Talk:Jean Balukas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Jean Balukas 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.
January 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

A fact from Jean Balukas appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 May 2007.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cue sports, a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of pool, carom billiards and other cue sports. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Initial comments: Some pre-GA comments. Quite well-developed, and well-sourced, basically just needs some twiddles: I'm a little concerned with "Balukas was widely acknowledged as the sole candidate for greatest female player ever", multiple sources or not. The sources arguably make this not a case of WP:WEASEL, but because the sources don't say precisely what the article does, but are being interpreted to essentially mean that, in combination, this likely qualifies as "novel synthesis" under WP:NOR (I've argued strongly that this is the case with similar WP:PEACOCK language such as at Steve Davis among other snooker bios.) '"breathtaking" in its scope' [opinion needs balancing] - just because someone somewhere can be quoted saying this doesn't mean it's encyclopedic to do so. Just using "dominated" (without "utterly") already gets the point across. And the piece may already be overquoting the NYT. "named Player of the Year five times" [citation needed] / [clarify] - by whom? BCA? Billiards Digest? Intro is too long for article of this length. Suggest compressing by 50%. All the ages may need to be converted to words instead of numerals; I forget what WP:MOSNUM says about that. It doesn't; raised issue on its talk page. The "She did not agree at the time" paragraph under the dress code section needs to have much of its material moved to the preceeding playing-with-the-guys section, since that's what the material is about, incl. McCready, etc. A more up-to-date photo might be obtainable by writing to her; we know where her pool hall is... Style: May be a little bit too magaziney, with too many direct quotations, especially toward the end. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (edit)

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.

Find sources: Jean Balukas pool — news, books, scholar
Find sources: Jean Balukas billiard — news, books, scholar

[edit] No longer only female pro in men's events

Just FYI, Jasmin Ouschan finished 5th in the men's World Straight Pool Championship in 2006, Allison Fisher regularly dukes it out with the top males in trick shot competitions, meanwhile Jeanette Lee is also a world speed pool contender against male pros. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Just some issues with prose flow and some quotations that need to have citations right with them.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I've listed some places where the prose feels choppy, mainly due to the short paragraphs used.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   needs some citations on the direct quotations

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The lede could use some expansion.A bit more about her young starts in the late 1960s would help with that.The whole Young Prodigy section isn't covered at all in the lede.
• Young prodigy section, fourth paragraph, the "a little girl with honey-blond..." quotation needs a direct citation, per WP:CITE. The sentence it is in is also a run on sentence.
• Same section, fifth paragraph, link to this appearance of US Open Straight Pool Championship, rather than in the first paragraph of the next section.
• Same section. The second and third paragraphs are very short and give the prose a choppy feel. Consider combing them with each other and possibly the first paragraph to help the prose flow. Several other paragraphs in this section are short and could be merged or expanded to help the prose flow.
• Playing with men section, the direct quotation "best in the world, flat out" needs a direct citation next to it.
• Same section, the last three paragraphs are very short, consider combining or expanding them.
• Dress code controversy. First two paragraphs are short, consider expanding or combining.
• Break with the sport section. Consider combining some of these paragraphs to make the prose flow better.
• Same sections, all the direct quotations need citations attached to them. I know it is a pain, but them's the rules.
• Honors section, same deal with the short paragraphs.
• Consider breaking the references into two columns with {{reflist|2}}

Neat article! Just some issues with prose flow and some direct quotations that need attached to them.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Ealdgyth. Rather than check or strikeout each section, I've addressed all of them (consider them all checked/stricken), but for one exception. It might cause confusion to wikify the earlier mention of the U.S. Open, as it appears directly after another necessary linked term, and would thus appear as one link. This is directly addressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?. Actually, at the moment, it wouldn't do so because the one is blue and the other still red, but that will not prevail forever. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks for the quick attention to them. And no problem on the link. Sorry you feel that putting the footnotes at the quotes is silly (I actually agree, honestly. You should be able to just do normal references) but them's the rules, unfortunately. Looks great, it was an interesting read, and a nice change of pace from the football players I've spent the week reviewing! Thanks for writing it.Ealdgyth | Talk 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Regarding the sourcing grumbling, you might not find anyone more vehement than I am on the subject of requiring sources for every fact. I was only referring to sourcing for the sentence where the quote is followed by attribution in the text, in the form ""quote text"<ref> she said in an interview in 1999."<ref> It seems to me that placing the reference directly after the quote and after the attribution language is redundant. Anyway, thanks for the review, your time, and your kind words.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)