Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1

Dan Savage bibliography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article compiling the author's works together on one page with some referenced material and sourced discussion. Eisfbnore (talk · contribs) suggested to me that it might be ready straightaway for consideration at WP:Featured list candidates — but I wanted to get a Peer Review first in order to assess feedback prior to nomination.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Provided notices to WikiProject talkpages, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media. -- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 00:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tbhotch

The note above was not needed, this is not FLC ;) OK, here is my review. Consider that I'd never reviewed a bibliography (I was not aware they exist). So, because of this my comments are about grammar only ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 08:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC):[reply]

Lead

had a readership of 4 million -> had a readership of four million

Background

Although it is unneeded Chicago, Illinois redirects to Chicago, it would be better to have it as chicago, Illinois

after his friend co-founded the newspaper The Stranger and invited him along -> Keck's name can go here and then just call him by his last name

Creative Nonfiction,[11][1][12] -> Creative Nonfiction,[1][11][12]

BMI Foundation -> link BMI (if it is the BMI I think it is)

its Editor-in-Chief -> Why those caps?

in 2007.[6] By 2007, -> In that year, by the same year, etc.

It reached The New York Times Best Seller list in April 2011. -> Which position?

Books

1999 -> and directed by Scott Elliott.[28][27] -> and directed by Scott Elliott.[27][28]

2011 -> bestsellers -> best-sellers?

Newspapers edited

Editor-in-Chief -> as before

Advice column

had a total of 4 million -> as before

See also

Per idem remove It Gets Better Project and Savage Love.

External links

Dan Savage bibliography at the Internet Movie Database -> IMDb gives filmographies no bibliographies.
Response to above comments by Tbhotch

Thank you very much, I will get right on addressing the above comments, and note it here. :) -- Cirt (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – changed wording in lede to four million.
Done. – fixed the wikilinking to avoid redirect.
Done. – copyedited wording to have Keck's name appear earlier in paragraph.
Done. – fixed the cite ordering.
Done. – wikified the suggested term.
Done. – removed capital letters on the phrase.
Done. – copyedited wording to remove dup stating of numbers of years.
Done. – noted position on the list, in body text of Background sect.
Done. – fixed the cite ordering.
Done. – added a dash in-between the term.
Done. – fixed the type, removed the capital letters.
Done. – changed it to four million.
Done. – removed the two see also, added a few others.
Done. – fixed the external link to just say the name of the individual.

Thanks so much for your helpful suggestions, -- Cirt (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved points from toolbox peer review suggestions. -- Cirt (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on toolbox peer review suggestions

Done. – fixed link for BMI.
Done. – fixed link for musical to musical theatre.
Done. – fixed link for syndicated to print syndication.

-- Cirt (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional problems

Just noticed this. Absurd over-emphasis of a minor but notable author. The section on his biography is duplicative both of the main article and the introduction and should be eliminated. The listing of minor works like book reviews is inappropriate except for the most important of authors. There is no justification for the article in the first place, and it should be merged back. The photograph adds nothing of valuer--it belongs in the article about him, but not here. At a possible alternative, it should just contain his bibliography, plain and simple,

I shall boldly make the changes I suggested, and I shall then consider listing it at Requested merges. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly agree. Wikipedia is not a platform for Dan Savage fanwankery, and has been abused as such for several years now, to much and repeated controversy (e.g., multiple, rancorous and inconclusive AfDs of Santorum (neologism)). Enough is enough. The very existence of this page is silly, and the fact that it's more detail-wallowing by about an order of magnitude than Mark Twain bibliography is strong evidence that it's non-encyclopedic crap. NB: I actually read Savage here and there and find him usually very amusing, frequently insightful, and rarely wrongheaded, so I'm not coming at this from an "Anti-DS" viewpoint. I'm simply against using WP as a fan page. This is not Geocities or MySpace. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]