Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nicholas Mayall/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [1].

Nicholas Mayall edit

Nominator(s): WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it is in great shape, stable and complete. WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 2c. Comment, noting there are no problems with 1c but, I'm not qualified to support science biography on 1c terms. 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Citing the other Encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2c: Please see Talk: 2c there are a few fiddle issues left, but its mostly resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1c all problems resolved with 1c 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC):
Surely we can do better than to cite facts to " a b Encyclopædia Britannica 2009". Tertiaries by non-specialists aren't highest quality sources.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple alternative cites for the two Britannica cites, so I don't think this is an issue. Plus, earlier reviewers requested more cites be added, hence that was one which was added. WilliamKF (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am really quite unhappy about this. Dog doesn't eat dog, and your reviewers may have been correct in their time about the density of citations, but citing the Other Encyclopedia is bad form in a Featured Article. Also, its not authored by a specialist so its not HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have removed the Britannica cites. WilliamKF (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 05:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Nicholas U. Mayall.jpg - No source (NFCC#6/NFCC#10A/WP:IUP), not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and no rationale (NFCC#10C)
      Non-commercial educational use only is not okay? WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is not a purpose, but a description. A rationale should explain why the image is necessary (its purpose) and be specific and detailed (NFCC#10C and WP:FURG). Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Purpose now reads Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included. If this is not sufficient, I would appreciate more direction, or better yet, another to edit the purpose further. The fair-use seems self evident to me. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It's still not there. What you're trying to accomplish is to articulate to the reader what understanding the image is intended to convey. You say "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly", but not why that is the case ("because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included" is a non-sequitur; it discusses the article, not the image). The "Purpose writing" section of this dispatch may be helpful. Typically images depicting deceased individuals in this manner (infobox) have purposes generally summarized as "to facilitate identification of a notable individual". (i.e. Why is the image being included? So the reader can visually identify the subject.) Эlcobbola talk 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I've updated it again to now read: "This image depicts the appearance of Nicholas Mayall. His appearance is used in this article to facilitate identification of Mayall by the reader. Mayall is a notable deceased individual with few known photographs, none of which are known to be free sources." Please assist directly if this is not sufficient as you seem to have a clear idea of what is needed here. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That's sufficient. I was not in a position to write the purpose as I didn't upload or insert the image and, therefore, had no knowledge of its intended purpose. I commented on the typical purpose I see for such images and what was presumably the case here, but you may well have been going for something completely different. The Iwo Jima flag example in that dispatch, for instance, demonstrates how one image can have any number of purposes. Эlcobbola talk 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:NicholasMayallAtTelescope.jpg - Same issues as previous image and, in addition, appears purely decorative (NFCC#8) Эlcobbola talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree that it is purely decorative. It adds a photo of Mayall later in life and shows him at the telescope named in his honor, seems appropriate to me. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      How is his appearance later in life relevant to the reader's understanding of the man? If seeing the telescope is important, as a device still in existence, a free alternative could be created (NFCC#1). The telescope may well have been meaningful to Mayall, but the threshold is a significant contribution to a reader's understanding (NFCC#8). What understanding of either Mayall or the telescope is conveyed? (Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is identical to the above image. NFCC#3A requires minimal use; why would two images be needed to depict Mayall?) Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Tololo b.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Transferred from en.wiki isn't sufficient. Is David walker indeed the author (presumably the case), or merely the uploader, as is currently stated? Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The page states: Description: Taken by David Walker while flying... Isn't that sufficient? WilliamKF (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      My comment wasn't phrased well. The author field should be updated to avoid confusion. When articles are compiled (for example, hitting the "Download as PDF"), the information from this line is fetched for the credit appendix. As is, Walker will be credited only as the uploader, as the summary line does not carry over. Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. WilliamKF (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Please ping Elcobbola for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Gregory ref in your sources lacks a last access date.
  • Lindsley ref in your sources lacks a publisher.
    Done. WilliamKF (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. For future reference, at FAC, practice is to let the person bringing up the concern strike it when they feel it is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have already seen the article when it was going through the peer review. I think it is a comprehensive and well sourced. After a copy-edit that I recommended the quality of prose also improved considerably. The only suggestion that I have now is to expand the lead. At 1.5 paragraphs it seems to be rather short. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I don't think the prose is adequate to meet the FA standard. A few examples:
  • "Mayall hoped to join the Mount Wilson team upon getting his doctoral, ...". Should be "doctorate", and "getting" is too informal.
  • "... the only time in his adult life that he resided other than in California and Arizona". California or Arizona.
  • "Mayall and other young faculty at Lick thought that older Moore and Wright were too complacent with the small telescopes and should have tried harder to attain a larger reflector." Very strangely written. Complacent with? Should that be "obtain" instead of "attain"?
  • "Unbeknownst to Mayall ...". What kind of a ten dollar word is "unbeknownst"?
  • If there isn't a rule against using templates like {{convert}} in section titles then there damn well ought to be.
  • This prohibited him from observing small color changes ...". It didn't prohibit him, it prevented him.
  • "... found the Milky Way had about one half the mass as previously thought." Why "as previously thought"?
  • "... argued to Sproul". I've never seen argue used in that way before; usually one argues with, or about, not to.
  • "Doing most of their work by letter, Mayall began by convincing the others ...". So Mayall was doing most of the committee's work?
  • "Surviving Mayall were his widow, Kathleen Boxall, his wife for 58 years." The plural "were" implies that he left behind an unnamed widow plus a wife of 58 years.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all the above identified prose issues. If more remain, please let me know. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole article needs looking at, as there are innumerable other examples. From the lead, for instance: "Mayall also spent 11 years as director of the Kitt Peak National Observatory, where he shepherded it and the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory into top research observatories". I'm really not sure what this is trying to say, but whatever it is it's being said rather awkwardly. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It now says 'guided' instead of 'shepherded', hopefully that is clearer. How can we identify the remaining issues? WilliamKF (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but you need to try and find someone to do this kind of thing to the whole article; it's not just changing the odd word that's needed. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find someone. Thanks for your helpful edits. WilliamKF (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1's offered some good general advice, which is to look at similar FAs and try to persuade their editors to help out. You've written a good, informative account of Mayall's life and work, but you can't be expected to do everything. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nicholas_Mayall/archive1&oldid=1078803948"