William L. Breckinridge


I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for a potential FAC nomination. Reviews with emphasis on prose standard, sources/referencing, and comprehensiveness would be particularly appreciated. It passed GA in August 2023 but hasn't had a lot of eyes on it since then. Any comments would be extremely helpful! Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will take this one up and post my comments by end of day today. On first glance, I'd suggest removing all the redlinks, those are a big no for any FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan Thanks for your willingness to take a look. I tried to reduce the redlinks to only the ones I am confident are appropriate, the two college presidents. Other than that, redlinks have been removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, apologies for my delayed response. I would recommend removing those as well, because FA criteria doesn't allow for redlinks, citations needed, better source needed tags, stuff like that. The only time redlinks are tolerated: if they're part of a III template, where the link is to a Wikidata page. You should check if there are Wikidata pages for the 2 presidents, if not, I'd removed the redlinks from both the infobox and the body. Matarisvan (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first I've heard of any FA criterion wholly against redlinks - actually, all four of my previous FAs have passed with redlinks present and I tend to follow WP:REDLINKBIO for those. I tend to leave redlinks for potential articles about college presidents as they would be presumed notable per WP:NACADEMIC. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I was not exactly sure about the guidelines. I've seen reviews, all of them by different reviewers, red flag all redlinks. You have had experience defending them during FARs, so I will defer to you on this regard. However, have you considered adding a Wikidata link using a III template, at least until you create the pages for the 2 presidents? Matarisvan (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a Wikidata link but I don't think either of them have entries there (at least, not that I could find). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matarisvan

This is all for now from me. I will get back soon with more. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PCN02WPS, casual ping. Hope this isn't disruptive. Matarisvan (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Many thanks for the comments. I will work on addressing them in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PCN02WPS, have you had time to work on these? Matarisvan (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan Hi there, sorry this has taken so long. I am slowly (but surely) trying to look through some sources in order to follow your suggestions. I have also been finishing up some other articles that have taken time away from this one. I will try to keep you updated as I make progress on this review. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720

@PCN02WPS: It has been almost two months since the last comment. Are we ready to close this and nominate it for FAC? Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I have been super bad about sticking with this - there are lots of good points that I have begun to address only to get distracted and then forget about the PR entirely. I am going to make every effort to wrap this up soon - if I haven't made any progress on this by the end of the week I am good with it being closed, though in any event I will implement the changes suggested and I still have the same goal for the article that I did at the beginning of the PR. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: It has been another month. Is this ready to be closed? Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]