Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Glen P. Robinson/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Glen P. Robinson edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some advice before running it through FAC.

Thanks, —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to provide feedback on this article over the next few days to give suggestions for a smoother FAC. § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from § Music Sorter § (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On behalf of all Wikipedia readers I want to thank you for all the hard work you have put into this article. You have done a fine job overall and it shows a lot of effort on your part. I hope my comments are not viewed negatively, but rather a desire to make it even better with your help. It is probably more than you wanted, but maybe it will help the FAC go more smoothly for you. I will continue to watch the article in case you have questions on my comments. I hope they help.
  • Introductory section: I think it is a nice summary of the current article
  • I think this sentence Robinson would work at the Georgia Tech... might be confusing to some secondary English readers. What about Robinson worked at the Georgia Tech... and the follow-on sentence also uses would in a way some might not translate properly, so how about Later in life, he founded and invested in...
  • A number of the Red links are listed in the Later career section, but first appear in the Lead paragraph. Unless I am missing a style guide entry for lead, the first occurrence of a topic to be links should be wikilinked possibly to the exclusion of the subsequent entries of the same topic.
  • The comment about patents is not listed elsewhere in the article, but might work well in the legacy section. Source #14 says he had 35 patents ranging from solar energy devices to antenna systems. Source #4 says it is up to 39 now. I think that would add interest to the article. You can say "at least 39" in the sentence you decide to use.
  • The third paragraph references Georgia Tech, but some readers may not recognize this is a shortened name for Georgia Institute of Technology in the second paragraph. Maybe add it above like you would for an acronym on first use.
  • I don't believe it is required for Intro section paragraphs, but you might consider adding at least one of your footnotes on the third paragraph (which you do have much further down in the article). Again I don't think it is required, but I typically see most FA entries with footnotes on at least each paragraph.
  • Done. My first few times through FAC, they wanted zero references in the lead. I'm not sure when the standard changed, but I'm happy that it did. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and education: The content of this section sounds more like Education and early career
  • First sentence references Georgia Institute of Technology as the long name which you already created a shortened name Georgia Tech which I would consider using throughout after the first occurrence.
  • The first sentence sounds like the ; should be separated into two sentences to flow better.
  • ...prestigious secret society, the ANAK Society. might flow better with ...prestigious and secret ANAK Society. to eliminate the redundant society.
  • That doesn't really flow well to me, as "secret society" is a common term... I'll wikilink it, maybe that will look better. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...started a radio repair service to additional income while... is missing a word, possibly ..to provide additional income....
  • When you say ...Larry was dating his future wife Anne Rosselot... it is not clear whose wife she would eventually become, Larry or Glen. I see the source eventually confirms this is Larry's wife. So now I ask why Larry's wife is significant. She is not further covered in the article and if she was Gerald's daughter or some other connection, it is not mentioned. I don't think it is relevant to the article.
  • Robinson's professor, Jim Boyd... sounds like he only had one. What about One of Robinson's professors, Jim Boyd...
  • Do we know (even an estimate) when Jim Boyd convinced him to give up the radio business? Maybe he was still a student or possibly already graduated?
  • After hours at EES... sounds like something happened after a few hours. What about Working after hours at EES...
  • I think the Rosselot source for the TV supports that he built one, but I understand the point of the claim for the first one in Georgia. What about ...Robinson built a television set in the lab, which he claimed was the first to be built in the state of Georgia.
  • On the topic of the first TV, source #14 is a commencement program where the 2003 Georgia Tech president Dr. Wayne Clough claimed he built the first TV in the state of Georgia. Maybe you should say ...which he and others claim was the first... and add it as a source to that statement.
  • The last sentence on Oak Ridge comes and goes pretty sharply. Maybe you can expand it into two or three sentences and carve it into its own paragraph. Source #3 says he also owned a Dairy Queen franchise not mentioned in your article. I think it adds to Glen's diversity of making money. It also says it he left for Tennessee after his Master's degree so we know the time is about 1948.
  • I haven't found any more than a mention that he was there. A couple sources say he was went to Oak Ridge in 1950, and we know the date that Scientific Atlanta was founded (October 1951) so we're only dealing with a year or two. I think the current coverage is okay given those two factors, although if I had more to say about it, I would gladly do so. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out your source #7, second page. There is a bit more commentary that would give that one sentence some more color. Maybe In 1950, there were discussions among the radar branch members to possibly start a company, but instead Robinson decided to take his newly obtained masters degree in physics and head to Tennessee to work in nuclear engineering for Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the next two years.#3, #7, #12 (drop #11 since there is nothing on Tennessee) Then you can add to the opening of the next section something about Jim Boyd going to Oak Ridge and convincing Glen to come back to Atlanta to join the group about to start Scientific Atlanta. (source also #7)
  • Early career: The content of this section sounds more like Scientific Atlanta career
  • From the last paragraph there is no transition to the story. I think source #3 gives a little color to Jim Boyd convincing Glen to come back to Atlanta from Tennessee and that would help the transition to this paragraph.
  • The second sentence might flow better replacing the ; with two separate sentences.
  • ...Robinson bought out the other investors and paid back their original investment. might sound better as ...Robinson bought out the other investors and paid them each back their original investment$100. to remove the redundant sounding investors/investment.
  • The second paragraph wikilinks EES when it was already identified as the Georgia Tech Research Institute in the Early life and education section. I don't think it should be linked per WP:REPEATLINK. Same for Scientific Atlanta and Gerald Rosselot in that same sentence.
  • The ; in that same sentence is not necessary. It makes the single sentence much too large. It would be better split at that point instead.
  • I think there is a timeline problem between Glen buying out the other investors after the loss the first year and the statements in the same source #9 saying that Gerald Rosselot and Cherry Emerson were disputing the conflict of interest. The first two paragraphs read as though Rosselot was bought out. Maybe source #9 meant that 5 of the 6 "other" investors were bought out by Glen and that left Rosselot as the only other investor who dropped out during the dispute?
  • Done. I took care of the timeline with a serious reorg of the section, and figured out that Boyd was the remaining investor. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later career
  • I think the first paragraph of this section should go into the prior section since that section is all about his Scientific Atlanta career.
  • To help the mental timeline I think you should add the year to After leaving Scientific Atlanta in 1979, Robinson founded E-Tech...
  • I removed the After leaving Scientific Atlanta because it doesn't fit the timeline (he started E-Tech in 1978, and left Scientific Atlanta's board in 1979). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That same sentence sites #14 twice for two contiguous sentences. I believe you can drop the first one since there are no others between the two of them.
  • There are a lot of companies listed in this section (which is fine). I don't understand why some of the companies are Red linked and many others are not. Is there some logic behind which ones were linked? I certainly do not propose linking more to non-existent articles.
  • I'm just unlinking them. I was sort of hopeful that at least one of those companies would have some sort of article, but no such luck. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your source #9 says there was only $600 invested by six Georgia Tech staffers and source #7 says there were 6 people including Glen, but source #6 claims it was 7.
  • I know what you mean - but I'm fairly certain that it's $700 including $100 from Robinson. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, the worth $x today additions in this section are a little overkill with numbers. I think it is appropriate in the Early career section because it makes you think about how little money they had to start the company based on today's value. You cannot even buy a car for that money. This section shows company growth based on revenues of the company over time. I believe that stands fine on its own.
  • October 31, 1951 should have a comma following the year.
  • The April 1963 source #9 says Sci Atl had $3.1M in sales last year... so that would be 1962, unless they were talking about fiscal years and you know the company fiscal year ended in calendar year 1963.
  • The final sentence of this section has 8 citations. That is overkill. Consider not exceeding 4 citations.
  • Legacy
  • The TV comment is worded less carefully than previously noting that it is claimed that this is the first TV produced in Georgia.
  • I actually didn't write/know that this paragraph was here. I've cleaned it up and moved it to the Scientific Atlanta section, where it fills a pretty big time gap. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph has many opportunities for wikilinks like: NASA, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, John Glenn, Satellite communications, cable television, Ted Turner, Super Station, HBO, The Thrilla in Manilla, Mohammed Ali, and Joe Frazier.
  • In the final paragraph the company Scientific-Atlanta shows a dash in two locations, but not anywhere else.
  • Other comments
  • I see you are also struggling to find a source on his birthday. It appears to be a significant hole in the article on the man. If would be good if a source can be found.
  • I think there are too many WP:RED for a FA if that is your goal. You might want to consider either 1) creating redirects for them to link to other relevant articles until someone creates the full articles, 2) start at least a stub with sufficient useful information for that article, or 3) remove the link if you don't necessarily believe there will be an article created for it (especially if this is the only article with that link.
  • Source #7 has some interesting facts about Glen I did not see covered in the article:
  1. Joseph Mayo Pettit Alumni Distinguished Service Award
  2. As of 2006, he and his wife, Jan, have five children and 12 grandchildren and live in Atlanta. This might be a nice ending to the Legacy section as a last sentence.
  • Source #3 and #31 are the same URL, but different source notations in the reference data.
  • The source by Robert McMath is only used two places as #12 and #13. It would be more consistent to list that entry with the same format as all other citations and just reference pp. 262-263 for all three uses of that source, then remove the Works cited section.
  • The wiki markup text in the article is identifying the {{formatnum:xxxxxx}} as having a format problem itself. I am not sure what it does not like about the text in the article.
  • Infobox scientist - known-for = co-founding Scientific Atlanta
  • I have to say that I like your suggested names for the sections, which is something I struggled with. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Glen_P._Robinson/archive1&oldid=454789874"