Talk:James E. Boyd (scientist)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Modest Genius ^talk 19:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is a decent article which is quite close to the GA requirements. However, some minor problems need to be addressed first. This is clearly now a much better article, well done!

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some of the tone could be improved ('he would', 'would be' etc). Some minor copyedit issues, but nothing to prevent GA.

   B. MoS compliance:

   There are some instances (mostly in the lead) of WP:WTA, particularly MOS:OPED. Sectioning could be clearer, particularly splitting the Georgia Tech and Navy info.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are a good number of apparently reliable sources, but some of the references do not provide enough information, just a hyperlink, 'publisher' and date accessed. For example, the various Georgia Tech articles should have more information - where and when were they published? Were they part of a larger work?
   The citation to the Beryllium X-ray paper lists NASA ADS as the publisher, but that's just the online abstract database you used to find it. The reference should be to the article itself (Physical Review, vol. 45, Issue 11, pp. 832-834), preferably using {{cite journal}}. The text describes this as his thesis; it is not, and a reference should be given to both (try {{cite thesis}}).
   Page numbers should be included in the ref tag, not hidden in HTML comments. I suggest going through and improving all of the references.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There's a single {{cn}} in the one place where I think additional citation is required.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The article does a very good job on his academic and administrative career. However, it is very light on personal information, with no information before he enters university, very little on his family, and his retirement & death is tacked on in half a sentence at the end. There may be a difficulty in finding reliable sources for some of these, but I'd like to see some more info added in these areas.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The infobox image could be improved by restoration, you might like to see WP:WPMR

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   More images would be nice (of the institutions if no others are available), but not required for GA

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for a week (from 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)) to allow these concerns to be addressed
   Passed on 00:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

By "the Georgia Tech refs" I assume you are referring to the two pdfs? I actually don't know who wrote them or when they were written, but they're on the Georgia Tech Library's website and they are very thorough with their treatment of the academic careers of the individuals they describe. I can try to ask around to find out more. Also, I fixed the page number in html comment thing. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, though there are three. Presumably they're part of some collection of biographies? You can list the publisher as the Georgia Tech Library and give a link to their website (as well as the direct pdf) if that's where they come from. Modest Genius ^talk 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this satisfactory: "James E. Boyd" (PDF). Deceased Georgia Tech Faculty Members. Georgia Tech Library. Retrieved 2010-03-25. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help) ? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine. The PDF itself (in the document properties) indicates that the author was one Dr Jim Stevenson, and the date was 27 Jan 2005. Modest Genius ^talk 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! I'll fill those in now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've considered sectioning out the part where he's in the Navy, but his life goes Tech, Navy, Tech and Navy, so I'm having trouble thinking of a satisfactory way to do that without confusing the reader. I'm open to ideas, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, fair point. However it seems a bit unclear at the moment as to where he was at each stage, unless the reader has been paying close attention. Perhaps one section on 'joins Georgia Tech, but WW2 intervenes and he goes to the navy', and another on 'returns to Georgia Tech whilst remaining on naval reserve'? Modest Genius ^talk 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about the current arrangement? I've made quite a few changes overall. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 09:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I just split out a Retirement section, which currently only has 3 sentences. He must have done something in 26 years, but it may well not be reported anywhere. All good now. Modest Genius ^talk 22:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is I can't seem to find any information about this supposedly important paper ("Propagation Studies of Electomagnetic Waves") other than what I already have, and the library servers are down at the moment. I guess I'll look again tomorrow. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 09:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, me neither, and I tried all my usual routes. Perhaps it was a classified US Navy report? He was still working for them after all. Still probably noting what we have (Boyd & Lowndes, "Propagation Studies of Electromagnetic Waves", 1947) (note typo in their web page). Modest Genius ^talk 00:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad theory. So Boyd, James; Lowndes, Frank (1947), Propagation Studies of Electromagnetic Waves, Georgia Tech Research Institute ? I guess I'll toss that in there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's as good an option as any exists. Modest Genius ^talk 22:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I've run through the criteria again and struck out those that no longer apply, sorry for my slowness. I'm going to pass this once the week is up anyway, but improving the remaining near-bare references would be great (eg current refs 16-22 could do with dates, authors etc). There's no point in worrying about anything else. Modest Genius ^talk 22:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one other thought - the sporting records of the various coaches will make no sense at all to those unfamiliar with the North American notation (wins-losses-draws). However, I've been unable to find a suitable article to link to. Modest Genius ^talk 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I touched up the refs for which I could find more information. It was nice working with you :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Promoted. My first GA review worked out pretty well ;) Modest Genius ^talk 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! I'm going to kick it over to FAC when I get some more free time, I'll let you know when I do. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)