Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert A. Heinlein/archive1

Robert A. Heinlein

I'm nominating this as a featured article because I think it meets the criteria, and I'm proud of it -- I've worked on it a lot myself, so this should be considered a self-nomination.--Bcrowell 21:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very detailed and comprehensive. One thing that I think might make the article better would be something on the public perception of Heinlein: the way that some people thought his support for the military marked him as a fascist. Besides that, great job. Stilgar135 16:50, 30 May 2005
- Refer to peer review - Overwhelming TOC, bad section organization (find better ==Level 2== themes and organize the current sections under those), no references, lack of inline cites, and goes into more detail than needed (the more detailed text could be in daughter articles). --mav 17:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you put your objection where you intended? Phils 20:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opps! Damn slow wiki made me do it. :) --mav 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Stilgar135! The lead section now contains some remarks on public perception.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, excellent biography, great use of explanatory notes. The grainy photo Robert Heinlein (photo by Virginia Heinlein) doesn't add much, have you got anything you could replace it with?--nixie 23:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! I think the selection of photos may have to do with legal issues. The book Grumbles From the Grave does contain a lot of photos of him, but the ones before 1923 are likely to be of interest only to fans, and I'm not sure how far we want to stick out necks out in terms of fair use for post-1923 images.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, wow! amazing. However, tricky as they are, the lead section should be expanded somewhat - this article is large enough for it. Right now it doesn't have that catch-your-eye-and-hold-the-reader feel to it. There is some wikification to be done still I think (no time to do it myself, sorry!). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good comment on the lead -- it was very vanilla, and would probably not have interested people who didn't already know about Heinlein. I've expanded it to two paragraphs, and tried to add some zip to it.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... a lot better, but would still suggest that more summarisation be done of the main article. That's what I tried to do for Windows 2000, and though that article's lead section may be a little long I think that it might be helpful. As I'm really interested in reading about this individual I will attempt to assist. My vote is still to support. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Object. Expand lead to at least two paragrahps (see Wikipedia:Lead). Format online references so they have 'last accessed on' date. Biography and 'Ideas and themes' sections are impressive, but I'd like to see a subsection dealing specifically with his influence on other writers, culture, and homage paid to him by next generations of sf writers. A few more pics (book covers) wouldn't hurt as well, although this one is just a comment, not an objection. I am pretty sure you can easily adress those points - let me know then and I will change to support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I've tried to make the suggested changes regarding references, influence, and more pictures.--Bcrowell 17:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- although I _still_ think the bio echo's way too closely the bio from the Heinlein society web page. But considering just how LITTLE biographical material there is available, I don't know we have a choice at this point. (which is, in and of itself amazing. Ginny did an ASTONISHINGLY GOOD job of protecting his privacy.) I looked through all my old files for a better snapshot. -- Nothing comes to light, which is sad. Some comment may be appropriate about the Heinlein's and now the estates _vigorus_ defense of it's IP rights, -- to the extent of reclaiming ARC's that were offered up for sale. Rick Boatright 18:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say I must object--there was one flaw in this article (but it's easily fixed). The article says in his "works" section that "There has been speculation that his intense obsession with his privacy was due..."--but prior to this, there had been no indication that he was obsessed with his privacy. Add detail on this, and I'll support. This flaw is so glaring precisely because the rest of the article was so good. Very, very fine work--just one minor fix is needed. Meelar (talk) 15:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent comment, Meelar! I've added some documentation in a footnote.--Bcrowell 04:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support although I would like to see more about his early life; is nothing known of his parents? --Theo (Talk) 22:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the only on-line source is the bio on the heinlein society web page. We're already treading dangerously close to a copyvio on that source... Rick Boatright 23:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a much, much longer online biography of him, by the same author, at [1]. I've added it to the references. I've added the names of his parents.--Bcrowell 04:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changed the citation of the Patterson Bio to the original publication in the Heinlein Journal, with an "available here" link to the aol.com page. Rick Boatright 22:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, on the topic of "treading dangerously close to a copyvio" on the Patterson biography, I just found a long phrase in the article that was lifted verbatim from there by an anonymous user on 28 Dec 2004. I've deleted the phrase. Baylink helped me find another couple of those a few days ago, and I edited them out --- they were put in there by an anonymous user in February 2004. I hope this is the last of them. --Bcrowell 04:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Object. I see significant problems with details here. Examples -- RAH not first sf writer to hit "mainstream" magazines, what about HG Wells? View of RAH as "fascist" not just based on Starship Troopers, probably as much if not more from Farnham's Freehold and nonfiction writings and speeches. I don't know what the source is for the story about why Rocket Ship Galileo was rejected, but it'e either wrong or summarized in a misleading way -- lots of stuff that was further out had been published at the time. RSG not RAH's first published novel, but his first that was an original hardcover rather than a magazine serial. Starship Troopers wasn't his last juvenile, but the last he submitted to the Scribners line, it was published as a standard trade. If ST is a juvenile, so is Podkayne. The division between early and "mature" work strikes me as dead wrong; RAH wasn't publishing the Scribners juveniles because his work wasn't sufficiently mature, but because he was reaching a larger/more lucrative market than the sf mags allowed him too. I think the comments about critics and Heinlein's later work aren't sufficiently NPOV; much of the technical criticism of the novels is well-founded, and there are serious questions as to whether the self-parodic elements are designed virtues or inherent conceptual failings. I don't think the article distinguishes sufficiently between his earliest work (mostly for Campbell, as I recall), particularly the "Future History," and the post-Astounding phase; lumping everything from 1939-1960 together as a coherent grouping strikes me as thoroughly misconceived. I'm not saying this is a bad article -- there's a lot of good work in it -- but execution doesn't match ambition yet. Monicasdude 14:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)