Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Pauline Johnson
This article has been through the generic Peer Review process and I have addressed the concerns and incorporated suggestions. I'm not the original writer, but thought this article has a lot of potential because it's an interesting subject in Canadian cultural history, it reads well, and is informative, and is well illustrated. I also nominated it as a Good Article candidate before I knew this process was here. Thanks, any feedback will be appreciated. Eventually I'd like to see it become a featured article.Bobanny 06:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Embedded citations would make the article easier to read.
- The citations are from books, not the net, so I can't embed them. I'm not a big fan of the author/date format myself, but did tag them to make it more Wikipedia-esque, in line with the policy of not changing format style without a consensus to do so.Bobanny 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Atwood’s commentary indicates that questions regarding the validity of Johnson’s claims to Aboriginal identity have contributed to her critical neglect." Expand on this, please. What are the questions? Who raised them? Do they have any merit?
I'm not sure what else to add except that I can tell you put in a lot of time and effort on this, and it's a very interesting article. Nice job! RedRollerskate 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback, Bobanny 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice and informative. This is my review:
- The second paragraph of the lead looks a bit stubby to me.
- If you want this article to go through GA, I think you should wikify your citations, creating a "References" or "Notes" (or both!) section(s). Check WP:CITE and WP:MoS.
- hmmm...technically, it is "wikified" in line with the Harvard referencing style (including a references section). According to WP:MOS, this style is as legit as the others, and changing a pre-existing style is a faux pas without achieving consensus. But, I'll put a note on the talk page and see if anyone else has a comment. It seems that the original writer is no longer contributing to Wikipedia, so it's not too likely I'd be stepping on any toes. Thus far I've been defending the format of the article, but I haven't yet come across anyone else who doesn't much prefer Chicago-style (the normal one with footnotes), including myself.
- No, I am not against Harvard system. I just think your citations should be in a seperate section. Would you like to check Tagore to see what I mean.--Yannismarou 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. I hadn't seen it done like that before. That does look preferable because it has the advantage of allowing you to flip back and forth from footnote to text. But then, I only like it better because it brings it closer to Chicago style. It also loses what seems to be the defining characteristic of any author/date system in that the author/date is not in the text. Also, having 2 sections, one with just the name and page # and the other with the full reference, seems only to take up extra space and add an extra step to get to the full reference. Unless I'm missing some obvious advantage, it still looks like the best option is just to switch to Chicago, which also wouldn't take me as long because I'm used to that one. Bobanny 09:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thinking again, Harvard style as you have it is also acceptable.--Yannismarou 15:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I hadn't seen it done like that before. That does look preferable because it has the advantage of allowing you to flip back and forth from footnote to text. But then, I only like it better because it brings it closer to Chicago style. It also loses what seems to be the defining characteristic of any author/date system in that the author/date is not in the text. Also, having 2 sections, one with just the name and page # and the other with the full reference, seems only to take up extra space and add an extra step to get to the full reference. Unless I'm missing some obvious advantage, it still looks like the best option is just to switch to Chicago, which also wouldn't take me as long because I'm used to that one. Bobanny 09:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, I am not against Harvard system. I just think your citations should be in a seperate section. Would you like to check Tagore to see what I mean.--Yannismarou 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- hmmm...technically, it is "wikified" in line with the Harvard referencing style (including a references section). According to WP:MOS, this style is as legit as the others, and changing a pre-existing style is a faux pas without achieving consensus. But, I'll put a note on the talk page and see if anyone else has a comment. It seems that the original writer is no longer contributing to Wikipedia, so it's not too likely I'd be stepping on any toes. Thus far I've been defending the format of the article, but I haven't yet come across anyone else who doesn't much prefer Chicago-style (the normal one with footnotes), including myself.
- IMO "Family history" is too long. This is Pauline's biography; not her family's. You could shrink the article (and possibly merge it with the next one) and create a separate article for her family, to which you will link.
- good point. It seems her family heritage is important in explaining her significance (which is more about her identity than her actual writings). But that could still come across without devoting so much space to her family.
- ""as an indestructible monument to Clean Fatherhood."[1] Try not to link extrernal links like that. Create an inline citation, and properly cite your link using Template:Cite news or Template:Cite web.
- Done. I found the specific Project Gutenberg cite tag and stuck it in.
- "the largest in Vancouver up to that time": This assertion needs a citation.
- "Despite the acclaim she received from contemporaries". Such as? Could you be more informative and cite?
- "see, for example, Van Steen or Jackel": The citation here is not fully verifiable per WP:VERIFY. Book and page?
- Sort of done. Those aren't specific references within the books, but the works generally, but I did tag them to link to the full reference at the bottom.
- Minor: Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.--Yannismarou 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Done.
- Thanks for your review, Bobanny 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The suggestions I haven't responded to specifically all sound pretty good and helpful so far, but I can't address them til I get a chance to head down to the library. Bobanny 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)