Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Nigel Kneale

Nigel Kneale

I've been doing a lot of work on this article over the past couple of weeks, and would very much like to put it up as a FAC. Any feedback on how I could try and improve it to featured standard would be very gratefully received. Angmering 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply:

I very much doubt there are any available free use images of Kneale. Certainly nobody can take one any more, anyway, given that he's dead, and even pictures of him as a young man would still be in copyright. So I don't see that there's any other option other than the fair use screengrab.
I have added the persondata information, as requested.
I couldn't find any examples of full dates which weren't properly linked?
I don't think summary style would be appropriate here. The size of the readable prose is only 34kb, which I would have thought was perfectly acceptable, and it is very unlikely to ever get much bigger than that.
The single weasel word example you mention is used in context of a cited example of an opinion held by the writer and critic Kim Newman.
I have requested copyedits from several users, one of whom, User:Josiah Rowe, had already been through the article. I am hoping that others will have done so by the time the peer review period comes to an end.

I hope that satisfies the automated concerns, anyway. Angmering 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

"was best known" is twice used in the first two pars of the lead. Maybe you could vary a bit the prose there.
"Kneale was born Thomas Nigel Kneale". Maybe a repetition. His birth name has already been mentioned and bolded in the lead.
"His family came from the Isle of Man,[5] and returned to live there in 1928, when Kneale was six years old.[6]" An advice: Try not to overcite your sentences. Place inline citations at the end of the sentences, and cite in the middle of them only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis. You can also combine together citations instead of having them in a row ([1][2]). See ways of nicely combing citations in Tourette syndrome, and Battle of Edson's Ridge. Here, for instance, you cite twice in the same sentence the same citation without an obvious reason: "Written in 1965 while Kneale was suffering from a mystery illness and forced to stay in bed for a long period,[17] the concept started life as a drama serial for the BBC, before the corporation had second thoughts about the nature of the storyline and the possibility of copycat suicides;[17]"
"Doctor Who was heavily influenced by Kneale's Quatermass serials at several points throughout its history,[5][34][81][82][83]" What's that?! Ugly! Five in a row!
Maybe "Influence" could have a better structuring. For instance, you start with a too short prose sentence and a long quote. Does this give to the reader a first general idea about Kneale's importance and influence? Then the paragraph starting "Kneale never saw himself as a ... " is not about Kneale's influence, but about what Kneale believed for himself. Does this fit to the section? Doesn't interrupt its flow?

In general, the article is comprehensive and well-written. My only worry is that the reader might get tired with all these works, films etc. (accompanied with dates, details etc.) exhaustively analysed in the article's sections. But I don't think this can be a strong argument against FA status.--Yannismarou 12:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughts. Some replies:

Are you sure? I can find only one instance: "he was best known for the creation of the character Professor Bernard Quatermass."
I have taken out the first instance, and left the mention of his first name until what was the second, where it's properly cited.
Good point about those citations. I have dealt with the examples you mentioned, and some others.
I agree about the titling of the "Influence" section — I wasn't sure about the title of it, but couldn't think of quite what else to call it. It was originally called "Legacy", but I wasn't sure that was encyclopedic enough. I have switched the first two sections of it, so that it no longer begins with such a short prose section. I disagree the entire Doctor Who paragraph is out of place there though, as it does state that Kneale's work was a major influence on that show.

Thanks again for your thoughts. I hope I have managed to address some of your concerns. Angmering 14:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]