Talk:Charles Thom

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Thom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	OK.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Perhaps there should be an actual citation for Fleming's famous paper. I know it's a primary source but it probably deserves a mention. Done
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issue here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of such.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main facts are covered, save one. The most striking thing about Kenneth Raper's obituary of Thom is that the junior colleague remarked so boldly on Thom's combativeness, which as Raper writes was a key to his effectiveness in food safety and to getting things done generally. Would it not improve the article to mention this? A small point: the Mycologia obit. claims Thom alone made the P. rubrum diagnosis. Should this be mentioned? (ok, see note below) He seems not to have tried very hard to get recognition for his work, too. The Spanish honor and gold medal might therefore be worth a mention. His Scottish/Irish origins are mentioned but not his passionate Presbyterianism (and prohibitionism). This is perhaps a key element of his character (always respecting his people's work, not claiming it as his own, ...). The ferns of his thesis, Aspidium (is that Polystichum or Cyrtomium?) and Adiantum, are perhaps worth mentioning, if only because they are so different from the fungi he made his life's work. -- All done.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Well focused throughout. No surplus detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral tone throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No sign of edit warring since creation this March.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only image is lead portrait with NFUR.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It would be nice to find an additional image or two of e.g. an appropriate mold culture and of e.g. the Peoria laboratory, were these available.
	7. Overall assessment.	An interesting and well-structured article about a fascinating and too-little known character.

• I think I've dealt with all of your excellent suggestions except one. Although Raper implies that Thom was the one who correctly identified the fungus, Mann 2004 suggests that it was more of a collaboration between Raistrick and Thom. It's difficult/impossible to know if Raper was inadvertently trying to paint his mentor in a better light, so I think the text is ok as is. Besides, based on what we know about Thom, I don't think he would mind :) (p.s. I think Aspidium is now Tectaria) Sasata (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Super. I think we're ready to go...

Thanks very much! Sasata (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed doing it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)