A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because:
This article has been a GA for some time and needs to progress to FA.
There is also a dispute between the two most-contributory editors to the article (one much more so than the other, but that shouldn't be a major factor) on the overall shape and flow of the article. The original GA form of the article had bibliographic and filmographic details interspersed throughout the prose. This was changed into a version with separate filmography and bibliography sections, with the material in the main prose considerably summarized. An even more summarized variant with these sections also has been produced, but the article is presently back to an integrated version with no film/biblio sections (and considerably more material than the original). A fifth option (no diff to show) would be to keep most of the material in the prose, but pared down, and have very summary bullet-pointed bibliography and filmography sections (this would permit moving minor details about these things to those sections, and even removing questionably notable talk shows and stuff from the main prose and only mentioning them in those sections). Note: A great number of minor improvement edits are not accounted for in the above edit history links; they are provided just as an easy way to get to the four versions for structural comparison purposes. I.e. the fact that the later versions are better than the earlier ones in several unrelated respects shouldn't affect what article structure to use.
One of the two major contributors also feels that the lead is overly long (as was noted in the original pre-GA peer review, when the lead was even longer) and not focused enough on what makes Wanderone notable, while the other major editor disagrees.
Input from editors experienced at peer review and FA work, and not involved in the editing of the article, would probably be quite valuable here.
Minnesota Fats (pool player) already exists as a redirect, and Minnesota Fats has disambiguation. This issue was already brought up and settled via WP:RM some time ago. The case isn't comparable to Le Corbusier, etc., as Wanderone adopted the nickname after the fictional character was already very well-known to the public, he was already an arguably notable road player before adopting it, and his use of it was controversial within the billiards industry since the day he adopted it, nor is it the only road player nickname he used (only "New York Fats" is sourced at the article, but others included "New York Fats", "Broadway Fats" and "Chicago Fats"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›08:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°04:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. This looks much better than when I reviewed it before, but still needs some work for FA.
I think the lead as it is now is not too long. See WP:LEAD - the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
Bullet points would be a real problem at WP:FAC, I would not do that. My preference is to integrate details so as to provide context for the reader - if this is a real debate, I would ask about it in an WP:RfC
The current version has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break the flow. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded where possible. I note at least some of the alternate versions had many more short paragraphs.
A few places still need refs - for example The flamboyant Wanderone once toured the country in a colorful Lincoln limousine and had little trouble with identity recognition: his elongated nickname, "Minnesota Fats, King of Pool", on the side panels was done in translucent paint which changed colors with reflections from the sun as it moved. has a direct quote but no ref (and is a one sentence paragraph). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Many of the adjectives in "Personal character" seem fairly POV and either need better refs or toned down. Stuff such as Aside from ostentation, self-aggrandizement ... or notorious in Wanderone was notorious for his spontaneous wit ...
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. ((cite web)) and other cite templates may be helpful. See current refs 12, 14, 17. Is IMDB a WP:RS? See WP:CITE and WP:V
Thanks. That all looks like good advice to me. As for IMDb, I would say that IMDb is perfectly fine for simple facts, like what year something aired. It's when we get into the "Trivia" material and other stuff of a less simply factual matter that problems usually come up. I suppose that IMDb can be "gamed", e.g. by insertion of totally false but plausible-looking data, but this seems unlikely for a subject like Wanderone. I notice that the IMDb-related templates have not been WP:TFDed, so apparently there's a consensus that IMDb is reliable enough for something. If WP:RS has come to an actual community-wide consensus that IMDb cannot reliably be used as a source even for basics, then these templates need to get TFDed immediately so people stop using them.
Ibid. and op. cit.: There is an alleged WP:MOS sub-guideline, rather poorly written and mostly redundant with MOS proper and now tagged for merging back into it, that denigrates ibid. and op. cit., but the reason given for not using them is that someone may later rearrange the prose and the sources and put them out of order. That's a really, really weak justification for abandoning standard citation practices in use for centuries, that reduce citation redundancy. I don't feel terribly strongly about it, it just seems like questionable guidance and worth a consensus discussion at WT:MOS on whether to keep it. I think 99% of our readers are smart enough to look up instead of down the refs section if looking down doesn't find them the ibid. referent (until someone fixes the ref order anyway), and those that aren't won't be examining sources, probably.
Anyway, I will endeavor to merge all the biblio/filmo stuff back into the main prose. PS: I don't think an RfC is needed. The other major editor has simply disappeared, for quite some time now. I think some editors don't like having their material edited. The goal at this point is FA, so me or that editor or anyone else individually being happy isn't really a concern, so much as satisfying all the FA criteria, and having experienced copyeditors massage it into "brilliant" prose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›21:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen IMDB questioned as a reliable source in several places, but it seems to be mostly for using it to cite trivia, while harder facts seem to be OK. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples for more on this. I do not write on films so I am not an expert on this. User:Ealdgyth is very good on reliable sources - you might want to ask her to look at this.
On an unrelated note, I am moving this back to the original name (ending in "archive1") - this was never archived, just got too big to show up in its entirety at WP:PR/ Now that it has been moved, it does not show up there at all, which seems to me defeats the purpose of keeping the PR open in the first place. All peer reviews now end in "archiveN". I am also removing the semi-automated peer review. See where they were for more on that. Ruhrfisch><>°°04:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction to the opening sentence is that it is loaded. Thus, I believe that the sentence needs a minor editing change in order for a reader to read on without stumbling. For example,
"Rudolf Walter Wanderone, Jr. (19 January 1913 – 15 January 1996; originally spelled Wanderon[1][2] and best known as "Minnesota Fats"), was an American professional pocket billiards (pool) player and entertainer."
The addition of the word and helps to keep an uninterrupted flow of thought going. Additionally, moving the ) means that the entire expression originally spelled...'Fats becomes one long parenthetical expression. Which it is. Lastly, I have trouble with the dangling phrase at the end of the sentence and entertainer. It reads (and sounds) as if it were just stuck on there. I would prefer that that phrase be "worked in" somewhere else.
For excellent opening sentences, read the opening sentences of Ian Fleming. Not a single word (or punctuation mark) was ever out of place. Oh...I would also leave out the word "(pool)". It's real not necessary. Thus, I would write the opening sentence as this:
Rudolf Walter Wanderone, Jr. (19 January 1913—15 January 1996; originally spelled Wanderon and best known as "Minnesota Fats"), was an American professional pocket billiards player.
Sounds good, and I will have a look at Fleming. One quibble: I don't really follow you with regard to "entertainer". He was a pool player and an entertainer. Why would we not just come out and say so? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›21:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm...second sentence: I would write:
As "Fats", in spite of the fact that he never won a major pool tournament, he was perhaps the most publicly recognized pool player in the United States.
I am not too sure that you want me to continue. As you can see, I am having a difficult time with the prose. If you want, I will enter the article and edit it according to my skills — until it breaks down completely—and you can revert whatever I do if you find my punctuation and grammar skills unworthy. Hag2 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not read more than four or five paragraphs without needing to edit the prose a great deal—lots of unnecessary commas, occasional redundant words, dangling phrases.... On the whole, I would suggest that you take me up on my offer to run through the entire article for grammar and punctuation. As it is, I can not read it without editing. Sorry. (What I read, though, looked good.) Hag2 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, have at it. It has needed copy-editing for some time. I suspect that our only conflict point would be on over-removal of commas. Some editors prefer almost no commas, and some put them everywhere they can. I try for a middle ground, using them only where there would be a natural pause in speech, or where they are required for clarity/disamgibuation. But, I'll just let you do what you like and see what comes out; I probably shouldn't "pre-object" to anything. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›21:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I feel that your prose is generally good—that is, if you can avoid such expressions as "picked up", "dropped out", and "ended up". These are slang expressions. In addition, I found the lengthy writing of Wanderone's full book titles almost unfathomable, and completely unnecessary. Since you footnote each title, shorten them for the reader into a simple title first, and then let the more interested reader find the full title by clicking the footnote reference. There were places where "independent sentences" were connected by unnecessary conjunctions, thus making them into very long complex sentences. I shortened them in order to make natural pauses for a reader. There were times when excessive use of commas paused a reader at inappropriate times. I eliminated those. My rule of thumb is: If a sentence contains subordinate phrases, can the sentence exist by itself without the information from the phrases?? If it can, then the phrase(s) is "independent" (and can be basically left out altogether, i.e. separated from the main subject-verb of the sentence by the use of a comma). However, if a sentence can not stand alone without its phrases, then a writer will find it necessary NOT TO USE A COMMA. (Hopefully I have explained this simply; the difference between your version and mine will emphasize my approach.) Lastly, since you mentined that Wanderone was "an entertainer" (as well as a hustler), and that this point was very significant, I agreed. Thus, I established the point early on by completely separating it from its dangling position at the end of the first sentence and by moving it into a more prominent position of its own.
I am interested in Rudolph Wanderone (because it is a good article). Unfortunately, I find it (in its current state) difficult to read. My collapsible box version also needs to be re-analyzed, digested, and further copy-edited after a hiatus. Hag2 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update (see Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft): After performing a few minor prose edits (as discussed above+), I would like to say now that I have found your article to be...EXCELLENT! I believe that you have captured the essence of Rudolph Wanderone with some excellent writing. There are moments when I actually feel as if I am seeing again Willie Mosconi and Minnesota Fats in their televised competitive play. Or when Fats's limousine lights up in dazzling sunlight....or his quips "pop out" from his mouth.
As far as I am concerned, your article deserves to be moved forward to the next step as a Featured Article (once your minor revisions have been made, and accepted.) Hag2 (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though other major editors are to be credited with most of the prose. As enumerated at Talk:Rudolf Wanderone/Redraft, there are still some things that the article doesn't really cover, and should in order to be complete enough for FA, but Dyer's Hustler Days can be used as a source for most of it. Just a matter of doing the reading and the writing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
You should not be using the census as a reliable source, it's a primary source, and you don't know who provided the information to the census taker. Using it and the other SSDI source makes it more likely that original research will creep in.
You can use the IMDb for very basic information on a movie (such as release date, etc) but it neets to be formatted as a website, with last access date, etc.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)