Wikipedia:Peer review/Paulo Francis/archive3

Paulo Francis

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been changed according to the results of two previous reviews and I feel it necessary to think about the finishing touches necessary for requesting GA-status, including adding an image that breaks what a reviewer has caled the "wall of words" in this article. Since there are no pictures of Paulo Francis in Commons, we must request fair use for adding an image, and that image has to be itself discussed in this PR. Personally, I would favor this picture: [1]; it's a very common one, showing Francis in his late fourties, which was selected various times by him for both covers and blurbs of his books.

Thanks, Cerme (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments

• A fair use image is generally acceptable on biographies whose subjects are dead. The image suggested seems fine - low res and commonly used for him. See WP:FAIR USE and please ask if you have any questions.
• The lead needs to summarize his whole life and the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in some way in the lead - see WP:LEAD
• Make sure the headers follow WP:HEAD - do not repeat his name in a header if at all possible and avoid the use of "The" in headers if at all possible

Hope this helps, more to come eventually Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• As said by Ruhrfisch above, the lede is insufficient for an article of this size; it should roughly be four paragraphs worth of material summarized from the main article text. See WP:LEDE.
• The same also for the section headers and a fair use image can be used (but make sure to state the copyright holder and the page, not direct image link, where the image is hosted) with the proper rationales.
• There is no need to boldface "Born Franz Paul Trannin da Matta Heilborn into ..." in the main article text. See WP:MOSBOLD.
• A copyeditor, who is experienced in dealing with professional English and distant from the subject but with an interest in it, should be brought in. A few incidents of the language that makes me suggest this are listed as follows:
  • "... during the early 1950s, but, although he received an award ..." would have been easier reading if "but" is replaced with a fullstop.
  • The opening of "Therefore also his empiricism and his scorn for theory: during his later life, according to one of his biographers, Bernardo Kucinski, Francis would always express his boredom with the academic method of intellectual analysis, describing it as conventional and unimaginative." is ungrammatical.
  • There are several phrases that seems inappropriate for an encylopaedia, e.g. "And indeed, ...", "However, what these same critics acknowledged ..."
• There are several uncited sentences, e.g. "Therefore the young Francis' peculiar mix of pro-Americanism and Left radicalism.", "Francis left the Folha during 1991 and began writing his column for the O Estado de São Paulo.", "Soon after, he suffered a fatal heart attack, dying in New York on February 4, 1997. He was buried in Rio de Janeiro, and was survived by his wife, fellow journalist Sonia Nolasco.", etc.
• Please use a consistent format throughout the Notes section: either use {{citation}} or the various "cite xxxx" (e.g. {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, etc.) templates
• The header for the References section does not need the "quoted more than once in the footnotes".
• In the References section, the last name of the authors are not supposed to be in upper case (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters).
• This action ("I have added the 'supposed' for the fact that I suspect the trip to be bogus") is disturbing. You are introducing your own opinion into the statement while attributing it to the source (Veja, issue 1,333, March 30 1994). This is not done. If there are sources that contradict the statement, then integrate them into the article. If not, drop the information from the article and put a notice about why in the Talk page (or as inline comments). Such actions only cast doubts on the accuracy of the information presented with respect to the sources. It is not certain to me whether there are subtle shifts and introductions of personal opinions into the other sentences, especially since most of the sources are offline and in a foreign language.
• I am not certain here, but it seems there is a decided loss of focus by spreading a lot of information about the man among three chronological sections. It seems too tidy to categorize a lot of items that could have affected him or were in play throughout his life into a particular period of time. In my view, the lengthy mixing of analysis of his character/career/style with chronological events loses the reader's interest. If one is only interested in Francis's political leanings or writing style, they have to spend so much work just to find the relevant details.

Personally, I found this article hard to read for the last reason stated. A more effective structure would attract more readers in my opinion and help generate more feedback. Jappalang (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment In the 10 days since I made my first comments, there has been no repsonse, nor has there has been any response to Jappalang's comments (which I agree with). Looking at the article, no fair use image has been added, the headers still violate WP:HEAD, and the lead is still inadeaquate. I also note that in PR 1 (which I did in April) I said to expand the lead, and the reviewer in PR 2 from this summer did the same. I have better things to do than keep saying the same things and have them ignored. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ruhrfisch: I have seem the comments and taken note of them, but have lacked to act accordingly time due to personal issues. Please wait until I can answer to the comments with the amount of attention they rightfully deserve. I could only make a few changes in punctuationCerme (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)