Talk:Irving Crane

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Passed as GA

Resolved

 – Use /Comments page for further assessment.

Hi, I just passed this article as GA. Here the summary (WP:WIAGA):

1. Well written - PASS. I am definitely more interested in Crane now.
2. Verifiable - PASS. Very impressed how this article is perforated with references.
3. Broad - PASS. I am not a pool fan at all, but it shows what impact he had on and off the table.
4. NPOV - PASS.
5. Stable - PASS. See history.
6. Images - PASS. Offending image now fixed, I saw just now.
7. Misc - to anyone who says the article is too short: less is sometimes more (See spoo, a FA)

Amendments: seperate Biography into "Professional career" and "Personal life". Also special (albeit alread wiki-linked) pool-specific terms ("run", "safety" etc.) should be explained briefly, as they are not immediately understandable by non-experts. But this article is definitely a GA. Keep up the good work! —Onomatopoeia 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the careful review and pass Onomatopoeia. Regarding defining terms, I'll think about how to do so without disturbing the flow. With regard the structural suggestion, I wrote this from a chronological standpoint, trying to seamlessly weave together his personal life and his professional career as they unfolded. Certainly all of our lives are messy and it's not so easy to keep them separate. While I don't dispute that separating them out into sections would also be a logical structure, to do so would involve a complete rewrite. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[Marking topic "Resolved", as further assessment-related discussion should go in Talk:Irving Crane/Comments, the now-standard location for assessment/peer review material, which has a copy of the above plus more followup already. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ]

Fair use rationale for Image:Irving Crane.jpg

Image:Irving Crane.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Irving Crane/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

;Passed as GA Hi, I just passed this article as GA. Here the summary (WP:WIAGA): Well written - PASS. I am definitely more interested in Crane now. Verifiable - PASS. Very impressed how this article is perforated with references. Broad - PASS. I am not a pool fan at all, but it shows what impact he had on and off the table. NPOV - PASS. Stable - PASS. See history. Images - PASS. Offending image now fixed, I saw just now. Misc - to anyone who says the article is too short: less is sometimes more (See spoo, a FA) Amendments: seperate Biography into "Professional career" and "Personal life". Also special (albeit alread wiki-linked) pool-specific terms ("run", "safety" etc.) should be explained briefly, as they are not immediately understandable by non-experts. But this article is definitely a GA. Keep up the good work! —Onomatopoeia 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Thank you for the careful review and pass Onomatopoeia. Regarding defining terms, I'll think about how to do so without disturbing the flow. With regard the structural suggestion, I wrote this from a chronological standpoint, trying to seamlessly weave together his personal life and his professional career as they unfolded. Certainly all of our lives are messy and it's not so easy to keep them separate. While I don't dispute that separating them out into sections would also be a logical structure, to do so would involve a complete rewrite. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Have to concur strongly with Fuhghettaboutit. There is no compelling reason to split an article up into personal vs. professional sections if the article is well written chronologically (indeed, I think doing so would make the article lesser rather than better), especially if there isn't anything especially notable about the subject's personal life. For an article like Anna Nicole Smith, I think such sectioning would be important, but not for a non-scandalous pool player. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC) PS: If it grows to such a point that it needs sections, they should be chronological, not topical, e.g. "Early years", "Professional years", "Later years", or something to that effect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Peacock language There are some slight WP:PEACOCK issues, I think (this flaw is shared with a number of other articles on BCA Hall of Famers; I'm not picking on this one in particular). Claims of emminence are hard to source as bare claims; the two sources cited for the claim here probably need to be detailed in the article prose as to what they actually say. See =Steve_Davis&diff=127897238&oldid=127896619 this edit to the Steve Davis article for an example of how to fix this sort of thing. I don't think this is a WP:GA problem for this article, but very probably would be a WP:FA problem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 19:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irving Crane. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019205338/http://www.bca-pool.com/industry/hof/ind77-84.shtml to http://www.bca-pool.com/industry/hof/ind77-84.shtml

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) 22:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)