Talk:Clare Palmer

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 January 2017 (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.	A couple of minor issues noted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues noted.
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.	Fine.
	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).	Fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	That's got to be the cleanest report I've seen from Earwig's tool (at 4.8%)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Inasmuch as it seems to be very much about her as a philosopher rather than a person. We don't even have a birthdate, let alone any familial or social life information. While not required, such would clearly improve the article. I have no sources, primary or otherwise, which go into this kind of thing. I might be able to find a birthdate, but I'd be nervous about including it based on WP:DOB. I agree that this gives the article an air of incompleteness, and I probably wouldn't pursue FAC for that reason, but I'd be inclined to say that it meets the slightly laxer GA requirements. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	One potential tweak noted below.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars noted.
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.	Fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No "photo needed" on the talk page, should be one there. Kind of odd to have pictures of her school and a peer critic, but none of the article subject herself. Granted. I should be able to get a photo in the coming months. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing per improvements.

First read through

• Did she get her D.Phil. in the same year as her bachelor's? That's not clear.
  • A DPhil is a kind of doctorate; it is the DPhil which is referred to a few lines down as having been completed in 1993. Would you like me to clarify this? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, please. Until you explained it, I wasn't entirely sure that was the same degree. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I've tweaked slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• There seems to be almost too much emphasis on what she authored individually. If it's listed without a co-author, does the article additionally need to state that she solely authored it?
  • I'm afraid I am not sure that I understand this question; could you rephrase? The focus is on her two monographs; Environmental Ethics is more of a textbook, and Companion Animal Ethics is not un-textbook-like, and was coauthored with several others (not just Sandoe and Corr; others contributed to individual chapters). Additionally, it has yet to receive any extensive coverage in third-party sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "In 1997, she published her first[1] sole-authored book" How does 'sole authored' change things or enhance communication? In the way the article is currently organized, it appears that this is the first book she's either authored or co-authored (vs. edited), and so it seems redundant to me. A couple sentences later, we have "That same year, she published the sole-authored Environmental Ethics and Process Thinking" Again, I have yet to run across her co-authoring a book, so I'm not sure the inline sole-authored helps understanding there, either. Would it hurt anything to lose either or both? I think it would improve readability a tad. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Dropped! Josh Milburn (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• "She acknowledges that humans have a prima facie duty not to harm any animal." I don't think 'acknowledges' is NPOV in this context--at least not without additional explanation of which group holds this view as a default. Perhaps 'She postulates' or 'Beginning from the assumption that...' or something like that.
  • Yes, a fair comment. I've adjusted this. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yep, that works fine. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Overall, pretty good prose, although it's really tough to discuss complex concepts using straightforward writing. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for the review. I will aim to find time to respond to this in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that talking about these ideas in summary form can be difficult; it can be tricky for me to pitch this material. If there are particular passages you found difficult, do feel free to identify them, and I will do my best to smooth them out. Thanks again for taking up the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

J Milburn thanks for the tweaks and the follow-up questions. My replies inline above. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Thanks, again, for taking the time to review this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)