Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed Bradley/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Ed Bradley

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to promote it to featured article status. Bradley was an important journalist throughout the late 20th and early 21st century, and I'd be particularly interested in additional feedback on the Illness and death, Legacy, and Personal life sections.

Thanks, M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M4V3R1CK32: It has been over a month since this PR has been posted. Are you still interested in receiving comments or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to receive comments, but if no one is interested I can just go through the FA process without them. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M4V3R1CK32: Since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest that you seek the help of a mentor who can comment in this PR. You can also ask for reviewers in the Wikiprojects attached to this article. Z1720 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey M4V3R1CK32, it's been a little while since this PR has been updated. Are you still interested in comments, or would you like this discussion to be closed? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't even seen that David had responded! I'll take a look at his comments before formally closing this out. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

edit

Thoughts on the article at present:

  • Lead:
    • I condensed the opening line since it seems weird to just have two sentence of introduction and nothing else in lieu of a complete paragraph. It'd be kind of nice to have a line covering his early life and getting into journalism, considering that has its own section in the article that isn't covered by the lead.
  • Infobox:
    • Article says he graduated from Cheyney State College, infobox says Cheyney University of Pennsylvania; if it was called the former when he went there, that should be what's used.
    • Infobox says the years active were '64 to 2006, but {{infobox person}} suggests that the field is used for active in the primary field they are notable for, which to me means you have to pick a later date, say 1967.
      • I do see what you're saying but sourcing indicates his first stories as a journalist were presented in 1964. To me that means he was active as a journalist beginning in 1964. I'm open to changing it but wonder your thoughts on that. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dates of marriage are given for spouses, but that content isn't in the article body (and doesn't appear sourced.)
  • Body:
    • As an aesthetic thing, if you've only got short, sub-100 word subsections, I'd just fold them into the larger heading (things like funeral and memorial.)
    • On the subject of organization, the "style" section feels like it straddles personal life and his career, but doesn't feel like it fits between his journalistic legacy and honors. I think this material is better split up to germane sections (like the mention of his coolness and unflappability leading to his 60 Minutes job seems like it should be mentioned when he gets the job, earlier.) Whereas his personal style feels like it can go better with his hobbies and personal life details. (The earring thing also comes up in the biography and then gets repeated in the style section, where I think it really needs to be less repetitive in how it's presented.)
      •   Partly done I added all of this stylistic information to the 60 Minutes section. Since the info about his interview and fashion style is so intricately intertwined with his career I thought that made the most sense. Let me know what you think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk)
    • Given that he died a decade before the award, I feel like you need to clarify the 2017 Emmy nomination (presumably he was credited because of archival interviews, etc.)
    • he was raised in a poor household by his mother, Gladys Gaston Bradley, and spent summers seems odd to me we mention his mother by name but not his father.
      •   Partly done I did not find a proper source listing his father's name, however, since the subject of this article is Ed Jr., I have placed mention of his father as Ed Sr. in the Early life section. Let me know if that works for you. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media:
    • Images are freely licensed and fine.
  • References:
    • You need to do some work consistently formatting references; for example sometimes the news source is wiki linked (New York Times) sometimes it's not (Variety)
      •   Done I thought similar rules applied to Wikilinks in citations as they do in the article body, but I see that I was incorrect. I've added links where needed and do think I got them all. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a nicety, refs should be ordered (e.g. He was noted for his ability to get interview subjects to divulge information on camera with his body language.[22][28] not He was noted for his ability to get interview subjects to divulge information on camera with his body language.[28][22]
    • Sources used look fine, nothing stood out as falling below the quality threshold needed for FA. I do think there might be neutrality concerns, though. While it certainly looks like a lot of the coverage of his career was congratulatory, a quick search pulled up criticism of some of the stories (e.g. [1][2]) I also found additional content that speaks to his legacy as a black newscaster a la Slant [3] that I think could be used to flesh out the legacy. The legacy section I think does need some work beyond the issue with organization outlined above.
      •   Done Excellent point on the above. I've done some additional research and added some additional context. I do wonder if the way I've presetned the critical information here, in it's own paragraph, is the most neutral way to present it. I'd welcome some additional thoughts. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spotcheck on sourcing/verification forthcoming.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: thanks so much for taking the time to do that! I've gone through and addressed each of your suggestions. I'd really appreciate another look if you have the time. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720

edit

@M4V3R1CK32: It has been a month without comments. Is this article ready for an FAC run? I highly recommend that you review some articles at WP:FAC now to build goodwill amongst the FAC community and encourage others to review your articles. Z1720 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is! Good tip on reviewing other articles as well. I'll have some more time to do FA reviews in the near future, so I'll wait to put this in the queue until I can devote my full attention to that. Appreciate you following up multiple times here! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M4V3R1CK32: Are you still looking for comments in this PR? If so, I recommend posting on the Wikiprojects attached to this article asking for feedback. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one can be closed. David did a great job evaluating here. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ed_Bradley/archive1&oldid=1209045263"