Talk:Rudolf Wanderone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Note

Let us use this talkpage as a vehicle for copy-editing, and to discuss specific details by the line number. Hag2 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tough time

[This topic was moved here from User talk:SMcCandlish.]

SMc, I'm having a truly tough time with the prose on Rudolf Wanderone. Are you around now? Hag2 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really; I have about 5 min. I will be back online here for a longer time probably later tonight, about midnight US Mountain Time, and much of Wed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Go [*removed as of 16:53 UTC, 26 September*] and check out what I have done. Then come back here and let me know what you think. Hag2 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks great, actually. I would only have very minor quibbles with it (I think I can see a sentence that needs rearrangement, and the 1942 mini-paragraph should simply merge into the one that follows it, for example). The rest is a vast readability improvement. Don't wear yourself out, though. :-) It might be best to move it to Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft or simply edit the article directly. Based on the RfC, there are various other problems to fix in the article, but I'd just as soon do them with your overhauled version (to the extent any of them will still apply). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. I am glad that you and I have a meeting of the minds. I will work on the continuation as quickly as possible. I will let you know (here) when I am finished.

I like the idea of the Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft concept, and know how to quickly create the redraft page. However I am unfamiliar with the concept of moving (as per Wikipedia's proper procedures). I suppose though that moving is little different than "cutting and pasting" into a newly created Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft page. Since I am very new around here, I will happily let you guide me in the correct Wikipedia procedures: guidelines, restrictions, limitations, rules, and instructions seem to puzzle me with their jargon.

I will try to be finished within 36 hours.

question: Do you know why Ruhrfish's comments, and mine were deleted from your review???? [timestamp: 12:20 (UTC)]

answer: "Archiving: 'Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate.'" [posted on the peer review page.]

Thus, Ruhrfish and I are HERE (Boy, this place can baffle the daylights outta me.) Hag2 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Finished

I am prepared to post the revised draft in Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft. As soon as I hear from you, I will proceed. Hag2 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey! PS: I unarchved the review page, since all of this is still active. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A few seconds ago, the Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft page became activated. I thought it may be helpful also to use the discussion-talkpage to answer any questions, or details, back and forth. Hag2 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First take

This is largely a vast improvement. I've found a few WP:MOS issues, and made a couple of other twiddles. I also saw your note on using the new grouping feature of the <ref[erences]> system; will look into that later. I think after some more massaging this will almost be ready for FA. I still think it is missing:

1. A note about the irony that it was Mosconi who enabled Wanderone's fame, but the two feuded. Mosconi got more than he bargained for.
2. More information on the feud. The article presently just kind of states that there was one, without properly characterizing it for the reader.
3. More information on Wanderone as a public figure. We state that he was inducted into a hall of fame for helping promote pool, without really showing what he did to promote pool. Update: Dyer's Hustler Days p. 218 ff. can be used as a source for this, as well as the irony of "Fats" receiving an award from an organization he completely detested (which is also unmentioned in the article). 21:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
4. There is an out-standing claim among some editors (including a peer reviewer and a previous editor of this article) that IMDb is categorically an unreliable source; this needs to be explored and resolved (more broadly, not just for this article), either in favor of that position, or not. This article depends on IMDb for several minor facts, for which no other source is apparent at this time.
5. The description of the Wanderone–Mosconi shootout on TV could probably be jazzed up so it helps the reader visualize the event better. Update: Or not. See below. 00:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Update: Lead should mention feud with Mosconi, probably. It covers much of his life, but not the significant stuff, so much. I also think that the lead could be pared down some. 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Update: As someone pointed out in the peer review, some of the material sounds PoV; the critical statements about him need to be attributed, and sourced independely (most come from Dyer 2003, p. 49 ff.). 21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Update: I've added some of this material, sourced. 00:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Update: The period he spent in Chicago is entirely absent from the article. 00:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of these are of course beyond the scope of this redraft, and will require returning to the sources. I have two or three of them myself.

Anyway, I will read and twiddle more today/tonight, probably. Thanks much for all the effort, and let me know if any of the twiddling is objectionable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No. 5 (above)

"5. The description of the Wanderone–Mosconi shootout on TV could probably be jazzed up so it helps the reader visualize the event better."

I doubt seriously that you need to jazz the shootout any more. Part of the beauty of the article is the entire section which begins with "Rivalry with Mosconi" and ends with the final "...I'll carry Willie out on a stretcher." The fact that your presentation of all inside material moves quickly and poignantly from A to Z is almost as if the reader is moving along with the actual shootout. If you add to it, the addition of material just may bog the flow of an exciting and very visual (for me) A-Z shootout into "too much". Sort of like "Fast Eddie", this shootout wants to move. Perhaps the best critic is a completely unbiased reader who has little knowledge of pool. Find a girlfriend to take a quick peek, and to offer an opinion. Hag2 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are right on that. NB: I can't claim any credit for the flow of that section; that was all previous editors' work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No. 7 (above)

"7. Update: As someone pointed out in the peer review, some of the material sounds PoV; the critical statements about him need to be attributed, and sourced independely (most come from Dyer 2003, p. 49 ff.). 21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)"

I recall seeing someone mention that "Aside from ostentation, self-aggrandizement, fast-talk, and entertaining banter..." plus the word "flamboyant" were too PoV. I strongly disagree with that criticism. Granted, they are adjectives which are loaded labels, but after all, so is life. The article in the beginning sets the stage lightly and easily to paint a picture of a man's life, and his character. By the time, a reader comes upon the loaded aforementioned-images a reader has drawn his own conclusion—which is exactly the same as the loaded images. So what if they are PoV; they are perfect; they are what makes Fats Fats. Without them, the article looses a certain level of panache. Hag2 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly – if anything the article is too soft on him. Dyer's biography details that he was a very, very notorious liar, and that much of his autobiography is simply highly entertaining "bullshit". This deserves mentioning. The Wikipedia way to do this, of course, is to ensure that these claims are attributed to Dyer and Dyer's primary sources, not a claim of fact being made by Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ready for prime time

Looks ready to go to me. If you're satisfied with it, one of us can copy this version over the old one. At this point I'm not twiddling with the wording any longer, but adding new material from Dyer's book to address some of the pre-FA points above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, while looking around for an exact day-month-year on the BCA Hall of Fame induction, I ran across the fact that Fats had been charged with shoplifting over something assinine as Exlax. I wondered if the news article was worthy of mention, or would be misconstrued as deceitful nitpicking about another human's frailties. Since you are a principal editor of Rudolph Wanderone in Wikipedia, I defer my discovery to you. (Currently my opinion on the biography of living individual's has infuriated some editors in the Giovanni Di Stefano Case and, frankly, I should disappear into the background of obscurity.) If you feel ready to "cut and paste" this version over the Old version, that is fine with me. I am happy to have been some assistance. Hag2 (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on (before you "cut and paste")

(1)

"Tevis denied this for the rest of his life, and the quiet, well-groomed, refined character bore no resemblance other than portliness to the brash Wanderone, who had never been to Minnesota.[4]:122–128"

"...and the quiet, well-groomed, refined character..."

This is obviously new material. It does not refer to Tevis though. I believe that you mean to say something like:

Tevis denied this for the rest of his life; and the quiet, well-groomed, refined film-character Minnesota Fats bore no resemblance other than [Jackie Gleason's] portliness to the brash Wanderone who had never been to Minnesota.

This new addition attempts to provide a great deal of information-imagery in one sentence involving a slew of people. Without clarifying the word character, the sentence (as written) is very confusing to a reader. At one minute, a reader will first believe that the word character refers to Tevis, and that the adjectives quiet, well-groomed, refined describe him somehow....

You and I know that you are describing Jackie Gleason in his movie portrayal of a rather dignified pool hustler who has plenty of panache (in marked contrast to Eddie Felson), but your sentence (as written) will baffle a few readers very suddenly.

I doubt though that you want to write more. I think that you need to rework the words within the existing single sentence so that everything is very clear. Hag2 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at rewording it, but I was writing equally of the original character in the novel, which I have right here on my desk. All that was needed to fix the sentence was addition of the word "fictional". PS: "film character" wouldn't be hyphenated. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(2)

In an interview, Wanderone was asked about his strategy to defeat Mosconi, and replied, "I'll make [the 7 ball] on the break and end it...then I'll help carry Willie out on a stretcher."[24]

As I recall, the earlier version said, "In an interview after the event...".

I believe that it is essential to leave that distinction in: it brings an element of immediacy to the forefront. If you remove the expression, it implies that the interview could have taken place anytime later e.g. several days, weeks, months. If the interview remains immediate, it helps to "set up" the final line:

..."I'll make [the 7 ball] on the break and end it...then I'll help carry Willie out on a stretcher."[24]

Without the "set up" in place, the final line looses all of its punch. Hag2 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It actually needs a completely different kind of clarification, because as it stood it sounded like something said in an interview before the match. I've clarified it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(3)

His critical biographer, R. A. Dyer, documents that Wanderone completely fabricated a story (on which he elaborated in his autobiography) that a car wreck had brought him to Little Egypt, a "here by fate" tale the spread of which he encouraged.[4]:49–56

This is confusing. The subject of the sentence is R.A. Dyer.

When you use the pronouns he and him throughout the rest of the sentence, the distinction between Dyer and Wanderone becomes baffling. I am not certain whether or not simply altering every referenced-he/him to Wanderone will work. I need to insert the change, then begin at the beginning of the article and read through to the end. If it works...great. If not, then something needs to be done. Hag2 (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are too easily baffled. :-) Changing it all to "Wanderone" would be a very repetitive. The "he/him" clearly refers to the most recently-mentioned male, in my view. Twiddled with it a bit to avoid either issue. It should be fine now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(4) Egad...I do not like the additions (and the movement of sentences) within the section Personal Character—not one bit.

Not only do they interrupt the previous flow of writing, and of story-telling; but also they completely destroy the very punchy imagery of (a) that beautiful, mini-anecdote: "Minnesota Fats, King of pool"; and (b) the final closing: "...You can leave the crown in the toilet."

These two elements were why I liked the article, and thought that it was excellent.

This newer version bothers me, greatly. Hag2 (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the incoming material needs to be in there one way or another. The purpose of the article is to inform and to provide a relatively complete picture, within the tight confines of the nature of an encyclopedia article (as opposed to something Dyer might write more floridly in a magazine piece or something). I'll see what I can do with it, but a lot more material is coming soon, as a whole lot of important stuff has been left out of this article. I don't follow your point (a), since "Minnesota Fats, King of Pool" is still in there. If I removed it and you put it back, the removal was certainly accidental; a copy-paste mistake. That section also seems to end now with the crown/toilet bit, and it seems fine to me, so I think we're okay on this part now. I would rather have both of those up above the animal-lover bit, as more significant. I prefer an encyclopedia article to be more sequential than you do, apparently, and don't care much about whether things have a punchy closing (which can sometimes even be distracting). Others may agree with you more than with me, so I'll leave that order as you've put it, and let the FA reviewers praise or complain as they see fit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(5) Update and final comments

SMcCandlish, I am about to "cut and paste" my last effort on the article. Below are my various reasons for my changes.

(a) the expression known well enough really (according to Webster) reads better as well-known. (minor; as a matter of fact, I am probably the one who switched it around in the beginning!!! *smile*)

(b) the after the interview (see #2 above)

(c) the here-by-fate sentence: I could not read through it... as written. I tried my best to rewrite your sentiment by performing as little damage as possible. I believe that I have maintained the gist of what you wish to add to the overall paragraph. The sentence coming before the here-by-fate information and the sentence coming afterwards more-or-less require that the here-by-fate sentence does not interfere with a reader's thoughts which have been in motion since the beginning of the subsection (as well as the entire article). The here-by-fate sentence wants to be as short and simple as possible, not complex. (Before you become too angry, I would like you to take a hard look at the number of times you use the word also in the newest additions. I tried to reduce that number. *smile*)

(d) also made false claims about beating: I tried to keep the opening thought of the controlling sentence for the paragraph going (i.e. "Wanderone was known for ostentation, self-aggrandizement..."), but I was getting very close to "loosing it" in the sentence-structure (as written by you). Which brings us now to the last sentence of the paragraph....

(e) a very complex thought and sentence structure due to the fact that you are relating much information from R.A. Dyer's biography of Wanderone. I tried to structure that final sentence (with all of its complexities) into one thought which followed (and flowed) comfortably from the previous four sentences. Grammatically, the sentence-structure requires a semi-colon before the yet however I believe that those footnote citation symbols (which are there) are sufficient interrupters (or natural pauses for a reader to take at the appropriate time in his thinking).

(f) Wanderone is remembered for saying on his way out a pool room door: is a single image which does not want to be interrupted by a comma because it sets the stage for Wanderone's following quote. To pause that single image is counter-productive.

(g) This kind of punctuation is very important. Thus, the DASH between limousine and his in the next sentence is critical. If you connect those two independent sentences with the word with, then the mini-anecdotal King of Pool image becomes exhausting, rather than "punchy". (see #4 above). (Also, with respect to the style of dash...observe the Wikipedia example from the bottom of the edit-box page: "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images." Wikipedia does not use spacing. I believe that Wikipedia's style is far more pleasing to look at, especially in the case of Rudolph Wanderone.)

(h) Lastly, I reverted the structure of the final, two sentences because the King of Pool sets the stage for the crown in the toilet, not vice verse.

Whether or not you accept my reasoning for the above is your business.

As I have said, I have now completed my last effort on this article and I wish you well in the future.

The Redraft (as posted by me) I like. Hag2 (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for all the work on it! It is a vastly better article now, though I'm futzing with a few little bits of it.

a) Agree.

b) Agree, but it needed other work, as detailed above.

c) Agree, but restored a point and added his rationale for doing it, which I'd initially omitted. I don't get angry about stuff like this. Good point about the "alsos"; the new material was basically first-draft.

d) Agree, and shortened it even more, since about half of it was redundant.

e) Fine, but the semicolon has to be there, since the content must stand on its own (one should be able to strip out the non-content and have a perfect article).

f) Fair enough. I think you and I have a different sense of the "nature" of commas, but even if I were to stick to my rationale for putting one there, it wouldn't outweigh yours for removing it. I'm only a stickler about commas (presence or absence) when the writer is abusive or the writing leads to user-confusing ambiguity.

g) Can't agree at all about the dash; I find it rather "breathless prose"-style, as in over-the-top magazine journalism, and non-encyclopedic. But I don't care much, so I've just left it. It isn't wrong, and if I'm onto something about it being a tone issue, someone else will remove it. I am changing it to a spaced en-dash, since the rest of the article uses those instead of unspaced em-dashes. It isn't "Wikipedia's style", it's a WP:MOS matter; use one, or the other, but not both, and as with WP:ENGVAR matters, use whichever is already established by earlier editors of the article. That Wikipedia's system administrators chose one over the other for site boilerplate doesn't have anything to do with in-article style. And many object to unspaced em-dashes as a major readability problem (I'm in that camp); depending on font, it can be quite hard to distinguish them from hyphens, and even without that problem, many fast readers will initially parse them as hyphens, get confused by the apparent compound word, and have to re-read the sentence slowly.

h) Yeah, I like that order better, too. I would probably put them after the self-aggrandizing teller of tall tales material, and put the loves animals material last, since it's weird to jump from talking about his life as a famed hustler to something more personal, and then back again, but it's not a big deal to me either way. The animals part does return to the hustling theme toward its end, so the transition isn't exactly jarring.

So, other than that, I think all I changed was futzing with the material a little (see edit summaries on the redraft page), like to remove a POV problem and tighten up some wording, and to fix a word order problem.

Great job!

I'm going to move this stuff to a talk archive page, and delete the /Redraft page since it isn't needed any more, after pasting in the content and adding more stuff.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I twiddled with the text a little more too (overuse of colons, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)