Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Jack Nicklaus
WikiProject Golf has been working on this article over the past month or two to try and improve it to featured status. It has recently been promoted to GA status. I was wondering what improvements need to be completed for the article to be considered for FA status. I would also like an opinion whether this is an A-Class article, which i'm not sure it is.
Thanks from WikiProject Golf and myself. Grover 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty nice article. I'm no expert on WP:FACR but I'll give it a shot. A couple of specifics first: Obviously the {{fact}} tags in the lead, while perhaps overzealously applied, should probably be addressed. I added a {{clarifyme}} tag in the "Record setter"" section where it was unclear what year was being discussed.
Some more general thoughts:
The infobox is kinda problematic for me. It's very big, and maybe a bit too detailed. I think of an infobox as ideally an "at a glance" look at what makes the subject notable/important/interesting. The infobox here doesn't contain the word "golfer" or "golf", but lists each major title individually, which seems more appropriate for the lists at the bottom. The baseball infobox, eg here, seems a bit more convenient for the general reader. Also I notice it seems to be coded manually rather than from a template, which seems odd, or did you just "subst:"?
Done Grovermj 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)I know WP image copyright policy is a nightmare, but images of a younger Nicklaus would be a big help. In particular, it would be nice to visually demonstrate the transformation from 1960s crewcut "fat boy" to 1970s blonde-locks icon that was so integral to his evolving public image.
Not done. I dont think i'm going to find one. Grovermj 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)- Speaking of which, more about his public-persona/celebrity might be a good idea...though that's kind of tricky from an NPOV standpoint. Still, for a while there Nicklaus essentially was golf for the American public, and he remains something of an icon in and out of the game. That status could be addressed. In particular, the "rivalry" with Palmer is teased in the lead & I don't think it's mentioned again.
- The lead needs a copyedit for grammar.
Also "was a professional golfer" doesn't sound quite right for a living person. - Shouldn't the total of 19 runnerups in majors be mentioned somewhere? Maybe whatever the ridiculous total is for Top-10s? Also doesn't he always say he really won 20 majors because the US Amateur should count?
In this passage (under "Career downturn"): "...he was thrilled to have won The Open at the home of golf, St Andrews," the phrase home of golf should probably be in quotes & attributed to someone, ideally Nicklaus himself; or at least explained. I know it's a commonplace in the golf world, but for the lay person it sounds funny.I notice all the cites are from online sources. I'm sure plenty of print sources could be found, and might prove useful. One of John Feinstein's books, for instance, or another general golf history, might be a good source on his celebrity & role in popularizing the tour. I think there are a couple of book-length Nicklaus bios, which could be good even if only listed as "further reading." Nicklaus' own books should certainly be mentioned. (Didn't Tiger Woods read Golf My Way 600 times or something? I may have the title wrong.)Those complete major-winners lists at the bottom are kind of overwhelmingly huge, & tend to reinforce a vague impression that the article is for the golf fanatic rather than the general reader. Not done. They're collapsable so it seems fine to me. Grovermj 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)I guess it can't hurt, but does Jack Nicklaus really need to be disambiguated from Jack Nicholson?! :-)
Sorry this is so wordy. My handicap is somewhere north of 20, so feel free to heed/ignore as you see fit. Happy editing. —Turangalila talk 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's start from the lead:
It needs expansion per WP:LEAD.Who put these [citation needed]s in the lead? Fix them or remove them, if you cite these assertions later. For issues cited in the main text, you don't have to repeat the citing in the lead."and during this period accumulated 18 major titles, because of this fact". I think before "because" it would be better to put a full-stop, instead of comma?
- Do we know something more about his family?
Per WP:MoS do not wikilink single years. Only year-month-date."This win made him the youngest player, age 26, and the only one after Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, and Gary Player (until Tiger Woods at age 24) to win all four major championships, now known as the Career Slam." I don't see any reason to bold here.- "Nicklaus did not win the Grand Slam in 1972, as Lee Trevino repeated as the British Open champion, and Gary Player prevailed in the PGA Championship." Avoid short, one-sentence, stubby sentences like this one. Merge or expand.
Maybe a wider prose variety would help. I read the same monotonous style: "In XXXX NIcklaus won C and D"."In FFFF Nicklaus won F and G" etc."Champions Tour career" and "Close of playing career" look under-cited. My advice is to have at least one citation in each paragraph.Two things about "Playing style":
First of all the prose. It is choppy!Then, the context. Why so poor! I think it is very important to analyse the playing style of such a great golfer (you know, in Greece we know amost nothing about golf - but I have heard about two golf players: Woods and him; this proves what a great sport figure he is!).
"Records" is all listy. It looks like trivia. If you to FAC with such a section, you'll be in trouble. Can you turn it into proper prose?In "See also" don't put articles you have already linked in the main text.Wikify your online sources you use as inline citations, using Template:cite web and Template:cite news.
In general, an artice with potential, but it needs work.--Yannismarou 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)