead paragraph about his work to be borne out in the body. Good job, I would say, boding well for the next one you write :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. This really helps! It's good to know too as I noticed that there are more third-party references on the Tomasula page then in many of the author pages I used as a model. I cleaned up the cosmetic questions (embedded URLS) you pointed out (Thanks!) so I hope the article can be upgraded once a wiki editor assesses it. For future reference The Electronic Book Review is, I think, one of the oldest on-line, peer-reviewed literary journals (i.e. most reliable, especially for peer-reviewed, web publishing of literary criticism). I think it started publishing in 1996 or so. I'm surprised there isn't a Wiki article about it. Someone should write one!
Sharee Dossier (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
