Talk:Nessa Carey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well-written article, I'll take it on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Nearly all the following comments are minor editing details.

Lead section

• The lead needs to summarize article, not just state she's an author. Go through the article section by section and briefly summarize what each section says, i.e. she worked as a forensic scientist ...
  • Thanks for rearrangement, but it still needs more detail to summarize the article fully please.
    • I have made further edits on the lead section. I'm struggling with this as I thought the lead was meant to be short and punchy. Please let me know if this is now ok. JulieMay54 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
      • It's certainly better. The lead is not meant to be "short and punchy" like a newspaper subheading. It is meant to summarize the whole article for the general reader who may not wish to read all of it, in 3 paragraphs, maybe 4 for a big article.
    • I have made some more tweaks in the lead and fixed the references. What happens with this process now? JulieMay54 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Infobox: put the book titles in italics. Fields: perhaps there are slightly too many. (Darwin has "Natural history, geology". Hmm.)

Education and career

• Ideally we say where she went to school.

• Style is a little too chatty, drop the "she realised she loved..." and just say she decided to go into research.

• No good saying she has had work published in journals: that is visible from the publications list. Please remove that one-sentence paragraph.

Books

• Some copy-editing is needed, e.g. "Carey's books are aimed at explaining developments in epigenetics to a general audience who is scientifically interested. She also actively presents this information in lectures, presentations and interviews." should read something more like

"Carey's books and lectures explain developments in epigenetics to a scientifically interested general audience."

• Wikilink Audrey Hepburn, caterpillar, butterfly.

• Image: please provide a short caption relating the image to the text, along the lines of "Carey suggests that Audrey Hepburn's slight figure may be the product of epigenetic changes from wartime deprivation."

• "which is also known as" - how about replacing those 5 words with "or". Again, please go through the section and copy-edit.

• "it is reviewed as providing" - better say "a reviewer, Nathan Lents, called it".

• "the controversy and politics surrounding this relatively new field" -> "the controversy around this field".

• "are less than complementary about" is somewhat too chatty. Perhaps "have criticised".

Peer-reviewed publications

• Um, sorry, but I'm not keen on listing these here at all; better just to say "Carey has published over 30 peer-reviewed papers on epigenetics and other aspects of biology", and to mention a few of the most-cited papers in the text, along the lines of "Her most-cited work was her 1859 book on the origin of species; Thomas Huxley commented that this was "the most revolutionary book" he had ever read.[1]" (you get the idea). It is not our job to be a directory (WP:NOTDIR), nor are we a CV agency, and there are plenty of better places to look for up-to-date paper listings. If you really want to have some of the papers here, please pick the top few and rename the section "Selected papers".

Other publications

• Not sure of the value of any of this, suggest we remove the section.

Video Presentations

• Again, suggest we delete this, not sure it adds anything encyclopedic.

Thanks Chiswick Chap! These are all great suggestions and I will work on the pageJulieMay54 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. I've struck the items you've completed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response we lost power yesterday hence no modem for internet. I think I have done all the requested editing (and a little more). Thanks for your input, your suggestions add clarity which was needed. This is my first GA nomination, do I need to take any further action now? JulieMay54 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Only one thing left: the lead is still too short, see above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Just a couple of minor issues here:

• Refs 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 36: "The Epigenetics Revolution" isn't part of the author field, nor is "Author" a surname. Author format should be Surname, Forenames. Please check and tidy up.
  • argh, these were awful, thanks for spotting them — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulieMay54 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• ISSNs are not required when citing journal papers. Refs 12, 30, 33.

Summary

• This is a well-cited article on a notable person. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)