Talk:Apiary Laboratory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead does not adequately summarise the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD

   As the apiary became a research laboratory, classroom and an extension service to the state, the demand increased for these services and as with this it became necessary to maintain more hives. "and as with this it became necessary"? Poor prose I copy-edited. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

   In the span of only a decade the apiary laboratory had been run by 4 different faculty members until finally, in 1931, a new and more permanent professor of apiology was hired. Frank R. Shaw, a student at the time, was hired on as assistant entomologist of the college Experimental Station in 1930, but with the resignation of Farrar, his responsibilities would shift as he began to teach courses in beekeeping and pollinator ecology. This is confusing, was Shaw the "new and more permanent professor"? Still confusing - how could a student become a professor? Further done it says he became an assistant professor in 1954.OK now. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

   Shaw retired in 1969 at the age of 61, as the first and last "Professor of Beekeeping" to do so. Unclear, do you really mean that he was the first professor to retire, or the first to retire in 1969?

   As of 2008, it was still in existence as a scholarship to students of the entomology program. Dated statement, what is the position now?

   I made some minor copy-edits for style and grammar.[1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some publisher/author details missing, books should have page numbers. Sources appear reliable, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images tagged and captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for the issues above to be addressed. On Hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

   OK, a few issues remain. I will extend the hold until 18 July, when I will make a final decision. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

   Good intentions assumed, it hardly seems reasonable that the phrase mentioned in the "poor prose" section is still listed, it was already changed over a week ago. Otherwise the latter has been changed in the first line to "apiology instructor".--Ken (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

   (copied from my talk page, best to keep the comments all together. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC))

   OK, all in order now, listing as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the critique of the Apiary Laboratory, the problems with the article will be righted in the next couple days. The one issue that's come up though, is that I cannot find anything in writing on the Frank R. Shaw Award Scholarship after 2008, and while I know it exists, my only source is heresay which is hardly a reference. Should I simply say that its current status is unknown, or should I omit the dated phrase "As of 2008, it was still in existence as a scholarship to students of the entomology program" entirely? Thanks --Ken (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can't source it then it should come out of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)