Talk:Ian O'Brien

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Ian O'Brien has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Flag
Portal
 Ian O'Brien is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
Assessment comments

[edit] Good Article - on hold

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
    (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. (mostly)
    (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
    (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; (see comments below)
    (c) contains no original research.
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
    (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
    (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
  6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.
    (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall
    Pass/fail:
    On hold. Fix these things listed below and it may be ready.   jj137 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a few things:

  • Add some references to the lead section.
I do not believe this is necessary. Everything in the lead is in the main body, and everything in the main body is referenced. If you look at other recent articles that have passed FA, you should find that they generally do not have references in the lead if the content is repeated in the main body and sourced accordingly.
  • Find at least one or two images for the article. As it says above, make sure they have appropriate copyright tags and have suitable captions.
Unfortunately, Australian copyright law means that anything not taken on Australian soil pre-1955 is not {{PD-Australia}}. None of the photos of him in the "Aussie Gold" book are pre-1955 and since it is a portrait and not of a hard to understand historic event that needs a picture to embellish it, there isn't any way it can pass FUC.
  • For the type unfamiliar with swimming, you should spell out "minutes" and "seconds" instead of putting "m" and "s". The same with yards (yd) and kilograms (kg).
Done with brackets for the first mention in the main body. After that, the short form was used.
  • "O'Brien was known for the strength that he generated ain his torso" - is that supposed to say "in his torso"?
done.
  • "while Jastremski won the first semfinal in a slower time" - that should say "semifinal in a slower time".
done.
  • The article doesn't really come to an end. The last sentence is: "In 1979, he started his own company, named Videopak, which went on toe become one of the largest privately owned television documentary companies in Australia, with its sound stages being used by public and private television companies." Is he still with that today? Add something in there about that.
Unfortunately, there is no biography on O'Brien - only a few Olympians have full length biographies, usually those who are particularly iconic and have won multiple gold medals, as swimming is really only in the news once a year for the World Championships and such, and it is not a commercially viable sport. The "Aussie Gold" book is the most comprehensive there is, covering each of the gold medalists up to 1984. There haven't been any books printed since then that has any indepth coverage at all, and none is likely, until he dies and we find an obituary in the newspaper. So in terms of public knowledge, he has basically been AWOL for 20 years.

Work on these things and I'll look over it again. Other than those things, it was pretty good.

  jj137 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed the problems to the extent that it seems possible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you mean when you can't find images, and the lead section doesn't really need references. With the changes you made, I think the article looks better now, and I'm passing it as a GA.   jj137 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Could use one or two, but not a priority.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.—   jj137 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)