Talk:Eli Lilly/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I am evaluating this article for GA and find it a generally excellent article. I took the liberty of copy editing the article rather than leave you a long list of editing comments. Feel free to revert or change any errors I may have introduced! I have the following comments so far:

Comments

• For statements like "Eli Lilly and company was the first pharmaceutical company of its kind" you need specific references for such claims. There are a few statements in the article that need references.
• After Lilly retires and leaves the company to his two sons to run, you say "The three of them continued..." I assume you mean Lilly and his two sons, but it is a little confusing.
• It would be good to list or delineate some of the most well known drugs he and his company developed.

I may add a few comments later. It is a wonderful article and I enjoyed reading it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I will address these issues tomorrow morning. Thanks, Charles Edward (Talk) 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit! Always appreciated. I have expanded referencing in the article, and rewrote the sentence you mentions above to be more precise and included a reference. I also changed the grammer of the sentence you mentioned. Please let me know if there is anything else you recommend. Thanks! Charles Edward (Talk) 13:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Do you have a reference for such statements as
  • "The company he founded has grown into one of the largest and most influential pharmaceutical corporations in the world, and the largest corporation in Indiana, offering important pharmaceutical products in almost every therapeutic area."
    • There are two references in the legacy section which show Lilly is the 227th largest company internationally and 153rd in the USA, 10th largest in pharmaceuticals internationally, and in terms of net worth the largest in Indiana. In terms of importance to the industry, the company invented modern medicinal mass production during the 1910s, and they invented the method for mass producing penicillin, which is probably the most important medicine ever created in terms of lives saved. For the "offering products in every area", cannot find something that says that except on the Eli Lilly & co website, so I have removed it. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Lilly's company has since grown into one of the most important pharmaceutical companies in the world ..."?
    • same as above, the references in the legacy section say this.

• I think the article may be a little weak in breadth of references and in (perhaps) giving an overly rosy picture of Lilly, which would matter especially if you wanted to go for FA. For example, was the company never plagued with labor problems?
  • The company didn't really have any labor problems that I have read of, it was never unionized. And during Lilly's life it was not really the behemoth it is now, it only had a few hundred people working there (around 300 when he turned it over to his son), compared to 50,000ish now. During his lifetime, it was more about inventing ways to mass produce medicine, ensuring things were made correctly, and starting the research department. The real advances and discoveries came after his death. He planted the seeds, so to speak. Now it did start to get in trouble and lawsuits, and other things into the 1950s, but Lilly was long dead by then. Although not said in the article, Lilly is probably the most revered person in Indiana history. I am going to hit the library to get another book or two on him to provide additional references and expand some more. FA is the eventual goal. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• However, overall the article is very well written and certainly fulfills the good article criteria, especially once you add the references for the statments mentioned above.

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets context b (focused): Remains focused on article topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

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): One is fair use, the others are PD

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Passes GA. A very nice article. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)