Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Robert Benchley

Robert Benchley edit

A featured article possibility, a few things I do know: I'm working on a public domain image for the infobox with his grandson (really!), so that's forthcoming. The subpage with his works is incomplete, but is being compiled as I write this and may, in fact, be done by the time anyone sees this. I also need help on the lead. Outside of that, pointers would be appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review edit

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks! Resurgent insurgent 06:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou edit

Maybe you could stub this red link in the lead. Not really an obstacle for FA status, but some reviewers do not really like red links; especially in the lead.
The lead could be a bit more expanded, in order to constituted a proper summary of the article. Maybe some more things about his career or his life, but again do not overexpand it; keep it concise. Two paragraphs (a bit bigger than the current ones) is fine.
For citing books you could use Template:cite book. Keep also in mind theexistence of Template:cite web and Template:cite news. It is practical, and will relieve you from any possible inconsistencies.
"Although Benchley was known for misleading autobiographies of himself". Why was he doing that?
The first four paragraphs of "Biography" are what? Early years? Personal life? General instriduction (I do not think so)? Family?
"irreverence of the magazine". Irreverence towards? The Tribune editors? And irreverence was expressed with the pacifist articles?
"The two were given a good deal of freedom, but Benchley's coverage of the war and focus on African-American regiments as well as provocative pictorials about lynching in the Southern United States earned him and Greuning scrutiny from management." Is the prose here OK? I may missing something here (as a non-native English speaker).
"The Algonquin Round Table" is too stubby. Maybe you could merge it or expand it a bit, but again not a very serious flaw.

In general, I think the article is well-written, and comprehensive.--Yannismarou 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]