(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:Rose Catherine Pinkney - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Rose Catherine Pinkney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRose Catherine Pinkney has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 8, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Rose Catherine Pinkney developed dozens of American television shows, including The X-Files and Girlfriends?

Parents' marriage

[edit]

First off. Full disclosure: Ms. Pinkney was my cheerleading partner at Princeton (I was the 2nd weakest member of the team in terms of the military press, and she was the 2nd lightest cheerleader. So depending on attendance, I was often paired with her on techniques such as the male base in the Statue of Liberty position with his palm serving as a seat for his female partner).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, to the issue at hand. I requested a neutral review of the content of the page and the encyclopedic merit of the article at WP:WPBIO and WP:TV. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has done a copyedit. He has removed the content that as of 2008 her parents had been married 56 years. If she were the daughter of Ms. X and Mr. Y who divorced when she was age Z, that would be encyclopedic, I believe. Why is the fact of a long marriage not encyclopedic?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Pinkney had a long marriage that might be significant, but I can't see what relevance it has that her parents did. But you're the one who'll have to defend this article at GAN, so if you think it's important for whatever reason then just restore it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems like it is common to recount family facts in a bio. Things like parents' occupations, parents' divorce status, parents' remarriage status, parents' ethnicity, parents' nobility, parents' extreme wealth is even sometime mentioned for offspring of billionaires and such. I included the fact because it seemed notable to me. I hesitate to readd it because, I am not sure I am viewing her biography objectively. I will ask the GA reviewer for an opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the 56 years her parents have been married is not, in itself, notable, I think the effect of this relationship on Pinkney's character makes it relevant. The Network Journal article, cited in the references, provided a good justification. I recommend inclusion, with an explanation of the marriage's impact on Pinkney. Folklore1 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using "as of 2008" is accurate, but looks awkward. I'm not sure what the update function does here with a year that's no longer current. Folklore1 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{asof}} is a flag for editors to come by and check on whether a more current source exists. There is no harm in using that template here. As far as the currency of the statement, when I last spoke to her (last month), she spoke as if both her parents were living but I have no more current source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rose Catherine Pinkney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Folklore1 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): #::
  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): Does not have any images. Folklore1 (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Improvements needed for citations and references

[edit]

Citations to news articles should include the author name whenever the articles have bylines. This can help readers find an article after a url link goes dead. Folklore1 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize about that. I am usually diligent about that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Network Journal article needs a publication date. Folklore1 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the year, which is all I know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the Network Journal didn't bother to date this article and didn't give its writer a byline. That makes it a weak source for reference. If you have another source for the same information, you should replace the Network Journal reference. I noticed that the Network Journal used three levels of headers for this article. You could improve your citation by replacing the third header (used in the current citation) with the first two headers: "25 Influential Black Women Class of 2008: Rose Catherine Pinkney". These headers provide us with a year and a name that would be helpful in the future if the link goes dead. (Link rot is a major problem for Wikipedia, which is why other reference details are so important.) Folklore1 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the title and have archived the reference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting publication dates as "December 15, 2008" rather than "2008-12-15" would improve the appearance of references, also making publication dates readily distinguishable from retrieval dates. Folklore1 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have authored 250 WP:GAs and have never been asked to have different date formatting for date and accessdate fields.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really necessary. I think it would look a little better, but this is just a minor suggestion. Not significant enough to consider relevant to GA status. Folklore1 (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The web page referenced for the UC Regents Alumni Board gives a "cached" date of February 20, 2011. Does that mean it was "archived" on February 20 rather than February 21? Folklore1 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UTC time is different than the date of the web host causing a distinction. I usually use UTC time dates for date, accessdate and archivedate parameters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references look okay now, except for the citation of the Syracuse University article: "Entertainment industry exec visits Newhouse..." Jaime Winne Alvarez should be given credit for writing it. It would further strengthen the reference by citing the specific work where it was published on the SU website: Inside SU. Folklore1 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

[edit]

"As of 2011[update], she is head" is another way of saying "She is currently head". I don't recommend either, because they don't tell us much. Perhaps it would be better to replace this with a sentence telling us she "has been" since 2008. Or combine it with the third sentence of the lead. Folklore1 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That's what it needed. Folklore1 (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and academic career

[edit]

This paragraph is rather dull reading, because it has so little variety in sentence structures. Three consecutive sentences begin with the same object. How about moving things around a bit to make them more interesting? Folklore1 (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much change you want, but I have made a few minor changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I think this gives it reasonably varied structure.

In the last sentence, the phrase "as of 2011[update] served on its Alumni Advisory Board" tells us only that she's on the advisory board this year. I can see a potential problem in the future when she retires from the board, because Wikipedia won't be able to state the period of time she served. To solve this dilemma, we need to know when she became part of the board, but the cited source doesn't provide that information. Got any better sources? Folklore1 (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have on that subject. In the future, we can say she was a past board member without being specific.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

With the beginning year unknown, the "years active" field of the info box doesn't tell us anything useful. It should be left vacant. As the birthplace and employer are known, these fields should be completed. Folklore1 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard my suggestion for leaving "years active" blank. One of the reference citations credits her career as starting in the late 1980s. It's kind of vague, but at least supports "198?" as a starting point. Folklore1 (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

[edit]

Although brief, the article is well written and tells us enough about Pinkney to satisfy the GA criteria. The subject is about such an interesting person, I hope we eventually will see more information about her in Wikipedia, and a photograph. Folklore1 (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rose Catherine Pinkney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rose_Catherine_Pinkney&oldid=1209764345"