BioCheck App Update V1.6.0

Question

BioCheck Version 1.6.0 is available.

Changes in this release:

• Reports content that is not in the proper order per the style guidelines
• Reports == section headings that should instead be === subsection headings. These are reported as Wrong Level Heading, such as == Birth == that should instead be === Birth ===. It will also find typos such as Boigraphy.
• Reports when there is a section or subsection heading with the name of a Research Note Box but there is no corresponding Research Note Box
• Reports when a Research Note Box that is not approved is used. Possible status may be deprecated or review
• Checks profiles that are marked uncertain
• Reports a profile that may contain an email address
• Adds the ability to search for any given phrase in the biography
• Eliminates the ability to search for the specific phrase "auto-generated by a GEDCOM import" (you can just type it in)
• Adds the ability to disable reporting of profiles that have only style issues. Any profile that is possibly unsourced or which has issues with required section headings will always be reported. Use this option if you have been tracking progress with previous Bio Check reports and do not want the additional profiles reported.
• Changes the columns in the Detailed Report

Search. Search the biography for any phrase. The Detailed report includes a Search? column that will contain Found if the phrase is found in the biography.

14 June 2023 Update to Version 1.6.1 described here

Answer 1

Thank you!  Already ran it and cleaned up my profiles!  I love this app!!

Answer 2

The heading level style of the optional acknowledgements is in the column for required sections. I realize it is essentially a previous and new functionality split, but since it is not required, I had expected "Acknowledgements subsection instead of section" to be in the Style issues column.

I have been ignoring this particular issue for quite a while because it isn't a sourcing or required heading problem. It would be really nice to be able to have a report without this, especially since it primarily comes from old defaults (so there are a lot of them).

Thanks for considering altering the placement of this.

Comments

Hi W. An Acknowledgements heading is optional, but if it is present, it is required to be a level 2 heading. See

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Biographies#Optional:_Acknowledgements

Does this affect what you are requesting?

---

To me, this seems like a very similar problem to Census or Birth being a level 2 heading style problem, when if present they should be level 3. So no, in both cases the headings are not required but the heading level is specified.
Edited to add example of specific text in Style Issues column:
Wrong level heading == Census ==

---

W as Jim was noting (he must have read my mind), I put it under the Required Sections as that is where it is documented in the Help, and it is valid as a two level (==) heading.

I usually focus on the Sourced? results and use some of the style issues as a heads up that there may be profiles that need some other review. The Acknowledgements third level heading is especially valuable in this regard, since it will show up older imported/created profiles.

And, thanks for some clues where I might look on my Sanford brick wall. We might be 7th cousins once removed.

---

OK, thanks for answering. I hope you make progress on your brick wall!

Answer 3

Hi Kay. BioCheck is great for finding issues with profiles in one's CC7, as you described at this link. Thank you for this!

But there's a check which I'm not sure is justified, the one which gives the style warning "Unexpected line before Biography". In fact, one or two summary lines are permitted before the biography. See

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Biographies#Optional:_Additional_subsections

which says

If the narrative is particularly long, you can include a one or two paragraph summary. This should be above the Biography heading and should not have a subheader of its own.

So this check is giving false alarms, for example for these sample notable profiles:

• James Patrick McIvor
• Christopher George Hewett
• John Buhot.

Comments

Jim,

Thank you. You are absolutely correct. This is a "false issue".

I just looked at a number of profiles (using the Random option in Bio Check). If we take this check out, but add one for the horizontal rule and any section/subsection before the biography it seems that most profiles that should be reviewed will be reported for sources or style issues.

I want to look at some more random profiles. Right now this will find a typo in the form of [Category with no ending. It will also find a [[Space:xxx]] before the Biography. Do you think that a Space page before the Biography fits the description of a one or two paragraph summary?

It might also make sense to look for "created ... through the import of ..." and for "This profile is a collaborative work-in-progress. Can you contribute information or sources?"

It will also miss things like <div>. Perhaps there should be an enhancement based on https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:HTML_and_Inline_CSS and https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Recommended_Tags that will check for any < that are not on the recommended list.

---

Thank you for looking at this, Kay. My personal view would be that a bare link to a Space page, with no associated prose text, would not fall within the intended meaning of a summary; but if the link were embedded in a sentence it would be ok.

Neither "created through" nor "work in progress" is a summary. If either is present, it should be below the Biography heading.

Checking for tags that aren't recommended sounds a good idea (except perhaps on members' own profiles, if BioCheck can see them: I seem to remember more latitude is available there, as it is on free-space pages).

Answer 4

Kay,

Thanks for your great work.  Awesome.

I disagree with one feature, though.  You are reporting as Wrong Level Heading when anything other than the specified headings are at the section level.  When Obituary or Will or some such section is included, I do not believe it belongs as a subsection of Biography.  I believe it belongs at the same level as Biography.  I looked at the help links and did not find any suggestion that such items must be subsections.

"Aunt Peggy"

Comments

Hi Peggy. Sorry but BioCheck is doing the right thing here. There are only four permissible level 2 (==) headings: Biography, Research Notes, Sources, and Acknowledgments. See

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Biographies#Proper_order

which says

Any other elements or subsections should go below one of the recommended sections described above.

Answer 5

Ability to search 10 generations for style issues! LOVe , love this!! 

Answer 6

When I do a check I find following message for profiles edited in the Dutch language; "Wrong level heading == Onderzoeknotities ==". "Onderzoeknotities" in the Dutch language means Research Notes. I do not think that Research Notes should be a sublevel of Biography, neither of Sources or Acknowledgements, but on the same level.Is this a language issue?

Comments

Jan,

Thank you. I had onderzoeksnotities but not Onderzoeknotities. This will be fixed in the next release.

Are the Biography and Sources headings being recognized?

---

Hi Kay,

Now I must admit that I am confused......, and that I did not check these both variants before in a Dutch online dictionary! Even when I find a translation to English for "Onderzoeknotities", I must conclude that Onderzoeksnotities, so with the s, seems to be the more  accurate spelling. I will correct the word in the concerning profiles to the variant you seem to have used.

As excuse for my mistake I note, that even being Dutch mother tongue by birth, I do not use anymore this language on a daily base, since almost 60 years now... .

---

As complementary answer to your question: The words Biografie for Biography and Bronnen for Sources are recognized.

---

Jan,

I wouldn't worry about it. It is sort of like Acknowledgements. Which can also be Acknowledgments.

Answer 7

Having trouble with what the App wants on Boyd-1539. The app tells me "Category not at start of biography". When I look in edit mode there is only this at the start of the biography  {{One Name Study|Name=Boyd}}. So I move it behind the biography and save. 

There are also two other items behind the biography, {{Estimated Date|Birth}} and  [[Category:Boyd Name Study]]

After my save all three are behind biography. Then I rerun the query on the app and it tells me two things need fixing now; 

"Sticker: One Name Study: should be after the Biography" and "Category not at start of biography.

I tried moving the "Sticker" back where it was at the start of the category. But then it reverts to the first message I got that started all this. 

Baffled, what does it want? 

Comments

Lorraine,

You have a category [[Category:Boyd Name Study]] a Research Note Box {{Estimated Date|Birth}} and a sticker {{One Name Study|name=Boyd}}.

So you want Category, then Research Note Box, then Biography, then Sticker.

Category is obvious. The Biography help https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Biographies has a link to Research Note boxes https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Research_Note_Boxes and to Stickers.

---

Sorry but I don't understand how your reply relates to my question. I know what they are, its just the BioCheck won't allow the Sticker to be at the start of the Biography...nor will it allow it to be above Biography.

---

Ok, ha! Penny dropped, its the order above the Bio that counts. 

Priority order ABOVE the Bio;

Categories

Research Boxes

==Biography==

Sticker's

Thank you 

---

Lorraine,

Glad you figured it out... It is the Sticker that is, you might say, a stickler....

Above the == Biography == you might have a Project Box, such as {{1776 Project}} and then a {{1776 Sticker}} ... or the {{Connecticut}} project box and the {{Connecticut Sticker}}

---

It would be nice if the Sticker was ((Sticker)) to differentiate it from {{Projects}} and [[Category]]. I assume there is some tech reason why not... Yikes! Thanks Kay, I learn something new everyday here!

Answer 8

I have been trying to find profiles I missed sourcing on my first way through.

So easy to use and does exactly what I want!

Thank you so much Kay!!

J