Talk:Nicholas U. Mayall

(Redirected from Talk:Nicholas Mayall)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Modest Genius in topic GA Review
Good articleNicholas U. Mayall has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
October 11, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
October 25, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
December 12, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 9, 2010Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
October 17, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 17, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although color-blind, Nicholas U. Mayall was better able to detect faint galaxies than most other astronomers?
Current status: Good article

Good Article Review - October 2009

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicholas U. Mayall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  • Sorry I didn't get to the requested peer review fast enough. Besides the small number of sources, I think this is within shooting distance though, and that you can make enough fixes and this can stay on the GA nominations for at least a week or so while you do so. It does need a few things:
    1. That's awfully few sources for a good article. More sources help to reach NPOV and improve accuracy if used properly. Try getting something through interlibrary loan if you can.
      I have Stone, Irving (1970). There was light: Autobiography of a university: Berkeley, 1868-1968. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. pp. 107–20. on order from the library and have begun to cite it using Google snippets. WilliamKF (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
    2. The lead section is too short per WP:LEAD it should be 2-3 paragraphs that properly summarize the most important information from the rest of the article.
      The lead is now three paragraphs and attempts to follow the guidelines in summarizing the article. WilliamKF (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
    3. The 120 inch section gives too much history not related to Mayall, it's hard to even see how he is important enough in the telescope to warrant that being a section in his biography. If indeed he is, the section should be refactored to make that clear and his role in it should be the focus of the section.
      I've added an introductory paragraph, which I hope helps, but I imagine more work is needed. WilliamKF (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
    4. The first paragraph of the Postwar section refers to "the Crossley", but we don't really know what it is. Presumably it is the Crossley Reflector linked in the next paragraph, but the context should be where the term is first used and where it is re-used prominently in the first use in a section.
      I think I have addressed this, let me know if it still needs looking at. WilliamKF (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
      Now it specifies what Crossley, but doesn't give any more context. Also the beginning of the next paragraph is redundant with the first and they need some narrative arc to make the section work together cohesively. - Taxman Talk 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
      I've tried to address these points, hopefully it is clear now. WilliamKF (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Overall it is quite good. The sources may be the hangup depending on how much time you have to dedicate to it. - Taxman Talk 19:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer Review - October 2009

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to be either a Good Article or a Featured Article, whichever is thought to be more appropriate.

Thanks, WilliamKF (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Review by Ruslik.
  1. The article has good sources and is comprehensive, but needs a copy-edit.
    Submitted request for copy-edit. WilliamKF (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  2. For instance, I do not understand what glass disk in Pasadena that was planned to test the 200-inch (5.1 m) Palomar mirror means.
    The cite states: In Pasadena he had seen the 120-inch glass disk originally intended for testing the 200-inch Palomar mirror, then nearly finished in the Caltech optical shop. So I believe it means that the glass was used to test the shape of the mirror. WilliamKF (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Found this: You make the mirror out of a plate glass disk or Pyrex glass disk. WilliamKF (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Fixed myself. Ruslik_Zero 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  3. The last section (Retirement) should be expanded to include information about his death and the place of burial (and also about his wife's death).
    Added info on spreading his ashes and death from diabetes. WilliamKF (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  4. I think that at some places there are to many inline citations—5 at the end of Kitt Peak National Observatory section.
    Another reviewer indicated I needed more citations to become a Good Article. I'm inclined to leave them, I reduced a few though. WilliamKF (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  5. After copy-edit the article can easily become featured.
Ruslik_Zero 09:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Featured Article Review - November 2009

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good Article Review - October 2010

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicholas Mayall/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Modest Genius talk 15:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Summary: This is a well-written article which is close to meeting the GA criteria. I have some issues which need addressing, and all but one should be quick and easy to fix.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    The prose is generally good, but much of the early material is unclear to anyone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the American education system. I've fixed some items with links, and dropped a bunch of {{what}} tags at places that need clarification. e.g. 'mid terms' should mention that these are exams.
    I fixed all the instances of WP:WTA I found. References should go before Bibliography, per WP:LAYOUT. wait, that's a list of works. I'll rename the section accordingly.
    I think I've got these all handled now. WilliamKF (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Referencing in general is very good. There are one or two {{cn}}s that need addressing. Sources seem reliable, and I can't see any obvious OR.
    Fixed the citation needed items. WilliamKF (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Coverage is mostly fine for GA. I suggest adding his discovery of globular clusters around M31, which is widely cited [2]. It would be nice to expand the KPNO section, and the previous section on research on Lick to a lesser extent, but they're fine for GA.
    Add Mayall II discovery. I have not found much material on the KPNO nor research on Lick other than what is already present. If you can refer me to any other sources, I'd love to use them to expand these sections, but there doesn't seem to be much out there on these. WilliamKF (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    No problems
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    Seems 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):  
    Images mostly seem fine, with appropriate sources and a fair-use rationale for the single image that requires it. File:HST G1 (Mayall II).jpg needs to include the credit line given on the Hubble site ('Michael Rich, Kenneth Mighell, and James D. Neill (Columbia University), and Wendy Freedman (Carnegie Observatories) and NASA'). It would be nice to have more images, but fine for GA.
    Credit applied to HST image. What other images do you imagine adding? If you give me some ideas, I can search for them. WilliamKF (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
    I added a few images, feel free to remove or rearrange as you see fit. Modest Genius talk 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Other comments:
Are Sigma Xi and Phi Beta Kappa really 'awards'? Could these not be incorporated into the prose at the relevant point when he joined them?
In addition to the above, I have one major concern: the article, and in particular the first version, is extremely similar to the Osterbrock article. So similar in fact that my first impression was that it had simply been copy-pasted and then rephrased to avoid anyone spotting the copyright infringement. I'm amazed that no-one has noticed this before (which makes me wonder whether anyone else actually checked the sources). Is there some explanation for this? Modest Genius talk 17:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Osterbrock article was the first source used to create this article and it has always been widely cited to account for that, it was not copied, but used as a reference, and originally as the only reference. Over time additional sources have been located and used to expand the article further. WilliamKF (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, I'm still not happy, because copyright subsists not just in the exact words used but the sequence of presentation etc. However, I'm no expert on this, and everything else meets the GA requirements. I'm going to list this as GA, but in future don't go following sources quite that closely (and don't be surprised if someone else picks up on this in the future). Modest Genius talk 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Placed on hold for a week pending the above requested changes. Modest Genius talk 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Promoted. Modest Genius talk 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.